Agenda - 11-18-2014 - 5b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

IN She said something else that could be done when there is an issue that generates a lot of concern is to adjourn the public hearing to a date certain. She said this was done for the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). She asked for an identification of situations where the public hearing could not be extended. Michael Harvey said he cannot think of a situation where an extension would not be allowed. James Bryan said special use permits require a quasi - judicial decision and a fair trial standard. He said this is ill defined, but there are principles of equity and fairness, so you cannot repeatedly continue an application as a means of delay. He said you need to articulate a reason for delaying. Commissioner McKee said he agrees with most of what is being said. He wants to make sure there is transparency for the public, and no one is blindsided. He said this discussion is about the time before a public hearing, and he notes that there is no guarantee that an item will pass once it gets to a public hearing. He said there has already been a lot of talk over the years about the time that it takes to get a project to completion, and he agrees with the staff recommendation of 30 days. He thinks a longer time frame would extend the time frame too much. Commissioner Rich asked if the Board is going to re -visit the previous question about solar companies and how other governments have handled these. Michael Harvey said this update will be presented at the October 7th meeting. Pete Hallenbeck said he has lots of notes for the Planning Board, and he is sees the following four main issues: 1) Determining the number of days prior to the first public hearing, as well as the idea of informing the public of new applications as soon as these become public, 2) the need for more details on the information that an applicant must provide at the public information meeting, 3) determining who owns the information and details — the planning department or the applicant, and 4) determining the most convenient location and hours of meetings. Pete Hallenbeck invited comments from the Planning Board members. Tony Blake said the issue that seems to be missing for him is the 500 feet requirement. He said this is probably adequate notice in town or in subdivision areas, but in the County you may not have a neighbor within 500 feet. He noted that the issue with the placement of the fire station involved complaints from people half a mile away. He said it was also not clear to him who the applicant was in the case of the fire station. Lydia Wegman said she is speaking as a member of the Planning Board and as a member of the public. She said she has concern about 30 days, and this time would have been insufficient for her neighborhood in the case of the solar project. She said only 17 days was allowed to get information to a neighborhood of 90 homes. She said 30 days is an improvement, but this is a quasi - judicial process, and it involves attorneys and appraisers. She has suggested 90 days, but even 45 would be better, because it takes a lot of effort, time, and money to organize a neighborhood if there is a project of concern. Chair Jacobs said there is a lot to consider.