Orange County NC Website
Approved 2/5/14 <br /> <br />2 <br />form and the abstract and we provide a staff response, as necessary, to those comments. So it would pretty much 52 <br />be a staff report of what took place. 53 <br /> 54 <br />Pete Hallenbeck: I also like the quicker review and more meetings and less time for the public to get something 55 <br />through. That is certainly the number one point of all of this. 56 <br /> 57 <br />Perdita Holtz: I should mention that it is probably not going to be less time from application deadline to decision but 58 <br />there will be more opportunities for someone to submit an application. If they miss a deadline, they don’t have to 59 <br />wait as long until the next application deadline. 60 <br /> 61 <br />Paul Guthrie: On page 19, in the new language, Planning Board shall make a recommendation based on 62 <br />information entered into the record at the public hearing but not make the finding required in section 5.3.2A. Does 63 <br />that mean that it is going to be the individual duty of the Planning Board member to look at all the documentation 64 <br />put in the public record at the time of the hearing in order to justify its decision? 65 <br /> 66 <br />Perdita Holtz: No, this is for Special Use Permits. They don’t come along that often but for Class A Special Use 67 <br />Permits there is a 15 page form of yes/no answers that staff fills out for the Planning Board on whether it meets the 68 <br />requirements of various sections such as if they have enough landscaping, if they have enough buffer, etc. and we 69 <br />check yes or no in staff’s opinion and then the Planning Board either concurs with that opinion or dissents from that 70 <br />opinion. On that form there are four questions that staff does not make a recommendation on and those are things 71 <br />that the Planning Board has to come to its own conclusion about and the BOCC has to come to its own conclusion 72 <br />as well. Those are the section referenced here and if you were not at the hearing it would be legally murky to make 73 <br />those findings if you weren’t in attendance so that is what this is in reference to. I should also mention that on page 74 <br />17, the language of 2.3.10b needs to be revised a little bit before it goes to public hearing so that will be changing 75 <br />from what you see in front of you here. 76 <br /> 77 <br />Paul Guthrie: You have similar language in 2.8.8b. Another question, have you thought about how you would 78 <br />space the 8 mandatory hearing dates? 79 <br /> 80 <br />Perdita Holtz: It is going to be up to the BOCC to decide that but we as staff are going to recommend to them that 81 <br />they probably do hearings in the months of February, March, April, May, September, October, November. January 82 <br />they only have one meeting per year and it is usually very full and in December those are the last meetings before 83 <br />the break so we don’t want to put them there plus the agenda deadlines are different due to the holidays. June is off 84 <br />as it is very budget heavy month when they have to adopt the budget by the end of the month. That is our staff 85 <br />recommendation but the BOCC will stagger them however they want. 86 <br /> 87 <br />Paul Guthrie: Again in 2.8.8e, which is existing language, do you think that existing language is a little too 88 <br />restrictive given the new format of not having the joint hearings? Essentially, the first time we’ll be exposed to 89 <br />testimony will be in the presentation at the Planning Board meeting and does that mean we cut off verbal testimony. 90 <br /> 91 <br />Perdita Holtz: The reason it was adopted was the BOCC did not want to have oral evidence at the Planning Board 92 <br />meetings that they did not also hear. That is why this language exists. The meeting at the Planning Board is not 93 <br />going to be an official public hearing it is just a regular Planning Board meeting and technically people will not be 94 <br />able to come and speak if they don’t also have their comments in writing. If you think that is not desirable, you can 95 <br />make a recommendation to look at that or change the language. 96 <br /> 97 <br />Paul Guthrie: I would encourage you to think about it because, and I’m wondering if that may even need to be 98 <br />elaborated on a little bit, because if somebody wants to come the Planning Board meeting or only knows about it 99