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

62 DRAFT 54 Laura Nicholson: That is my opinion. I think if you have that and make it clear then it should not be a problem. 55 56 Maxecine Mitchell: I am sort of leaning both ways, but I feel sometimes rushed to make it to a meeting in order to not 57 hold it up or be the reason the meeting can't go forward. I would still come to the meetings because I agree they are 58 important for us to make decisions. 59 60 Buddy Hartley: I don't think a quorum is necessary. 61 62 Paul Guthrie: I'm torn. The quorum is probably a good idea for the educational benefit for this group. The reason 1 63 support a quorum is because we need to be engaged in some of the items that come through. My other thought is we 64 need a better idea defining what a quorum is. If four people were legitimately ill, this could set back a whole process 65 for months. I would support a quorum, but would like some discussion with legal counsel how you calculate the 66 quorum if some event occurs. 67 68 James Lea: I personally do not think a quorum is necessary. 69 70 Herman Staats: I think documents can be written to indicate Planning Board members are expected to be there 71 without legally requiring a quorum. I think a quorum is not needed, but members are expected to be there. 72 73 Lisa Stuckey: I completely agree with Herman and I would direct our attention to page 97 of the materials where we 74 have our date, time, and location of regular meetings and Section 4 on page 96. 1 think quarterly public hearings 75 should be added as a section on page 96 and it be stated Planning Board members are encouraged to attend, but 76 not required. 77 78 Tony Blake: I agree with Laura. I think it should be a requirement if we are going to be bound by quasi-judicial 79 testimony and provide input to the decision makers then we should attend the meeting. 80 81 Andrea Rohrbacher: I feel that the Planning Board members are expected to attend, but I do not want to hold us to a 82 quorum. Part of that is based on Commissioner Jacobs saying that as long as you have a quorum at the start of the 83 meeting you are okay. I brought up the point that sometimes the meetings go on extremely long and people have to 84 leave due to other obligations and the County Attorney stated you can't take a vote if someone leaves if you require a 85 quorum. I do not want to see us in that position. I also think it's difficult for staff because we have had quorum 86 problems in the past. Should be expected to attend, but a quorum does not have to be present to hold the public 87 hearing. 88 89 Lydia Wegman: I support requiring a quorum, but that is linked to my view that I prefer having the Planning Board 90 make its recommendation after the Public Hearing. I still do not like having the Planning Board make its 91 recommendation before the public hearing. If the outcome is that the Planning Board makes its recommendation 92 before the public hearing then I am comfortable going with expected to attend not required to attend. 93 94 Pete Hallenbeck: My view is that I do not want to have a quorum because in the past there have been too many 95 times that the meeting was held up. I like the change requiring at least the chair or vice chair attend the public 96 hearing. I agree with the concept we should encourage members to come and put something in the policies and 97 procedures that members are required to attend at least two quarterly public hearings a year or be dismissed in order 98 to make it clear what their expectation is. 99 100 Pete Hallenbeck: Let's move on and deliberate on the amendments. I will open the floor to any comments anyone 101 has. 102 103 Laura Nicholson: I wanted to be clear about the mailings. Will it still be certified with 500 feet and regular mail for the 104 500 to 1000 feet? 105 2