Minutes 05-12-2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Hearing process in Orange County blended the two processes together leaving only one Public Hearing for both legislative and quasi-judicial matters. She said this blending of matters into one meeting can be difficult, as there are times when people are unable to speak at later meetings. Commissioner Price referred to the second bullet point on the same slide that stated: "refer an application back to the Planning Board for further review." She asked if further comment would be allowed by the BOCC. Perdita Holtz said the Public Hearing would be closed at the hearing. She said the three bullet points on this slide are not mutually exclusive, and the Board could choose any of the three options. She said the BOCC would be allowed further comment as a regular agenda item at a BOCC meeting. Commissioner Dorosin asked if it comes back as a regular agenda item on the BOCC's agenda, can anyone speak on it. Perdita Holtz said that is correct. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the only reason it is not currently done this way is because the legislative and quasi-judicial processes are melded together. Perdita Holtz said the language in the UDO does not allow for oral comments at a later stage. Commissioner Dorosin said the current problem is that comments are returned the BOCC, and no one is allowed to comment on them. He said the goal is not to remove the Planning Board from the process, but rather to get the public more involved in a smoother and efficient process. Commissioner Dorosin said the process can remain as it is, but add that additional comment will be welcomed upon the return of the Planning Board's recommendations. He said he likes the idea of what is in the recommendations, to encourage the public to be involved earlier in the process. Commissioner Dorosin said waiving the no comment clause would address a lot of the concerns he has. He said it does not remove the Planning Board from the process; but it allows the public and the Planning Board to be in communication much earlier in the process. He said the process for the legislative items, including the ability for further comment, are a good step forward, and he would endorse it wholeheartedly. Commissioner Rich said a public hearing where people are told they cannot comment is not a public hearing. She said it would be nice to have members from the Planning Board in attendance at the end of the Public Hearing, when public comments are going to be allowed. She said if the Planning Board makes a recommendation and the BOCC discusses it at a meeting, there needs to be a representative from the Planning Board in attendance in order to explain why the Planning Board made the recommendation it did. She asked how comments from the public to the Planning Board will be evened out at that point. Perdita Holtz said one of the duties of the Planning Board Chair/Vice Chair would be to attend the Board of County Commissioners' meeting where these legislative items are on the agenda. Commissioner Jacobs agreed that attendance at the BOCC meeting should be a requirement of the Planning Board Chair/Vice Chair. He said this is a good compromise, and he is willing to change the process but would like to re-visit the process in a year to see how this is working. Commissioner Jacobs said that the Planning Board seems more passive in the last few years. He said this may be due to the thorough work of the planning staff. He said he sees the Planning Board as a fairly inactive group; and there is disconnect between the two Boards. Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 4 of the PowerPoint presentation that states "for quasi-judicial matters, Planning Board meeting could be considered a `dry run' for the formal