PB Agenda Packet 6-3-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

41 DRAFT 1922 feel that there is no avenue for them to make changes because they do not actually have the 1923 ability to make changes. 1924 1925 Cy Stober: It depends on who you ask. They retain the NIMs for subdivisions in the ordinance based upon 1926 the feedback from the ordinance review committee, and so I initially was considering eliminating 1927 them, but to that purpose, the ordinance review committee identified them as a valuable step in 1928 the process particularly if the concept plan can be integrated into them. There is, I have to say, 1929 there is a legal perspective that you are burdening private property owners unduly by requiring 1930 them to do all these additional steps. This applies more to sort of quasi-judicial processes and the 1931 fact that there is some potential daylight there that, legal daylight, that we are providing an unfair 1932 burden on private property in order to realize their by right use of the property by requiring that. 1933 But we have retained it. I think it is fine to keep it in there. 1934 1935 Chris Johnston: But is there not that same concern about,what am I trying to say, equity or access or false hope? 1936 1937 Cy Stober: I mean, I really think the value of the NIM and as Randall Arendt presented it as,for an informal 1938 discussion and conversation about, like, oh,well,you know, that is not a legacy oak tree over 1939 there, but that is the tree everyone used to have a picnic under. Can it, it is not even identified in 1940 your protected are, but it would be important to us if you could keep that if you do not mind,that 1941 type of thing. 1942 1943 Charity Kirk: And I think it is a human/human interaction, and it is a fairly low bar to ask for. 1944 1945 Chris Johnston: I want to be clear, I love NIMs. I am like that is, I am pro for that, but I want to make sure that as 1946 we are going through and clearing out the chaff to keep the wheat that we are keeping the things 1947 that are valuable and are, are, are achieving the purpose that we have set out here which is to 1948 make sure that there is a clear, upfront process for everyone involved. 1949 1950 Cy Stober: There is a NIM that I would like to revise or completely delete if possible,would be for the special 1951 use permit. That is the one that gives me the most heartburn. This one seems to have a value 1952 and is the opportunity, and as your colleagues have spoken to for the public to be aware of the 1953 change coming to their neighboring property. 1954 1955 Chris Johnston: So, it is more of an awareness NIM than it is a change NIM. 1956 1957 Charity Kirk: But I mean,you have humans interacting with each other and that is just much more valuable for 1958 getting developers to do stuff and learn about stuff. 1959 1960 Chris Johnston: So that is very true,and I think that is some of the concern that this planning board has is that that 1961 is also true of this planning board's meeting insomuch as it is an opportunity for the human to 1962 human interaction, but the benefit of the planning board meeting versus the NIM is that this is 1963 human to human interaction with which there are people who have answers, and the NIM does 1964 not have, as I understand it, people who have answers beyond the applicant themselves, and that 1965 feels weird. You are going to say something. I want to hear it. 1966 1967 Taylor Perschau: Well, I would add that I think that keeping the NIM in gets to the general desire for having a more 1968 informed public. I would say throughout the process any, any neighbor that has a concern,any 1969 opportunity to interact directly with the planner is often the most informative conversation that they 1970 can have. If it takes an invite to a neighborhood information meeting to get that neighbor the 1971 planner's contact information,that is great. In every NIM letter, the template that we provide does 1972 have direct staff contact. 1973 1974 Chris Johnston: Okay. 1975