|
4
<br /> 1 Beth Bronson: Perhaps there's, the onus should be on the applicant, not staff, to be able to provide that information is,what I'm
<br /> 2 trying to allude to.
<br /> 3
<br /> 4 Patrick Mallett: At least get, give an intention.
<br /> 5
<br /> 6 Beth Bronson: Yes.
<br /> 7
<br /> 8 Patrick Mallett: The other issue is you can talk about 90 minutes, the same thing over and over again. It would be 90 minutes or
<br /> 9 less.
<br /> 10
<br /> 11 Beth Bronson: Agreed. We could set a time limit.
<br /> 12
<br /> 13 Patrick Mallett: I know that there's probably some thoughts about staying within the scope of what the permit is and not extraneous
<br /> 14 conversation about philosophies and things that are not germane to the planned use and Special Use Permit process.
<br /> 15
<br /> 16 Beth Bronson: And specifically speaking to the prior meeting for which these minutes were approved. The point that it was a
<br /> 17 public hearing, but then the understanding of the public may not have been that this was the quasi-judicial versus an advisory board
<br /> 18 making a recommendation. I think that there should be some form of structure,to these presentations so that we know how to expect
<br /> 19 the timeline.
<br /> 20
<br /> 21 Patrick Mallett: Or that it transcends this which is up front improving our product so that we can provide information to the public
<br /> 22 about quasi-judicial proceedings,which we have,but there's always room for improvements and refinements and provide information
<br /> 23 up front about what this meeting is and how it differs from other meetings that the public may have been exposed to.
<br /> 24
<br /> 25 Cy Stober: I want to really defer to James on this point, but I just want to remind the board that as a quasi-judicial board,
<br /> 26 there's a right of the applicant to present all testimony regardless of the volume of testimony to the board to make it's quasi-judicial
<br /> 27 determination on their application. I don't know if that can be limited by time,as a quasi-judicial body and your rules of procedure. It
<br /> 28 is very different from the Planning Board's advisory and more kind of open-ended legislative process, and there's a lot more
<br /> 29 discussion given the Planning Board and how to run those meetings because it's not defined by state law as a quasi-judicial process,
<br /> 30 including the right to provide testimony, the right to cross examine, and the right for any other members with standing to provide
<br /> 31 expert testimony regarding positives of negatives of the application, must be respected through the process and so I do think that is
<br /> 32 just the response I would have is we need to be mindful of that and as the administrative staff,we really strongly encourage you to
<br /> 33 consult with the County Attorney's Office on that matter because I just don't know if it would fall foul of the intention of the
<br /> 34 quasi-judicial process.
<br /> 35
<br /> 36 Leon Meyers: This might be a good time to ask James if the board were of a mind to set a limit on an applicant's presentation
<br /> 37 time. Does the board have the authority to do that, or could that be one of those things that yes, you could do that but is it a good
<br /> 38 idea?
<br /> 39
<br /> 40 James: So,A, B, C, D,all of the above,all bit of each.You start with the basic premise that you have to have what they call the fair
<br /> 41 trial standard,which is due process,which does include that every party gets to submit the evidence and participate as much as they
<br /> 42 need to have a fair chance to make their arguments. But what Beth is proposing about having it for scheduling and estimating is a
<br /> 43 common practice in the court system, it's not exactly equitable, but it's a good framework to understand it. What you wouldn't see
<br /> 44 when you get your traffic ticket or your divorce or your contract dispute in court, but behind the scenes,the judge,when we attorneys
<br /> 45 say we've got a matter for this week that the clerk will say what's your estimate for how long this will be, and we'll say 15 minutes.
<br /> 46 We'll say 2 hours. These are usually egregiously wrong. I'm always 5 minutes. I'm out and then some other attorney will be like oh,
<br /> 47 same thing,2 hours and then they actually spend 4 hours arguing about it. But they do use that for scheduling. The practice here is
<br /> 48 a little bit odd because of how cyclical, your work, and it's really feast or famine. Some months, you've got nothing and then some
<br /> 49 months,you've got a ton of stuff and the same thing,that one case could be really quick. The other one we had,The Barn at Chapel
<br /> 50 Hill,was three nights that it went past midnight. The problem is going be how to elicit that because what,as the example of when the
<br /> 51 attorney, when they have the attorneys how long it's going be and I say 15 minutes and Bob says 2 hours, we're disagreeing on
<br /> 52 things that we do all the time. This is going be an applicant who either is a mom and pop who this is the first and only time they're
<br /> 53 before us or this is a big law firm and be like in Charlotte, this is. Here in Lumberton, it's how is it;we're different so it's how is going
<br /> 54 be here. They don't have the present knowledge. I think, it'd be fair. Another thing to consider is how much you want to formalize
<br /> 55 this and put it in the rules and rather than just direct staff and say hey, this is a concern for us and I think this has been noted and I
<br />
|