Minutes 09-08-2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

13 1 Paul Guthrie said if disingenuous information is received in a quasi-judicial process, how 2 does one refute this information without re-examination. 3 He suggested that attendance at QPH, and other meetings, be studied. He said the only 4 thing the members can be excused from a meeting for is death, sickness, or some other similar 5 reason. He said Planning Board members are citizen volunteers with their own lives, who are 6 trying to be helpful. He said if too many restrictions are placed on the members volunteers may 7 be lost and new volunteers may not be as good. 8 Tony Blake said the 500 feet limit is not reasonable for rural areas, and encouraged the 9 BOCC to review this limit. He said he had to question the quasi-judicial process, and ex parte 10 communication. He said Statute 168-388 mentions ex parte communication once, saying that 11 "undisclosed ex parte communication" cannot be received. He asked if disclosed ex parte 12 communication is allowed, and asked if there is a point at which ex parte communication begins. 13 He asked if it begins when the application is made, or if it is after the QPH. He said it is 14 imperative for them to be able to talk to people in their community. 15 Tony Blake said the genesis about attendance of Planning Board members is that it was 16 never reiterated to them, as new volunteers, that attendance was expected. He said if this was 17 clearly explained, he expects attendance would not be a problem. 18 Tony Blake said the word "quasi" means the administrative agencies are not held to the 19 same rules as courts, unless it is spelled out in the statute. He said he does not see this spelled 20 out in the statute, and thus feels there is a lot of room for interpretation. 21 Andrea Rohrbacher said the attendance at the QPH is eroding is part due to some of the 22 late night meetings. She said she does not want the attendance requirements to be so 23 restrictive that turnover becomes a problem on the Planning Board. She said there is a large 24 learning curve on this board, and turnover would increase burdens on the staff that orient 25 Planning Board members. 26 Laura Nicholson said she believed that if the need for a quorum were clearly explained 27 in the beginning, this would help greatly with attendance. She said she supports the increased 28 notification in rural areas. 29 Maxecine Mitchell said the processes are confusing. She said she does not mind 30 coming to the QPH, but she does not want to be the one who holds up a meeting. 31 Pete Hallenbeck said the Planning Board members are encouraged to go to 32 neighborhood meetings. He said clear guidelines are needed regarding ex parte 33 communication, as it pertains to the quasi-judicial process. 34 Commissioner Dorosin said he appreciated all of the comments. He said ex parte 35 communication could be shared. He said that what matters is that the decision is made on 36 evidence heard in the hearing. He said guidelines would be a good idea. 37 Commissioner Rich thanked the Planning Board for their comments. She asked if there 38 are set rules for quasi-judicial processes, or do they change. 39 James Bryan said every Special Use Permit (SUP) will be quasi-judicial, and he said 40 there are pre-set standards. He said the Board is taking standards and applying facts to those 41 standards. He said within quasi-judicial there is more that is known than unknown. 42 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a definition of an expert witness. 43 James Bryan said generally it is some specialized knowledge in a particular field. He 44 said the statute spells out that for land values there must be an appraiser. He said the 45 applicant is represented by an attorney who might say, "this is an incompetent witness". He 46 said if there was a case in criminal court, an expert would be greatly vetted, but in quasi-judicial 47 hearings an expert is not so greatly investigated.