Minutes 05-27-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Michael Harvey: My only response, Commissioner is going to be that that is the process as embodied in the unified development ordinance, and that is the process that has been in place during my tenure with Orange County. There's only two exceptions to that; when you have a telecommunications tower, reviewed either as a Class B or a Class A special use permit, the applicant is required to notify everybody of a balloon test, which is typically conducted 14 weeks or so prior to the public hearing. There are also major subdivisions where we are required to hold a neighborhood information meeting. And in those instances where a major subdivision qualifies as a Class A special use permit, being more than 20 lots of proposed development, we hold a neighborhood information meeting. But, those are the only two exceptions to the rule. So class A special use permits, from schools, to solar facilities, to quarry operation, would follow the same procedure. Commissioner Rich: And how does one go about petitioning the Board to change that procedure? Michael Harvey: Well the current Board policy is, obviously you can petition the Board during a work session to study, particularly request or ask the Chair/Vice Chair to respond to a particular petition. I would, at risk of maybe annoying one of my colleagues, suggest that your next item this evening is discussing the revision to the quarterly public hearing process, and while I don't think this falls into that category, it conceivably would be a point of discussion during that item as well. Commissioner Rich: I daresay, with the number of people still to speak and the hour, we are not going to be considering the public hearing item tonight. The next public hearing's date is September 8th, just for information. And also, for information, we found in the siting of satellite facilities for fire departments, that there was no public notification process, and we changed the UDO to require a public information meeting. So, it would certainly be consistent with even what this Board has done within the last year to do no less for items like this. My question is for our attorney though. A point was made when the second appraiser for the neighborhood spoke, that he had — he was only making verbal comments, and he had not submitted anything in writing. What is the—We're getting a lot of material. I understand people are submitting writing —writings. What is the effect of testifying without having a written report? Does that make it lesser testimony, not admissible testimony, equivalent testimony? What's that about? James Bryan: Oh, I could go on for so long. This is great. So the shortest answer, I think, is nothing. That what you want is the oral testimony. The written is just for ease of looking at it afterward. The only thing that truly matters is what they are saying and what they are testifying to. And there is going to be —when they give something written, they may refer you to it. So, you have an appraiser that says "look at this chart." So they don't have to read every numeral out there. But that's what matters. Written statements, if they've got an affidavit, if somebody has to leave, that's not competent evidence. It has to be competent material and substantial evidence. Competent evidence is somebody here testifying before you, that the opposition gets to cross examine. Pieces of paper offer very little for that. Pete Hallenbeck: Any other questions for the Commissioners? Okay, next are planning board questions. Indulgence to my colleagues, I have a few questions. I'll read them, and then we'll see if we have any more.