OCPB minutes 100814 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 11/5/14 7 MOTION by Bryant Warren to approve the statement of consistency. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey. 325 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 326 327 328 AGENDA ITEM 10: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT: To either provide input or make 329 a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO 330 to change the existing public hearing for Comprehensive Plan, UDO, and Zoning Atlas related 331 items/ amendments. This item was heard at the September 8, 2014 quarterly public hearing. 332 Presenter: Perdita Holts, Special Projects Coordinator 333 334 Perdita Holtz reviewed abstract 335 336 Craig Benedict: What I put on the Board here is what we presently have. We usually give the Planning Board a 337 briefing on what is coming up at the public hearings, this is kind of informal. We did have the joint public hearing here 338 and then this was referred back to the Planning Board and then back to the Commissioners for action. As you 339 answer these questions, we’ll find out, does the Planning Board make recommendations here or do they make 340 recommendation somewhere else? We will draft it up, as you come to some sort of consensus, we’ll try to sketch 341 something up for clarity. 342 343 Pete Hallenbeck: I am not going to read what is in attachment one, I’ll just make a couple of quick comments. First 344 we are going through something different here, it’s not a text amendment or something laid out for us. It’s an 345 opportunity to say what we’re thinking. With that comes the obligation to try to get our thoughts organized. I think the 346 main thing is the joint meetings were a problem just because of the quorum and I think you could move that so they 347 are not joint meetings. However, I think you can, somewhere between require and strongly urge, have the Planning 348 Board members attend. I think it is really important, since we are giving recommendations, to have as many people 349 as we can present to hear what is going on because there is such a difference between reading something and 350 hearing someone present it. There is talk in the meeting about holding the Planning Board either before or after. I 351 think Planning Board before I like a lot, Planning Board after the decision is like closing the barn door after the horse 352 is gone. I’m not quite sure what we’d do, that was discussed. I think citizen notification which is in here is a good 353 deal and it would be nice if that notification includes a description of the process so people know what to do. Part of 354 what happened in the solar project is people were scrambling with the time they had and they weren’t sure what the 355 next steps were and also the dates. I think when you combine what we just voted on with the 45 day and you add in 356 the changes we are looking at now and if that notification spells out what is going to happen, it should be a different 357 picture than what we had before. I like treating legislative quasi-judicial mixes as quasi-judicial and that led to those 358 recommendations. So you can sort of see what I am thinking from that attachment one. What we’ll do here is just go 359 around the room and take input that anyone would like to pass on to the Commissioners. 360 361 Perdita Holtz: I forgot to mention that Lydia Wegman sent an email earlier today about her views. I wanted to make 362 sure it got into the minutes that I did distribute her email. 363 364 Pete Hallenbeck: Yes and we should put her comments into the minutes since she is not here. She also talked 365 about it the Planning Board should be at the public hearing and she talked about how they should be required to 366 attend the public hearing. We’re seeing everybody wrestle with the same details. 367 368 Paul Guthrie: You took the first part of what I was going to acknowledge and suggest everybody read it carefully. 369 Lydia is a very smart person and has been in this business a long time. I must admit that I’ve thought a lot about this 370 issue and I really wasn’t a 100% percent sure where I was going with it so I decided to make it simple. We are in 371 business for one reason and that is to work for the County Board of Commissioners, present them with our 372 understanding of issues and, where appropriate, make recommendations as we gather as citizens in the County. I 373 would caution us as we shape this don’t violate that particular rule and if you decide that it’s necessary to change 374 that rule in a significant manner, then you need to decide whether the Planning Board is relevant. I would just say 375 that this is a very fundamental issue that needs to be carefully considered and I understand where the concern 376 comes and it is legitimate concern in terms of the quorum/non-quorum issue. It seems to me we ought to be able to 377