OCPB agenda 110415 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT 6 265 Herman Staats: If I remember at our joint meeting the BOCC was saying that if there was a case that came up and 266 there was a lot of discussion or disagreement they had the opportunity to send it back to us for more discussion. 267 268 Perdita Holtz: The BOCC does have the discretion to send legislative items back to the Planning Board as needed. 269 270 Herman Staats: Is it possible that our recommendation to the BOCC was that we would like to defer our 271 recommendation to after the public hearing? 272 273 Perdita Holtz: Depending on what the recommendation is. The recommendation can be for the Planning Board to be 274 given an extended amount of time to consider the manner, but you can’t say you have to send it back to us. 275 276 Pete Hallenbeck: Are there any other items in the proposal that people would like to discuss? If there aren’t then the 277 next step here is to make a recommendation on the statement of consistency. 278 279 MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to recommend approval of the statement of consistency. Buddy Hartley seconded. 280 VOTE: 9 – 2 (Tony Blake and Lydia Wegman opposed) 281 282 Tony Blake: If we are going to be part of the process and bound by the rules of quasi-judicial and ex parte 283 communication then we should be required to attend and that is the part that I find inconsistent. 284 285 Lydia Wegman: I feel that the Planning Board should be making its recommendation following the public hearing 286 because I am concerned with the Planning Board not hearing all the evidence that will go before the BOCC. I am 287 pleased to know the BOCC has the discretion to send something back to the Planning Board. In my perspective I 288 would prefer to have the guarantee for the opportunity of the Planning Board to consider an item after the public 289 hearing when I am confident all the evidence has been presented whereas I do not feel confident that is the case if 290 the Planning Board makes it recommendation prior to the BOCC meeting. Consistent with that my preference would 291 be if we continued to make our recommendation after the County Commissioners meeting that a quorum should be 292 required or the Board attest to hearing the BOCC public hearing so there is certification that the Planning Board is 293 knowledgeable about the evidence presented. The idea of having a preliminary Planning Board recommendation and 294 a subsequent or final Planning Board recommendation following the BOCC meeting is also one that makes sense to 295 me. 296 297 MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to approve the amendment package on pages 62 to 98 with amendments to page 92 298 regarding the expectations of Planning Board members regarding the quarterly public hearing and adding notice of 299 the public hearing to the outside of the mailing envelopes. James Lea seconded. 300 VOTE: 9 – 2 (Tony Blake and Lydia Wegman opposed) 301 302 Tony Blake: Same reasons, I believe it should be a requirement to be at the quarterly public hearing if we are bound 303 by the process. 304 305 Lydia Wegman: Same concerns I expressed previously. 306 307 AGENDA ITEM 10: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT - To make a recommendation 308 on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding recreational land 309 uses, including shooting ranges. This item was heard at the September 8, 2015 quarterly 310 public hearing. 311 312 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 313 314 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract. 315 316 10