Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Perdita Holtz said if the concern is to get rid of the non-speaking public hearing, then <br /> the way to do this is to remove the requirement for only having written comments after a public <br /> hearing. <br /> Commissioner porosin asked what the basis was for this rule. <br /> Perdita Holtz said she believed that this was set up in the 1980's so that the Board of <br /> County Commissioners would be informed about anything that went on after the public <br /> hearing. <br /> Craig Benedict said the reason for this rule was to insure that their legislative and <br /> quasi-judicial procedures were the same. He said the goal was to have some point in time <br /> where the testimony coming in could be stopped to allow for a decision based on a finite <br /> amount of information. He said the new suggestion is to have a legislative procedure that can <br /> be wide open the whole time. He said for the quasi-judicial items, there will probably be some <br /> point in time where that testimony has to stop. <br /> Commissioner Pelissier said overall there are a lot of good things in the proposed new <br /> process, but she is confused about the lack of increase in the frequency of the quarterly public <br /> hearings. She said this would not accomplish the goal of speeding the process for <br /> applications that are "no brainers." <br /> Perdita Holtz said there were concerns expressed by the Board of County <br /> Commissioners about the possibility of putting quarterly public hearings on regular agendas. <br /> She said the current suggestion is to try this new process prior to taking that next step. <br /> Commissioner Pelissier asked if the UDO would have to be changed in order to change <br /> the process. <br /> Perdita Holtz said yes. <br /> Commissioner Pelissier said the recommendation to close the public hearing tonight <br /> does not preclude the Board from taking some action based on what has already been heard <br /> and discussed; but it is an iterative process, and there would need to be another public hearing <br /> in order to make changes other than what has been discussed. <br /> Perdita Holtz said one of the more substantive changes that would require a second <br /> public hearing was removing the proposed language about having up to 8 public hearings per <br /> year. She said if the Commissioners still want to pursue this, then perhaps there would not be <br /> a need for a second public hearing. <br /> Commissioner Rich asked if an additional meeting is being added after the notifications <br /> go out and the Planning Board meeting is held. <br /> Perdita Holtz said it is just another opportunity for the public to comment to the <br /> Planning Board. <br /> Perdita Holtz said one of the items in the 5th box on the flowchart talks about the fact <br /> that the Planning Board action could be to make a recommendation or to make a preliminary <br /> recommendation and ask the Board of Commissioners to send it back to the Planning Board if <br /> anything significant happens. <br /> Commissioner Rich said she wonders if that is actually speeding things up, or if it is just <br /> adding another repetitive step. <br /> Perdita Holtz said it could add a step to more controversial items where it may be sent <br /> back to the Planning Board. She said it is really just flipping when the Planning Board meeting <br /> occurs. She said, with this proposal there would be no Planning Board meeting after the <br /> public hearing for many legislative items. She said for more complicated issues, this would <br /> add another opportunity for the public to comment. <br /> Commissioner Rich said if this process is adopted, it is important to make these <br /> changes clear to the public in order to have as much involvement as possible. <br /> Commissioner Gordon said she wanted to add a historical note about the legal <br /> advertisement. She there was a case where the Board was sued over a deficient legal <br />