Agenda - 05-12-2015 - 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

30 Approved 11/5/14 539 be written comments only and at the conclusion of that meeting the Planning Board would make a recommendation 540 on whether they thought the application should be approved or not, on legislative items. Craig is a little bit mixing 541 legislative and quasi-judicial together. Then the item would go to public hearing with the Planning Board 542 recommendation. At the public hearing the BOCC could decide, man there’s so many people here that maybe didn’t 543 talk at the Planning Board meeting; we really should kick it back to the Planning Board for them to consider this other 544 information that came out at the public hearing. Or, the BOCC could decide this is one of those no-brainers, the 545 people who have been on the Planning Board before will remember the discussion about no-brainers, this is a no- 546 brainer, we can close the public hearing tonight and we can just vote on it, or they can say, well, you know the 547 Planning Board gave us a recommendation, nothing major has come out but I want to mull this over more and the 548 BOCC can say let’s schedule it fora later meeting. 549 550 Loss of recording device/full memory- approximate 7 to 9 minutes lost. 551 [There was some discussion about how notices about the Planning 552 to adjacent property owners and a sign would be posted on the af 553 554 Pete Hallenbeck: It is important that the notifications be a blend of the dry legal requirements of notification and a 555 nice human readable, ok guys here’s how it’s going to work- we’re going to have to this meeting here’s what you can 556 do, this is an opportunity for you, so it explains the process and people know what is going on. 557 558 Tony Blake: I have a couple of comments; I don’t know how much power we really have. I think we’re maybe 559 assuming that we have more power than we do here. We are really looking at the UDO and deciding whether or not 560 a project meets the criteria of the UDO, we can’t just all of a sudden say, no we don’t like that, and the second part of 561 it is, I think we’re all here to represent some part of the County. I represent Bingham because I live there and 562 because I have other contacts in the community and it seems to me that we should bepart ofthe notification list for 563 any public information session in our area of representation. We should be at least as strongly encouraged to attend 564 that public information meeting on behalf of the Planning Board and all the Planning Board members be encouraged 565 to attend any public information meeting as that somewhat cloudy crystal because I think you can tell from a public 566 information meeting how many people show up as to what kind of a response you’re going to get and what the real 567 concerns and questions are that need to be addressed up front. I don’t really understand the quasi-judicial role we 568 have, I understand that we stand up there and give testimony but if our power is limited to interpreting the UDO and 569 trying make whatever changes proposed fits within the UDO and it either does or it doesn’t and staff is far more 570 versed in the UDO than I am. I find their recommendations are pretty bang on.All of what I have to say in a quasi- 571 judicial way is hearsay, right? 572 573 Pete Hallenbeck: The role of the Planning Board is this oversight, are we meeting the requirements of the UDO. 574 Yes, you’re right, but that’s a level of detail you have to have. I would pointout, though, that there’s also a document 575 called the Comprehensive Plan.If the UDO is the rules, the left brain, the Comprehensive Plan is the heart and soul, 576 it’s the right brain part of it. There are times when we’ve reviewed things and it’s met all of the requirements but then 577 you’ll find something in the Comprehensive Plan that’s not right and I think it’s not power per say but it’s a very valid 578 role of the Board is to point this out. An example of that is the Comprehensive Plan encourages that all subdivisions 579 have sidewalks and yet every time we run into it there is no money for sidewalks and DOT doesn’t want it. There is a 580 conflict there and we don’t have power over that but we can certainly point it out and I think that’s also true with 581 representing the areas you’re from. 582 583 Tony Blake: Yeah, but I don’t find that to be quasi-judicial in essence. You can point it out in a quasi-judicial hearing 584 but it’snot some... 585 586 Pete Hallenbeck: Quasi-judicial is such a different beast because people get sworn in and there’s testimony. It really 587 changes the game a lot and our role in quasi-judicial is very strict. 588 589 Lisa Stuckey: We’re supposed to be the judge in a quasi-judicial, aren’t we? 590 591 James Bryan: In quasi-judicial, it’s the governingboard- the deciding body that is the judge. From a legal 592 perspective, for planning boards’ involvement, it’s dangerous. Especially, how we have itwhere you close the public 11