Agenda - 11-05-2015 - 5-e - Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment – Public Hearing Process Revisions - Closure of Public Hearing and Action (No Additional Comments Accepted)

Browse Search

10 58 1 County Commissioners' meetings. She asked if new information is brought forth at a quasi- 2 judicial hearing, could the public send in written comments afterwards. 3 Perdita Holtz said no written comments would be permitted. 4 James Bryan said that is a statutory requirement. 5 Commissioner Burroughs said she supports these new amendments and she also said 6 notice could be put in the paper for the public to attend to the meeting even though they cannot 7 speak. She said if notice needs to be further for rural areas, and it can be legally done, she 8 would be supportive. 9 Commissioner Rich said she does not want the Planning Board to feel unheard and she 10 does not want the Planning Board to be cut out at any point. She said if there is new 11 information the item should go back for the Planning Board's review and opinion. 12 Commissioner Dorosin said he is not comfortable with the "non-controversial and 13 controversial" labels. He is not sure these definitions could be agreed upon. 14 Peter Hallenbeck reviewed notes from the Planning Board: 15 • Attendance at QPH - Planning Board members should be expected to attend the QPH. 16 The Board of Commissioners should be aware of the attendance of the Planning Board 17 members at the QPH, and if several are missed the BOCC should be able to excuse the 18 person from the Planning Board. 19 • The public does not like to show up to Planning Board meetings as much as Board of 20 County Commissioners meetings and he said it is assumed that this is because the 21 Planning Board does not make decisions. It is hoped that the public can be educated 22 that the minutes of the Planning Board meetings are given to the BOCC, and public input 23 is valuable. 24 • Neighborhood information meetings — it is new and it is evolving and the Planning Board 25 feels that the information the public gets should be about the process. 26 • Put QR codes on signs in the neighborhoods. 27 • 1000 feet notification in the rural areas can be worked with staff and an agreement can 28 be reached. There will be different rules for the two processes. 29 • Put time ranges between the blocks on the flow charts that lay out the processes. The 30 flow makes sense but time will be very informative. 31 32 Paul Guthrie said if disingenuous information is received in a quasi-judicial process, how 33 does one refute this information without re-examination. 34 He suggested that attendance at QPH, and other meetings, be studied. He said the only 35 thing the members can be excused from a meeting for is death, sickness, or some other similar 36 reason. He said Planning Board members are citizen volunteers with their own lives, who are 37 trying to be helpful. He said if too many restrictions are placed on the members volunteers may 38 be lost and new volunteers may not be as good. 39 Tony Blake said the 500 feet limit is not reasonable for rural areas, and encouraged the 40 BOCC to review this limit. He said he had to question the quasi-judicial process, and ex parte 41 communication. He said Statute 168-388 mentions ex parte communication once, saying that 42 "undisclosed ex parte communication" cannot be received. He asked if disclosed ex parte 43 communication is allowed, and asked if there is a point at which ex parte communication begins. 44 He asked if it begins when the application is made, or if it is after the QPH. He said it is 45 imperative for them to be able to talk to people in their community. 46 Tony Blake said the genesis about attendance of Planning Board members is that it was 47 never reiterated to them, as new volunteers, that attendance was expected. He said if this was 48 clearly explained, he expects attendance would not be a problem.