ORC minutes 010814 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 2/5/14 3 through the Planning Board then we are advising County Commissioners who have already had a hearing. It 100 bothers me a little bit. 101 102 Pete Hallenbeck: I think that could be mentioned to the Commissioners but it is definitely their call. I see their 103 concern that the Planning Board meeting would not be a public hearing. If people show to speak all of a sudden it is 104 a public hearing but the Planning Board is a mechanism for receiving input. 105 106 Paul Guthrie: Does that mean inversely if someone wants to speak on the subject on our agenda, they cannot 107 speak. 108 109 Pete Hallenbeck: The way I read it is if they have something written down they are allowed to come and give it to 110 the Board. I think the Planning Board could interact with them if they had questions or clarifications. The only thing 111 I would worry about with someone giving just oral evidence at the Planning Board meeting is that has to be carefully 112 documented as we certainly don’t a scenario where someone says they said something at a meeting and there is 113 no documentation of it. The public hearing is better equipped for that. Finally, the Commissioners may, for the 114 same reason that I was, want to have Planning Board member present at the public hearings. I think the 115 Commissioners get a lot from hearing people talk and how they speak and how passionate they are and that might 116 be another reason they want to make sure that if somebody’s just doing an oral presentation, they hear it. If staff 117 wanted to bounce that off the Commissioners and verify, yes we want oral presentations only at the County 118 Commissioners’ meetings and anything presented at Planning Board should be written, they can verify that. I am a 119 little nervous about the Planning Board taking oral presentations we have to be careful of the interactions and 120 cannot promise anything like they can. The vote we have is not binding and the Commissioners are not at Planning 121 Board meetings to get all those nuances that come with an oral presentation. 122 123 Paul Guthrie: I have some concerns in the bigger picture than this topic. Putting that kind of restrictions on 124 communications to a citizen advisory board. I think it’s a road we have to be very careful about how we define 125 because it could have major implications on the ability of this Board to function in what I perceive is what it’s 126 capacity is. That goes beyond this. 127 128 Pete Hallenbeck: I do believe it does have to be carefully spelled out. You could have problems if you said all you 129 can do is come and give us written paper and I think you would have a problem if anyone could just walk in and 130 start talking and interacting and how the Planning Board would convey that to the Commissioners. 131 132 Paul Guthrie: I’m done. 133 134 135 AGENDA ITEM 3: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – CREATE NEW ZONING DISTRICT 136 To review and comment upon the creation of a new general use zoning district, entitled Research 137 Development and Applied Manufacturing District (RDAM), which will allow for the location of 138 office/research facilities and incidental light manufacturing on the same parcel of property. The district 139 is intended to be allowed within the Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Nodes as denoted on the 140 Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. 141 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 142 143 Craig Benedict introduced with background information. 144 145 Michael Harvey reviewed abstract. 146 147