3.8.23 PB Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

12 DRAFT 165 Lamar Proctor: My concern is that a developer speaking to a poor or more rural or less educated, socioeconomically 166 depressed area that a developer can take extreme advantage and either directly or indirectly misinform the public. 167 There is just so much information that most people don't understand about this process that a developer who is looking 168 to make money and profit does not have a vested interest in properly informing the public about these things. 169 170 Beth Bronson: We would have a recording of that at a public hearing. 171 172 Lamar Proctor: Having a recording of a bunch of people being misinformed doesn't do anything. 173 174 Charity Kirk: The debate is down to whether we require staff to be there or not. Should we vote for it the way it is or is 175 there discussion about something else? 176 177 Melissa Poole: Is there a balance for any of these scenarios that have been brought forth? 178 179 Cy Stober: I appreciate the concern being expressed. The intention which is not explicit in the text and we can make 180 explicit, is that the submittal 14 days prior to the deadline for notification,whether it is the Planning Board meeting or the 181 staff administrative approval, is to allow staff to reject the NIM if we find evidence of misinformation. That is the intention. 182 If we need to make that explicit that can be done. Staff reserves the right to determine whether the NIM accurately 183 represented the project or not. That is another approach we can take. 184 185 Melissa Poole: So yes there is a checks and balance to that then my preference would be to explicitly state it. I think 186 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 187 misinformation or misleading anyone. 188 189 David Blankfard: This can cut both ways, the people attending can say they were told the wrong thing off the record so 1 190 think if we had a staff witness but not necessarily participate, it will keep the developer in line and keep the citizens in 191 line. I think there should be a recording but I think that staff should be required or recommended to attend. 192 193 MOTION BY Randy Marshall that a planning staff member attend NIM meetings, not to run them but to be there to clarify 194 or answer questions. Seconded by Lamar Proctor 195 196 Adam Beeman: Just so we're clear,you are requiring them to attend the NIMs. 197 198 Randy Marshall: A planning staff member be in attendance at a NIMs meeting. 199 200 David Blankfard: Along with all the other requirements of being recorded and being 14 days and etc. 201 202 Randy Marshall: That's the only thing I am proposing to add. 203 204 Overlapping conversations 205 206 Beth Bronson: It's a motion to see who all on this Board is interested in having this go back. 207 208 Adam Beeman: Requiring them to go to the meeting. That's what we are after right now are we going to approve a motion 209 to require a staff member to attend the NIM. Is that about what you are saying? You have Lamar's second. 210 211 Statler Gilfillen: This is asking for more time for your staff to do something in particular, do you have a comment about 212 that? 213 214 Cy Stober: The Planning Board is here to advise the staff on land use and development concerns. You are appointed to 215 advise us on land use and development concerns so if in your opinion we should attend the meetings, we will attend the 216 meeting. We will find the resources. 217 218 Adam Beeman: Everybody satisfied? 219