3.8.23 PB Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

13 DRAFT 220 Beth Bronson: They did explain how they had gone to add that text amendment and they were told by the legal not to so 221 even though we are making this motion, I'm not really sure what could happen. 222 223 Charity Kirk: Were you told be legal not to? 224 225 Cy Stober: We were advised by counsel not to have that be the sole method of representation of the meeting. 226 227 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 228 to me that these LIDO amendments greatly reduce the current workload on staff in terms of NIMs. 229 230 MOTION BY Randy Marshall that a planning staff member attend NIM meetings, not to run them but to be there to clarify 231 or answer questions. Seconded by Lamar Proctor 232 MOTION PASSED 7—2(BEEMAN,KIRK) 233 234 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to expand the notice distance from 1,000 feet to 2,500 feet. 235 236 Lamar Proctor: Since staff is not having to do it, it is up to the applicant to do it. I move to expand because given the 237 rural nature of the much of Orange County that the vast expanse of spaces that I think the notice requirement, I would 238 move to amend the notice distance from 1,000 feet to 2,500 feet. 239 240 Charity Kirk: Is that appropriate in this? 241 242 Cy Stober: It will need to be reviewed by legal counsel. There are statutory requirements about public notification within 243 160D and about consistency and how we notify but as Tyler presented, NIMs are voluntary and are not governed by 244 statute in nearly the same way a public hearing or Planning Board meeting is. That will need to be run by them but we 245 can communicate and if we need to come back to the Planning Board with that with further commentary we will. 246 Otherwise it would be added to the Planning Board's recommendation and presented to the BOCC as such. 247 248 Randy Marshall: I think we need a broader discussion of that and not just have that here. Again, I would like to have a 249 scale and not a flat square footage area. 250 251 Cy Stober: If I may, I do have a concern about having different public notification requirement for Neighborhood 252 Information Meetings versus Public Hearings and Planning Board meetings and essentially the different threshold being 253 applied for public notification but really the only qualitative difference is whether its governed by statute or not. It does 254 give me pause, I do have concerns about the legal review and I think it is deeper water than it may first seem. I am 255 happy if directed by the Planning Board this evening to discuss it with legal, to pursue the amendment further and have 256 the staff opinion for presentation to the Planning Board if that is the wish of the Board. 257 258 Adam Beeman: I think it needs discussed further at a different meeting because I'd like to discuss the costs that you are 259 going to put on the applicant now by more than doubling his area that he has to reach out to. 260 261 Charity Kirk: Can we separate it out from this? 262 263 Cy Stober: It already is—Mr. Proctor's amendment is separate from the text amendment. 264 265 Charity Kirk: Are we ready to approve this and then can we ask for you to review Mr. Proctor's amendment. 266 267 Cy Stober: He has made a motion, if there is a second or if the motion dies. 268 269 Charity Kirk: But that's separate from this? 270 271 Cy Stober: Yes. 272 273 Lamar Proctor: I did make the motion so I can either withdraw it or no one can second it. 274