Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
24 <br /> DRAFT <br /> 110 Cy Stober: I appreciate the concern being expressed. The intention which is not explicit in the text and we can make <br /> 111 explicit, is that the submittal 14 days prior to the deadline for notification,whether it is the Planning Board meeting or the <br /> 112 staff administrative approval, is to allow staff to reject the NIM if we find evidence of misinformation. That is the intention. <br /> 113 If we need to make that explicit that can be done. Staff reserves the right to determine whether the NIM accurately <br /> 114 represented the project or not. That is another approach we can take. <br /> 115 <br /> 116 Melissa Poole: So yes there is a checks and balance to that then my preference would be to explicitly state it. I think <br /> 117 you would agree that you would want it to be explicitly stated. You want them to state that staff can reject on any sort of <br /> 118 misinformation or misleading anyone. <br /> 119 <br /> 120 David Blankfard: This can cut both ways,the people attending can say they were told the wrong thing off the record so 1 <br /> 121 think if we had a staff witness but not necessarily participate, it will keep the developer in line and keep the citizens in <br /> 122 line. I think there should be a recording but I think that staff should be required or recommended to attend. <br /> 123 <br /> 124 MOTION BY Randy Marshall that a planning staff member attend NIM meetings, not to run them but to be there to clarify <br /> 125 or answer questions. Seconded by Lamar Proctor <br /> 126 <br /> 127 Adam Beeman: Just so we're clear, you are requiring them to attend the NIMs. <br /> 128 <br /> 129 Randy Marshall: A planning staff member be in attendance at a NIMs meeting. <br /> 130 <br /> 131 David Blankfard: Along with all the other requirements of being recorded and being 14 days and etc. <br /> 132 <br /> 133 Randy Marshall: That's the only thing I am proposing to add. <br /> 134 <br /> 135 Overlapping conversations <br /> 136 <br /> 137 Beth Bronson: It's a motion to see who all on this Board is interested in having this go back. <br /> 138 <br /> 139 Adam Beeman: Requiring them to go to the meeting. That's what we are after right now are we going to approve a motion <br /> 140 to require a staff member to attend the NIM. Is that about what you are saying? You have Lamar's second. <br /> 141 <br /> 142 Statler Gilfillen: This is asking for more time for your staff to do something in particular, do you have a comment about <br /> 143 that? <br /> 144 <br /> 145 Cy Stober: The Planning Board is here to advise the staff on land use and development concerns. You are appointed to <br /> 146 advise us on land use and development concerns so if in your opinion we should attend the meetings, we will attend the <br /> 147 meeting. We will find the resources. <br /> 148 <br /> 149 Adam Beeman: Everybody satisfied? <br /> 150 <br /> 151 Beth Bronson: They did explain how they had gone to add that text amendment and they were told by the legal not to so <br /> 152 even though we are making this motion, I'm not really sure what could happen. <br /> 153 <br /> 154 Charity Kirk: Were you told be legal not to? <br /> 155 <br /> 156 Cy Stober: We were advised by counsel not to have that be the sole method of representation of the meeting. <br /> 157 <br /> 158 Lamar Proctor: So it doesn't fall upon staff to verify the meeting in any way. Their role would be very limited and it seems <br /> 159 to me that these LIDO amendments greatly reduce the current workload on staff in terms of NIMs. <br /> 160 <br /> 161 MOTION BY Randy Marshall that a planning staff member attend NIM meetings, not to run them but to be there to clarify <br /> 162 or answer questions. Seconded by Lamar Proctor <br /> 163 MOTION PASSED 7—2(BEEMAN,KIRK) <br /> 164 <br />