Agenda - 10-20-2015 - 6a - Minutes

Browse Search

10 1 a problem over the years. She said there is not a problem with Planning Board members 2 having access to information since these meetings are web streamed and she would assume 3 that Board members would take their positions seriously and review the meeting if they did not 4 attend. She said a quorum should not be required. 5 Commissioner Pelissier said some of the comments that were written today in a letter to 6 the Board of County Commissioners (see below) were confusing. She said there should be a 7 flow chart to separate the two processes: quasi-judicial versus legislative. She said it should be 8 reiterated that public comment is not being eliminated in the quasi-judicial items, as public 9 comment was never allowed in these items. 10 11 September 8, 2015 12 13 To the Orange County Commissioners: 14 15 1 am writing to urge you not to approve the UDO text amendments proposed in agenda item #2 16 at tonight's Quarterly Meeting. 17 18 For the Orange County Citizens, opportunities to receive notice and raise questions 19 about Special Use Permit applications are limited. Please do not narrow these limited 20 opportunities further by amending the current SUP language, timelines and flow chart in the 21 UDO. The existing UDO requires advertising of SUP hearings in newspapers, a predictable 22 schedule of hearings at quarterly meetings, and a timeline to allow County residents to gather 23 resources and information, hire legal representation, and prepare for SUP hearings. 24 25 Tonight's proposal to revise the UDO in order to "streamline and speed up the 26 review/decision process" is hard to follow, and it is unclear how citizens may participate 27 at all in the SUP process. The faster, streamlined steps proposed tonight would significantly 28 reduce public participation of surrounding communities, and would benefit applicants at the 29 expense of surrounding property owners. 30 31 The proposed changes would further curtail public participation in multiple ways: 32 • Shortening written notice to adjacent property owners from 15 to 10 days 33 • Eliminating advertising and public notice (see footnote 22 below) 34 • Eliminating joint BOCC and Planning Board quarterly public hearing for Class A SUP 35 applications, a forum which currently allows public comments and requires a quorum of 36 Planning Board members 37 • Eliminating the option for interested parties to comment on SUP applications (see 38 footnote 21 below) 39 • Requiring the Planning Board to make a recommendation without first receiving 40 comments from the public. 41 42 The County's Special Use Permitting process benefits SUP applicants who have already 43 gathered the financial means to pursue a project, while presenting obstacles for County 44 residents without financial resources to hire an attorney in order to protect surrounding 45 properties. 46