Orange County NC Website
9 <br /> 1 Commissioner Price referred to the second bullet point on the same slide that stated: <br /> 2 "refer an application back to the Planning Board for further review." She asked if further <br /> 3 comment would be allowed by the BOCC. <br /> 4 Perdita Holtz said the Public Hearing would be closed at the hearing. She said the three <br /> 5 bullet points on this slide are not mutually exclusive, and the Board could choose any of the <br /> 6 three options. She said the BOCC would be allowed further comment as a regular agenda item <br /> 7 at a BOCC meeting. <br /> 8 Commissioner Dorosin asked if it comes back as a regular agenda item on the BOCC's <br /> 9 agenda, can anyone speak on it. <br /> 10 Perdita Holtz said that is correct. <br /> 11 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the only reason it is not currently done this way is <br /> 12 because the legislative and quasi-judicial processes are melded together. <br /> 13 Perdita Holtz said the language in the UDO does not allow for oral comments at a later <br /> 14 stage. <br /> 15 Commissioner Dorosin said the current problem is that comments are returned the <br /> 16 BOCC, and no one is allowed to comment on them. He said the goal is not to remove the <br /> 17 Planning Board from the process, but rather to get the public more involved in a smoother and <br /> 18 efficient process. <br /> 19 Commissioner Dorosin said the process can remain as it is, but add that additional <br /> 20 comment will be welcomed upon the return of the Planning Board's recommendations. He said <br /> 21 he likes the idea of what is in the recommendations, to encourage the public to be involved <br /> 22 earlier in the process. <br /> 23 Commissioner Dorosin said waiving the no comment clause would address a lot of the <br /> 24 concerns he has. He said it does not remove the Planning Board from the process; but it allows <br /> 25 the public and the Planning Board to be in communication much earlier in the process. He said <br /> 26 the process for the legislative items, including the ability for further comment, are a good step <br /> 27 forward, and he would endorse it wholeheartedly. <br /> 28 Commissioner Rich said a public hearing where people are told they cannot comment is <br /> 29 not a public hearing. She said it would be nice to have members from the Planning Board in <br /> 30 attendance at the end of the Public Hearing, when public comments are going to be allowed. <br /> 31 She said if the Planning Board makes a recommendation and the BOCC discusses it at a <br /> 32 meeting, there needs to be a representative from the Planning Board in attendance in order to <br /> 33 explain why the Planning Board made the recommendation it did. She asked how comments <br /> 34 from the public to the Planning Board will be evened out at that point. <br /> 35 Perdita Holtz said one of the duties of the Planning Board Chair/Vice Chair would be to <br /> 36 attend the Board of County Commissioners' meeting where these legislative items are on the <br /> 37 agenda. <br /> 38 Commissioner Jacobs agreed that attendance at the BOCC meeting should be a <br /> 39 requirement of the Planning Board Chair/Vice Chair. He said this is a good compromise, and <br /> 40 he is willing to change the process but would like to re-visit the process in a year to see how <br /> 41 this is working. <br /> 42 Commissioner Jacobs said that the Planning Board seems more passive in the last few <br /> 43 years. He said this may be due to the thorough work of the planning staff. He said he sees the <br /> 44 Planning Board as a fairly inactive group; and there is disconnect between the two Boards. <br /> 45 Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 4 of the PowerPoint presentation that states "for <br /> 46 quasi-judicial matters, Planning Board meeting could be considered a `dry run' for the formal <br /> 47 public hearing." He said it is important that the public know what admissible testimony in a <br /> 48 quasi-judicial hearing is. <br />