Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
DRAFT <br /> all be included in Article 21, Administration.. <br /> Crawford indicated that 8.4.5 should be clarified to sham <br /> that the Chair of the appropriate Board will give oaths <br /> to those wishing to give evidence. Crawford also indicated <br /> that process of referral of items to the Planning Board from <br /> the Public Hearing should be specified. <br /> Kizer asked if a time limit on Board of Commissioners' action <br /> was appropriate. Cannity stated that there was no time limit. <br /> AGENDA ITEM 4 10: Discussion of By-Laws <br /> Cannity gave a brief presentation of the changes recommended <br /> by the Board of Commissioners. They included that the <br /> Secretary shall be the Planning Director; that members shall <br /> vote yes or no; and members not voting shall be counted as <br /> voting in the affirmative. In addition, the Chair shall be a <br /> voting member of the Planning Board. All amendments shall be <br /> approved by the Board of Commissioners. <br /> Wilson stated he felt the voting reguirentents of elected <br /> officials were different fran appointed officials who serve <br /> in an advisory capacity. Laszlo indicated Board members did <br /> not have a constituency and we should try to be objective. <br /> Boericke felt members should represent their Townships but <br /> try to remove themselves from personal biases. <br /> Bacon stated members shonld be able to excuse themselves <br /> from certain discussions for personal reasons of financial <br /> interests. Wilson agreed. <br /> Kizer said that abstentions bymembers could indicate to the <br /> COmmissioners that the Planning Board was confused or divided <br /> on an issue. He also stated abstentions could "muddy" an <br /> issue. <br /> Gordon stated that she was much opposed to the recommended <br /> changes to the By-laws and to the idea that the Board of <br /> Commissioners should have to approve the Planning Board Rules <br /> of Procedure. She said that the Planning Board had always <br /> acted with integrity and that the Board of Adjustment did not <br /> have their By-Laws approved by the Commissioners. <br /> Crawford indicated that there were distinctions between the <br /> Board of Adjustment and Planning Board which could justify <br /> the difference in requirements. <br /> There was discussion about Staff recanuendatioThs at Public <br /> Hearing and there was concensus that the Staff should present <br /> I <br />