Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-06-2014 - 5c1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 6, 2014 Action Agenda Item No. 5 -c SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment —Public Hearing Process Changes — Interim Report and Closure of Hearing DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Draft Planning Board Minutes Excerpt — Perdita Holtz, Planning, 919 - 245 -2578 October 8, 2014 Craig Benedict, Planning, 919 - 245 -2592 2. Flow Chart of Possible Process for Legislative Items PURPOSE: To open the public hearing, receive the information contained in this abstract and attachments, and close the public hearing on a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendment that proposed changes to the public hearing process (presented at the September 8, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing). The original impetus regarding this topic was as follows: 1. Remove the Planning Board as an official board at the public hearing (e.g., do not require a quorum of Planning Board members). 2. Increase the frequency of public hearings (currently held 4 times per year on dates specifically set aside only for public hearings). Because these two points necessitate changes in existing process, additional discussion has arisen. The most important points to consider are: • Does the Planning Board recommendation occur before or after a BOCC -only public hearing? • Does increasing the frequency of public hearings cause too great a change in BOCC meeting agenda internal processes and potentially impact BOCC meetings /calendars too much? • What is the role of the Planning Board in quasi-judicial matters (Special Use Permits) if the Planning Board is no longer an official board at the public hearing? • Additionally, a separate text amendment related to neighborhood information meetings in advance of Special Use Permit applications has raised questions about how the public can be more involved in matters prior to the public hearing. In analyzing this topic, staff believes it may be helpful to breakdown future discussion based on the type of decision being made: 1. Legislative a. Comprehensive Plan Text b. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map c. UDO Text d. Zoning Atlas (map) Amendments (general use districts and conditional zoning districts) 2. Quasi - Judicial a. Class A Special Use Permits (SUP) 3. Legislative /Quasi - Judicial Mix a. Conditional Use District (a rezoning that also requires a Class A SUP) At the present time, Orange County's process is generally the same for these three different (from a legal perspective) types of public hearings. However, the process can be different for each type if the local government so chooses. Quasi - Judicial matters have very specific legal requirements whereas there is significant discretion in Legislative matters. Staff compiled a list of public hearing items since May 2011 (the date was chosen because the UDO was adopted in April 2011) to determine the breakout of the types of items Orange County has considered in recent years and the initiator of the item (Application by an Individual or County- initiated). The following table illustrates the information: Summary by Application Type /Initiator Total Legislative Quasi - Judicial Legis./ QJ Mix Applicant 16(24%) 8 6 2 County 50(76%) 50 - - Totals 66 58(88%) 6(9%) 2(3%) As a result of discussion at the October 8th Planning Board meeting, staff has produced the flow chart in Attachment 2 which shows a possible process for legislative items. The Planning Board will continue discussion on this topic, with a focus on quasi-judicial matters, at its November 5th meeting. K Because the proposed UDO text amendments are expected to change significantly from those presented at the September 8, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing, staff is recommending the hearing be closed at this time. A new public hearing will be held in the future if changes from the existing process are desired. This topic could be a BOCC work session item in early 2015. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Existing staff has completed the work required for this project. Any future legal advertisements needed to re- advertise this topic will be paid using funds budgeted for this purpose. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board- 1 . Open the public hearing; 2. Receive the information contained in this abstract and attachments; and 3. Close the public hearing. (This is being recommended because the proposed text amendments are expected to change significantly enough that they will have to be heard again at a future Quarterly Public Hearing, so there is no need to adjourn the public hearing to a date /time certain. Closure of the hearing is necessary to ensure the text amendment is not considered a withdrawal, which requires a yearlong waiting period before amendments on the same topic can be considered again.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Excerpt of Draft Minutes Attachment 1 DRAFT MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 8, 2014 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Herman Staats, At- Large, Cedar Grove Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At -Large Bingham Township; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township Representative; MEMBERS ABSENT: Lydia Wegman -At -Large Chapel Hill Township; STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator, Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II OTHERS PRESENT: Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager; James Bryan, Staff Attorney; Andrew Vanard HANDOUTS GIVEN: (email from Lydia Wegman concerning Item 10 which is attached at the end of the minutes) AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL AGENDA ITEM 10: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT: To either provide Input or make a recommendation to the BOCC on government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to change the existing public hearing for Comprehensive Plan, UDO, and Zoning Atlas related items/ amendments. This item was heard at the September 8, 2014 quarterly public hearing. Presenter: Perdita Holts, Special Projects Coordinator Perdita Holtz reviewed abstract Craig Benedict: What I put on the Board here is what we presently have. We usually give the Planning Board a briefing on what is coming up at the public hearings, this is kind of informal. We did have the joint public hearing here and then this was referred back to the Planning Board and then back to the Commissioners for action. As you answer these questions, we'll find out, does the Planning Board make recommendations here or do they make recommendation somewhere else? We will draft it up, as you come to some sort of consensus, we'll try to sketch something up for clarity. Pete Hallenbeck: I am not going to read what is in attachment one, I'll just make a couple of quick comments. First we are going through something different here, it's not a text amendment or something laid out for us. It's an opportunity to say what we're thinking. With that comes the obligation to try to get our thoughts organized. I think the main thing is the joint meetings were a problem just because of the quorum and I think you could move that so they are not joint meetings. However, I think you can, somewhere between require and strongly urge, have the Planning Board members attend. I think it is really important, since we are giving recommendations, to have as many people as we can present to hear what is going on because there is such a difference between reading something and hearing someone present it. There is talk in the meeting about holding the Planning Board either before or after. I M DRAFT 55 think Planning Board before I like a lot, Planning Board after the decision is like closing the barn door after the horse 56 is gone. I'm not quite sure what we'd do, that was discussed. I think citizen notification which is in here is a good 57 deal and it would be nice if that notification includes a description of the process so people know what to do. Part of 58 what happened in the solar project is people were scrambling with the time they had and they weren't sure what the 59 next steps were and also the dates. I think when you combine what we just voted on with the 45 day and you add in 60 the changes we are looking at now and if that notification spells out what is going to happen, it should be a different 61 picture than what we had before. I like treating legislative quasi - judicial mixes as quasi - judicial and that led to those 62 recommendations. So you can sort of see what I am thinking from that attachment one. What we'll do here is just go 63 around the room and take input that anyone would like to pass on to the Commissioners. 64 65 Perdita Holtz: I forgot to mention that Lydia Wegman sent an email earlier today about her views. I wanted to make 66 sure it got into the minutes that I did distribute her email. 67 68 Pete Hallenbeck: Yes and we should put her comments into the minutes since she is not here. She also talked 69 about it the Planning Board should be at the public hearing and she talked about how they should be required to 70 attend the public hearing. We're seeing everybody wrestle with the same details. 71 72 Paul Guthrie: You took the first part of what I was going to acknowledge and suggest everybody read it carefully. 73 Lydia is a very smart person and has been in this business a long time. I must admit that I've thought a lot about this 74 issue and I really wasn't a 100% percent sure where I was going with it so I decided to make it simple. We are in 75 business for one reason and that is to work for the County Board of Commissioners, present them with our 76 understanding of issues and, where appropriate, make recommendations as we gather as citizens in the County. 1 77 would caution us as we shape this don't violate that particular rule and if you decide that it's necessary to change 78 that rule in a significant manner, then you need to decide whether the Planning Board is relevant. I would just say 79 that this is a very fundamental issue that needs to be carefully considered and I understand where the concern 80 comes and it is legitimate concern in terms of the quorum /non- quorum issue. It seems to me we ought to be able to 81 deal with that issue without tearing up the relationship of what a citizen advisory board is to the elected leaders of this 82 County. I think we should think in that line as we work on the process. 83 84 Pete Hallenbeck: I agree we need to find a way to get people there but we need to find a way to do it that doesn't 85 penalize people who come to a meeting if we don't have enough people there. That might be the best way to put it. 86 87 Laura Nicholson: I have a lot of comments, in light of the timeline that we were given to consider this I wonder if we 88 can't divide it. It seems like there are a few things that are easy and specific and there are a few things that are really 89 squishy so if could just get through some of the specifics. In regard to the quorum, I obviously haven't been here 90 long enough to understand why the quorum was ever an issue but it just seems like a communication thing. If we've 91 made it clear that you are supposed to be at as many monthly meetings and you can and be at the quarterly public 92 hearing, and are given insufficient notice, and we double check to make sure there's enough people there, I don't 93 see it as an issue. I think it is a little insane to do this whole roundabout to change this whole process that seems 94 important because we can't get our act together internally and I think it could be fixed internally so it doesn't have to 95 be this whole big process. And the frequency of public hearings, I don't know if that is something that is really 96 specific and easy to figure out or not but I'm just curious if we couldn't just divide it. So talk about a few things we 97 can iron out tonight and a few things we go back and ask for more time to figure out. 98 99 Pete Hallenbeck: Again, it strikes me how to get people there because I think there's agreement that's really 100 important but if we make mistakes and people can't show up for whatever reason, how do you keep that from 101 throwing everything off track? We do serve at the pleasure of the Commissioners so they could certainly come up 102 with some club and stick approach to make everybody come to the meetings but I would leave that decision to them. 103 104 Bryant Warren: Reading this I'm a little concerned with, I feel like it is on the step of dissolving the Planning Board 105 and just going straight to the County Commissioners. I'll apologize I did miss the public hearing last month, I got my 106 days mixed up and thought it was the next night. But it is very seldom that I'll miss a public hearing or a meeting. 1 107 will make sure I'm here and I don't understand how the Planning Board can make a recommendation to the BOCC 108 before the public hearing is being held because I really think they need to be involved in the public hearing in order to 2 DRAFT 109 make an adequate recommendation to the BOCC. I think we can do something, I only been on the Board for a 110 couple of months now so I don't know what went on in the past regarding the quorums. I do feel like if you're a 111 member of the Planning Board then it is your obligation to make sure you attend the meetings. I think what we need 112 to do is stress that we need to keep things the way they are, continue the public hearing, continue with the Planning 113 Board playing a very big role in it so they can make the recommendations they need to, because evidentially, if they 114 don't, then you might as well dissolve the Planning Board and not even have it. That's my recommendation. 115 116 Pete Hallenbeck: One challenge that came out of this whole discussion that hit me was during the quarterly public 117 hearing, I referred to citizens that want to go to the top they want to go to the decision makers and sometimes it's 118 hard to get citizens to come to an advisory board, they want to talk to the Commissioners. Part of the reason for 119 making sure that this notification process tells people about the Planning Board is to give them more opportunities for 120 input. The before and after comes down to what Craig has up on the board. We have a public hearing then Planning 121 Board then BOCC action. I think that's good I think that's critical and I think the Planning Board has to get input so 122 they can make the recommendation to the Commissioners. When I talk about having a Planning Board meeting after 123 what I am talking about is once the Board of County Commissioners has made decision, I don't think there is any role 124 for further input from the Planning Board. I do think it's critical and would even say they shouldn't make a decision 125 before the Planning Board has had an opportunity to make a recommendation. Any time the Commissioners have 126 the option of doing it and just saying wow, this is just too much to handle all this input, they can kick it back to the 127 Planning Board and we can talk it over and it will come up at the next meeting, they have that option. So, yes if the 128 impression that the Planning Board is somehow being diminished in its role, no I don't want that. I do want to make 129 sure we don't hold up the citizens that show up and I'd like to find a way to encourage citizens to come to the 130 Planning Board to get their concerns known earlier. Part of that is what I'm talking about in here about the Planning 131 Board meeting with the public if the public could come to these meetings, it is a bit of a dry run. The other thing that 132 came up in that meeting is another problem we've always had which is would that we had a crystal ball to predict the 133 no- brainers from the ones that are going to be controversial. If we can get citizens to come to the Planning Board 134 with input earlier, we can get a better feel of what is going on. The Commissioners can see that when they read the 135 minutes and I think those are ways the Planning Board can be more engaged than it is now. 136 137 Bryant Warren: The problem with that is they want to meet with the top people and by having a joint public hearing 138 appearing with both then they are both getting the information and people are showing up for it. 139 140 Pete Hallenbeck: I wouldn't be surprised if it continues in the same way but I also don't want to penalize people who 141 want to learn how the systems works and try to get the most out of it. So if they have a 45 day notice and they come 142 to the Planning Board and they're organized and they come to us and say here's the concern and talk about it then 143 the Commissioners can read it. That's the closest we're going to come to that no- brainer crystal ball. They will be 144 much more informed, the Commissioners will, than if all this just hits them for the first time. 145 146 Bryant Warren: Right now we have one every 4 months, if it goes to every 2 months, is there not some way if we 147 need another public hearing we can call one or do we have a time frame that would keep us from doing that. 148 149 Craig Benedict: The Unified Development Ordinance does set out a public hearing specific dates of 4 a year. We 150 can amend the UDO to say there are other times we can consider amendments. As Perdita put up there, there are 151 three types of hearing, the legislative ones are typically a little bit easier. There is a good possibility we could move 152 some of those legislative items to a regular meeting and have some more opportunities for them. We know that the 153 quasi-judicial are usually the ones that are a little bit more labored because of the testimony and that would probably 154 clog up a regular meeting so having the quarterly public hearings isolated for them will probably remain a good idea. 155 We can consider regular Commission meetings to have a public hearing. 156 157 Bryant Warren: I know a lot of developers want to get it out, get it to the public, and get it back as quickly as they can 158 so they can start generating money from it. That's probably what we're trying to do is to accommodate some of them 159 so I don't see anything wrong with it. 160 161 Pete Hallenbeck: We have the full spectrum of the developers would love a two month process and a lot of citizens 162 would like a nine month process. What you're talking about with additional meetings, I know Commissioner Jacobs 7 II 1 163 was concerned that if you put additional public hearings on the normal Commissioner calendar, that's where the 164 crystal ball for the no- brainers comes in. You would hate to put, for example, that solar project on the end of a 165 budget meeting cause it would take too long, you really won't be doing the citizens any service, everybody would be 166 tired by the time it was midnight and probably wouldn't accomplish what you wanted. If you know, that crystal ball, 167 that this was going to be a 30 minute with no problem. 168 169 Herman Staats: Pete, so I understand correctly, the process that is on the white board now, is what we currently 170 use? 171 172 Pete Hallenbeck: Correct. 173 174 Herman Staats: Am I understanding you to say that we should have an additional Planning Board meeting with the 175 public and if so where in that process do you propose to put it? 176 177 Pete Hallenbeck: The question is the first item, these quarterly public hearing are on a certain schedule but we meet 178 every month. There's an opportunity to have that 45 day notice and have people come to a Planning Board meeting 179 and get citizen feedback quicker and then that feedback can be presented at the next available quarterly public 180 hearing it is unlikely that the Commissioners would decide at that time but that's where the no- brainer, crystal ball 181 comes in. It is far more likely that they will take that citizen input and kick it back to the Planning Board. We would 182 also be at that meeting, however the carrot and stick approach the Commissioners work out for getting us there. 183 184 Lisa Stuckey: So if I'm a citizen and I am bringing something forward, you're suggesting that there be a public 185 hearing in front of the Planning Board and then a public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners and 186 then it comes back to the Planning Board. 187 188 Craig Benedict: Maybe it doesn't have to go here afterwards. There are differences between the legislative and 189 190 Lisa Stuckey: But wait, because they were saying they wanted to give people a third or fourth opportunity to speak 191 without question when it came back, as a former member of the school board, every time you hold a public hearing, 192 you will get people to come and the more anxious they are about the outcome, the more they will come and they the 193 longer they will talk. It is just a lot of time. I am not passing judgment on whether or not they should be allowed to, 194 it's just a tremendous amount of time for the boards. 195 196 Craig Benedict: There could be different processes for legislative versus quasi-judicial. The reason we have a 197 process now to just have written testimony after this public hearing is because you're trying to set a point in time 198 where the record is closed, let's make a decision, and if we keep on opening things up very late in the process then it 199 doesn't end. That was part of the reason, especially for quasi - judicial matters, for legislative matters, the 200 Commissioners can choose to let them hold it in three minutes, don't repeat what we've heard here. They can 201 diplomatically say that. 202 203 Lisa Stuckey: It won't work. 204 205 Craig Benedict: Also it shows in the agenda package that the Commissioners, when they have this public hearing 206 over here, they can do three things; they could close the public hearing, this is what we are suggesting as potential 207 options. They could close the public hearing this night and they can set a date to make a formal vote on it, or if it is 208 contentious they could send it back to the Planning Board to return then for a date certain, or one that has never 209 worked well in the past is they can actually decide that night, close the public hearing and say we have enough 210 testimony to decide. That has always been a lot for them but over the many years there's been a few where they 211 thought that were very simple, one was actually a school site for the Orange County school that was an SUP and 212 they needed to get it built and they wanted to approve it there but the process didn't allow them to do that at that 213 time, to vote the same night. It had to go back. 214 215 Bryant Warren: So you're talking about on the public hearing that is joint now it will not be a joint public hearing, it 216 would be just the Commissioners? m DRAFT 217 218 Craig Benedict: That would be just the Commissioners and as the Chair said, we would suggest the Planning Board 219 attend here or they could watch it on Granicus or they could watch a video of it or they could look at the minutes. 220 (referring to board) This would not be a formal, this isn't the formal public hearing here, it's just a point where we can 221 let people know in a neighborhood information meeting that the Planning Board is going to be hearing this item. It is 222 what's called a Planning Board hearing, formal hearing will always stay with the Commissioners that's what state 223 laws says. 224 225 Bryant Warren: I don't think you're going to get as many people showing up for just a public hearing with the 226 Planning Board as you're going to get to show up for the Commissioners and Planning Board combined. 227 228 Craig Benedict: It's true, the Planning Board and staff may be able to answer some questions here at this pre - 229 meeting. At this crystal ball meeting. Even at this point here, we're going to be educating the public because that's 230 what the Commissioners suggested. Let them know about what process we're going through, is it legislative, is it 231 quasi-judicial let them know what levels of input there are, is it going to be formal expert or can it be anecdotal i.e., 232 we don't think that fits the neighborhood. We can do a lot of education here, having something early where the public 233 can be invited. It probably would be a lot more attendance at Planning Board meetings than you've had in the past. 234 It still goes to the formal public hearing, let's call that the legal public hearing. Then the Commissioners have the 235 opportunity to decide at that point to bounce it back or to themselves two weeks hence. 236 237 Perdita Holtz: This Planning Board meeting where he crossed off formal review, the Planning Board recommendation 238 meeting, where there would be notices that actually went out and the property would get posted with a sign to let 239 people know that the Planning Board meeting was happening, it would not be a formal public hearing, it would just be 240 a Planning Board meeting with changing the way we notify the public about Planning Board meetings so that people 241 would know the Planning Board meeting was happening, they would be able to come and speak, it wouldn't have to 242 be written comments only and at the conclusion of that meeting the Planning Board would make a recommendation 243 on whether they thought the application should be approved or not, on legislative items. Craig is a little bit mixing 244 legislative and quasi-judicial together. Then the item would go to public hearing with the Planning Board 245 recommendation. At the public hearing the BOCC could decide, man there's so many people here that maybe didn't 246 talk at the Planning Board meeting; we really should kick it back to the Planning Board for them to consider this other 247 information that came out at the public hearing. Or, the BOCC could decide this is one of those no- brainers, the 248 people who have been on the Planning Board before will remember the discussion about no- brainers, this is a no- 249 brainer, we can close the public hearing tonight and we can just vote on it, or they can say, well, you know the 250 Planning Board gave us a recommendation, nothing major has come out but I want to mull this over more and the 251 BOCC can say let's schedule it for a later meeting. 252 253 Loss of recording device /full memory- approximate 7 to 9 minutes lost. 254 [There was some discussion about how notices about the Planning Board meeting would be sent via first class mail 255 to adjacent property owners and a sign would be posted on the affected property, in the case of map amendments]. 256 257 Pete Hallenbeck: It is important that the notifications be a blend of the dry legal requirements of notification and a 258 nice human readable, ok guys here's how it's going to work- we're going to have to this meeting here's what you can 259 do, this is an opportunity for you, so it explains the process and people know what is going on. 260 261 Tony Blake: I have a couple of comments; I don't know how much power we really have. I think we're maybe 262 assuming that we have more power than we do here. We are really looking at the UDO and deciding whether or not 263 a project meets the criteria of the UDO, we can't just all of a sudden say, no we don't like that, and the second part of 264 it is, I think we're all here to represent some part of the County. I represent Bingham because I live there and 265 because I have other contacts in the community and it seems to me that we should be part of the notification list for 266 any public information session in our area of representation. We should be at least as strongly encouraged to attend 267 that public information meeting on behalf of the Planning Board and all the Planning Board members be encouraged 268 to attend any public information meeting as that somewhat cloudy crystal because I think you can tell from a public 269 information meeting how many people show up as to what kind of a response you're going to get and what the real 270 concerns and questions are that need to be addressed up front. I don't really understand the quasi - judicial role we 9 II 1 271 have, I understand that we stand up there and give testimony but if our power is limited to interpreting the UDO and 272 trying make whatever changes proposed fits within the UDO and it either does or it doesn't and staff is far more 273 versed in the UDO than I am. I find their recommendations are pretty bang on. All of what I have to say in a quasi - 274 judicial way is hearsay, right? 275 276 Pete Hallenbeck: The role of the Planning Board is this oversight, are we meeting the requirements of the UDO. 277 Yes, you're right, but that's a level of detail you have to have. I would point out, though, that there's also a document 278 called the Comprehensive Plan. If the UDO is the rules, the left brain, the Comprehensive Plan is the heart and soul, 279 it's the right brain part of it. There are times when we've reviewed things and it's met all of the requirements but then 280 you'll find something in the Comprehensive Plan that's not right and I think it's not power per say but it's a very valid 281 role of the Board is to point this out. An example of that is the Comprehensive Plan encourages that all subdivisions 282 have sidewalks and yet every time we run into it there is no money for sidewalks and DOT doesn't want it. There is a 283 conflict there and we don't have power over that but we can certainly point it out and I think that's also true with 284 representing the areas you're from. 285 286 Tony Blake: Yeah, but I don't find that to be quasi - judicial in essence. You can point it out in a quasi - judicial hearing 287 but it's not some... 288 289 Pete Hallenbeck: Quasi - judicial is such a different beast because people get sworn in and there's testimony. It really 290 changes the game a lot and our role in quasi - judicial is very strict. 291 292 Lisa Stuckey: We're supposed to be the judge in a quasi - judicial, aren't we? 293 294 James Bryan: In quasi judicial, it's the governing board- the deciding body that is the judge. From a legal 295 perspective, for planning boards' involvement, it's dangerous. Especially, how we have it where you close the public 296 hearing and then you have the statements. I think that's right before appeal, for a number of reasons, I don't know if 297 the Board really wants to get into all of that but my recommendation would be that because of all of the legal 298 concerns with all that let one board handle it, the Board of Adjustment, that's all they do and then you also have a 299 corollary to that because when the public goes to these meetings and they want to know, look I'm a neighbor and I'm 300 against this, quasi - judicial they can't say anything. That's objectionable, you're not supposed to allow them to go and 301 speak to that. So if you have one board where they know, oh Board of Adjustment that's when I have to have my 302 expert there to testify and any time you go before the Board of County Commissioners or the Planning Board, that's 303 when I'm allowed to give my opinion because they do policy and legislative matters. It's clear for the public. 304 305 Lisa Stuckey: So, the quasi judicial, and I guess the mix will move out of the Planning Board? 306 307 James Bryan: That would be my recommendation. 308 309 Perdita Holtz: Well, the legislative part of the mix would not but we need to figure out what we want to do for 310 legislative versus quasi - judicial before we tackle that funny beast of the mix. 311 312 Lisa Stuckey: But quasi - judicial is leaving us. 313 314 Bonnie Hammersley: No, as the County Manager I have to speak. The issue tonight is some kind of 315 recommendation from this Board to the County Board of Commissioners, they make the final determination. One 316 thing I would want to add thought as you all talked about your power or your worth, this Board is a highly valued 317 board in county government and is in all the counties I've been in. The County Board of Commissioners depend on 318 you greatly for your recommendations and what you do and so I want you for that but no determination has been 319 made on what is going to happen. That's what this discussion is about. It would be a recommendation to the County 320 Commissioners and whether the Commissioners would agree with that, they would make the final determination and 321 1 don't know what that is. 322 323 Maxecine Mitchell: I'm sitting here thinking I want to share in my own way, when I decided to be on this Planning 324 Board, I came to represent my community. I don't feel comfortable in any decision we make, I have to be there to 6 10 DRAFT 325 hear what the people have to say. I sit here every month and hear the staff from their perspective and I get a good 326 understanding on their challenges, what they are trying to do as a whole, I then like to come to the public hearing 327 meeting and I cautiously listen to the people. Within the decisions we make to the UDO and the Comprehensive 328 Plan when we have a chance that helps me to figure out if it a good thing for the community. Then my 329 recommendation that I give to the County Board of Commissioners, I'm looking at it from the community perspective 330 because I have to live here. You may not live in my neighborhood, in my area, and I don't want rules making it hard 331 for me to enjoy the life here in Orange County. I take this very seriously so I don't want whatever we do, I want to 332 hear from the public, as well as coming here every month and hearing from the Planning Board and hearing the 333 County Commissioners and what they want and make it all work the best we possibly can. I understand the legal 334 process but for me that's top concern because we have to live here in Orange County so we have to keep it where 335 people can enjoy the County and not feel like they want to move to Durham or Alamance County, that's the way I see 336 it and I want to find the best way to say that in the decisions we make. I try my best to show up to the public hearings 337 and I go to work at 12 at night and the night of that long meeting, I left that meeting and went right to work because 338 that's my commitment to the citizens of Orange County to be there. I think that staff and the Board of Commissioners 339 get benefit from it. 340 341 Pete Hallenbeck: One good thing coming from this discussion is that it's an interesting opportunity for everyone to 342 think about the role of the Planning Board and I think we are all basically on the same page. If anyone has another 343 rule they think is critical. 344 345 Paul Guthrie: I mentioned one and that is the fact that we provide the Board of Commissioners with a screen with 346 which they can filter through information as they deal with some very tough issues. 347 348 Pete Hallenbeck: Yes, with a blend of the feedback and the community and public input. Also I think there is 349 representation of the areas and there is also that everybody here has a diverse skill set and drawing on both of those 350 really helps with these opinions that we can give the Commissioners. 351 352 Tony Blake: Is it safe to say that any quasi-judicial process is preceded by a legislative? 353 354 Perdita Holtz: In quasi - judicial matters it depends on how you're zoned on whether you have to get a Special Use 355 Permit and so at some point zoning was applied to the property but you can't say that it precedes it by a month or a 356 year of something like that. 357 358 Tony Blake: No, what I'm saying is the maybe when we run up against this situation where we think, maybe the 359 County is being too heavy handed but we don't really have the power to do anything but interpret the facts against 360 the UDO and it either is or it isn't, right? Michael is the oracle on that, we have a handoff or a way to pass along to a 361 more powerful body, the Board of Adjustment or the Board of Commissioners whoever it is and say here's our 362 legislative view to take into your quasi - judicial. I don't know. 363 364 Perdita Holtz: No, it's not for most of the types of Special Use Permits that we see. The only time that there's a 365 legislative component is if there is a rezoning associated with also needing a Special Use Permit and that happens in 366 the case of some subdivisions when you get larger subdivisions in the rural area. 367 368 Tony Blake: Yeah, I was thinking of that dog kennel up on 70 where they weren't really in compliance. They wanted 369 to do something, they couldn't do something without being in compliance first and then being in compliance was too 370 expensive. It really got dicey and at the end of the day, basically, we were told we couldn't do anything outside of the 371 UDO but at the same time it didn't qualify for the Board of Adjustment and so there was this limbo thing and then it 372 was thrown over to the County Commissioners who changed the decision. 373 374 Perdita Holtz: Yes, that really was a messy one. 375 376 Tony Blake: That's the kind of situation I'm thinking of that it just really seems like we could be more graceful. 377 Changing gears here if we got in early at the community information meetings and tried to make that at least as 7 11 II 1 378 important as attending the quarterly public hearings for the representatives of that group to bring back to the Planning 379 Board I think that would go a long way towards your crystal ball. 380 381 Pete Hallenbeck: Two things here, on page 72 there's that summary and that Perdita came up with and 88% of the 382 time things are legislative and 3% of the time it is a mix. You never want to ignore a minority of cases but you also 383 don't want to optimize the system on one low probability parameter. Also, Tony, I wanted to comment and this will 384 sort of speak to what Maxecine was talking about, I like the idea that you notify Planning Board members if there is 385 neighborhood information meeting in their district. I think that's a great thing to do. 386 387 Michael Harvey: With all due respect, I think that the policy should be that every Planning Board member gets 388 notified and they can choose to attend if they can or cannot. That way everybody benefits. As neighborhood 389 meetings are scheduled the Planning Board gets notified and every member has an opportunity to attend. 390 391 Tony Blake: I would agree. 392 393 Michael Harvey: The reason I saying it that way is if Tony Blake can't show up, maybe other members can and the 394 fact that Tony was not able to show up on a given evening. I think if you're asking staff to make sure you're notified 395 of every N I M then we can just do that as a policy. 396 397 Pete Hallenbeck: You're right on the money, that's more functional and easier to implement. 398 399 Paul Guthrie: I have a question for those of us who live in the County but are under Chapel Hill planning 400 management, how do we get notified? Because most of the planning of what that has done is under Chapel Hill's 401 Planning Board. There was a point in time in the past the County Commissioners made a recommendation for 402 appointment to the Chapel Hill Planning Board, from the area in which I live in, and the first thing that happened, it 403 happened to be me as the nominee, and the first thing that happened was Chapel Hill Planning Board and the 404 Council decided to eliminate that position so I think that we need to talk about those fringe areas that are in the 405 extraterritorial jurisdiction and see if we can get the process working there too. I'm in the southeast corner of the 406 County and it is going to be one of the big growth areas in a very small area over the next few years, I'm afraid, and 407 there is a lot going on but you usually have to read about it in the newspaper to find out about it. 408 409 Perdita Holtz: So you're suggesting that we work with Chapel Hill Planning's Department for them to overhaul their 410 practices on how they notify? 411 412 Paul Guthrie: No, I'm just saying it would be nice to know when those things are going on or how many newspapers I 413 need to subscribe to. 414 415 Perdita Holtz: It's Chapel Hill's planning jurisdiction and we don't necessarily always know what is going on. 416 417 Pete Hallenbeck: I think the key thing is, you being in Chapel Hill, if there's any neighborhood information meetings, 418 you'll find out about it in the County because Michael's suggestion was right on the money. It's easy to implement 419 and everybody's informed. 420 421 Buddy Hartley: I feel like the process we have now is working. The question is can we get a quorum at the public 422 hearing. That's the question. The process is working, staff is doing their job. Staff is giving us the information for 423 whatever is taking place and we are recommending to the Board of County Commissioners, whether they like our 424 recommendation or not, they do what they want to do. So, I do like the fact of possibly having the public being able 425 to come to us before the public hearing but then the question is are we going to have a quorum at the public hearing. 426 I don't see a big problem with that we just need to let staff know in advance if we cannot make that meeting so they 427 know. We should be able to get a quorum at the public hearing. 428 429 Perdita Holtz: Well it's really far in advance because the legal ad gets published and notices get sent out, the legal 430 ad is due to the paper like three weeks before the public hearing. 431 12 II 1 432 Buddy Hartley: So we want to be able to have a quorum at the public hearing, we either do or we don't. 433 434 Lisa Stuckey: Aside from the time somebody was late, and I was one of them one time, it's been very close. There 435 were other meetings, I can think of two others, maybe three, where we were waiting for people to come. 436 437 Maxecine Mitchell: But I usually get an email and if not an email somebody calls. Does not everybody get that same 438 thing as a reminder? 439 440 Perdita Holtz: Yes, Tina sends out emails asking about quorum. 441 442 Maxecine Mitchell: I have it on my calendar but when I get the email I remember, that's right I do have a public 443 hearing. 444 445 Buddy Hartley: And she does call. 446 447 Maxecine Mitchell: Yes, if she doesn't hear from me, she'll call. I just wondering, is that not working for everybody to 448 remember that there's a public hearing? 449 450 Perdita Holtz: Often we call because enough people have said no, and so it's getting very close on whether we're 451 going to have quorum and so now we're scrambling to get on the phone with people who haven't responded to see if 452 they can show up or not. 453 454 Pete Hallenbeck: You can put a lot of procedures in place but the bottom line is we had a lot of trouble and if it 455 happens again something has got to change. I would ask, it's not clear to me, what the value of having a true joint 456 meeting where the Planning Board has a quorum versus requiring Planning Board members to attend and if you 457 have bad attendance then the Commissioners can do something about it, like say thank you for your service but 458 you're not cutting it. We're going to be there and we're going to hear the public hearing input. The commissioners 459 certainly have the ability while we're there, even if it's not a joint meeting, to ask if there are any comments from the 460 Planning Board. It's well within their purview so I just don't see that dropping the official joint with a quorum 461 requirement, I don't think that will change the process a whole lot. What it will do is not hold up a meeting where you 462 have 100 citizens there. 463 464 Craig Benedict: From what I'm hearing from the discussion, there seems to be somewhat of a role of the Board in a 465 differentiation between how they act on a legislative matter, where they can hear opinions left and right, they can 466 hear the community and they can see the site versus the quasi-judicial nature where your role is more structured. 467 Not that we are making any determinations tonight, but maybe when we do this interim report, maybe there are two 468 different processes that we follow for legislative matters versus a quasi - judicial and right now they're clustered 469 together and maybe we should take a look at the role of the Board on a legislative matter and how we get input 470 versus a quasi-judicial matter follow a different tract. Does that sound reasonable? 471 472 Pete Hallenbeck: In general, what I'm hearing, and I realize there is variation everywhere, is everybody agrees there 473 is great value in having the Planning Board at the quarterly public hearing. The challenge is if you don't have a 474 quorum, we don't want that to derail anything. I am also hearing people are happy with this concept that the Planning 475 Board can take citizen input so we can get that sooner and hopefully that combined with the 45 days will just make 476 everything go better. Most of what we've been talking about is for the legislative processes which are 88% of the 477 time. The quasi - judicial is a different process and we need to work on knowing what our role is in that. That may be 478 something staff and the attorney can work on to educate us on that a little bit better but again 88% of the time it is 479 legislative and it would be great to also notify all Planning Board member of any neighborhood information meeting 480 that is going on so we have a chance to get out there and see what is going on. Those are the main points I'm 481 pulling out. Is there anything major anyone can think of? 482 483 Laura Nicholson: So, is the idea that we will have quorum and we'll all just internally say we are going to be better 484 about getting quorum or was there some barrier that maybe some of us that are new don't understand why we 485 couldn't get a quorum before? 9 13 DRAFT 486 487 Pete Hallenbeck: My personal opinion is to drop the quorum requirement because we've blown it two or three times 488 and if we blow it one more time, it is just, it's getting to the point it's not excusable and that's also based on the fact 489 that if we can just impress upon people how important it is to be there, it's not clear what the quorum is doing and the 490 Commissioners can still ask Planning Board members who are present for comments and input. 491 492 Laura Nicholson: It's just funny that you're saying we need to make sure that we all know that it's really important to 493 be there but it's not a requirement. If it's really important to be there it should be a requirement. 494 495 Pete Hallenbeck: It should but then when you don't have it, we were lucky that we had only a 30 minute delay. What 496 would happen if you had a meeting and you didn't have quorum and you tell all these people I'm sorry we just don't 497 have the people, we'll try this again in three months. 498 499 Laura Nicholson: I agree I just don't see how we can't have a quorum. 500 501 Lisa Stuckey: Why don't we ask staff, what's the problem? Do we know why people haven't shown up? What's 502 been the issue? 503 504 Perdita Holtz: I think it just depends on the personalities that you have on the Board. How seriously people take their 505 position. 506 507 Tina Love: There has never been a time when staff went to the meeting without a quorum. I have never left work at 508 the end of the day that staff didn't have a quorum. If I haven't heard from you, I get on the phone and I call you and 1 509 keep on calling until I reach you, and I'm sorry about that, but we have to ensure there is a quorum. Then staff gets 510 to the meeting and for whatever reason, and things do come up last minute but there just isn't a quorum. I don't 511 know what other process we can do to fix that. 512 513 Tony Blake: Send the Orange bus. 514 515 Maxecine Mitchell: For me, I know we get a copy of the calendar every month, I put it on my personal calendar and 516 an alarm goes off and I say hey you've got a meeting. I don't care if it's an hour before, I'll throw on my clothes and 517 get up here because I've made up in my mind I'm committed and I know it's part of my responsibility on the Board. If 518 something comes up, an emergency, the first thing I try to do, I'm calling from South Carolina when my sister passed 519 away to say she passed I can't make it. Things like that, you can't help but if you're here you should be making it to 520 the meeting. I think it doesn't have to be a rule we just have to be committed and show up unless it is out of our 521 control. 522 523 Laura Nicholson: I just think if the quorum isn't a rule then we're making ourselves seem less important. Like we 524 can't make it to a quorum, we've already embarrassed ourselves by not being there so let's just not hold ourselves 525 accountable and I think we should hold ourselves accountable by saying there has to be a quorum. 526 527 Pete Hallenbeck: If the quorum requirement were effective, we would never have not had a quorum and I see this as 528 the price of failure of value of success and the price of failure having the quorum is we hold up the public. The value 529 of success is we have a quorum, the meeting starts but after that I don't see a lot of difference because the 530 Commissioners can still ask our opinion and we are still there to get input. I think that's why I come down on the side 531 of dropping the quorum requirement. It's just that simple weighing of the price of failure and the value of success. 1 532 don't see any difference in the outcome. 533 534 Tony Blake: What's the reason for the joint meeting? 535 536 Pete Hallenbeck: I think Laura's right on the money, it does bring the Planning Board out, it makes it part of the 537 process, it give value to it, adds importance to it. By the same reason if we don't show up it makes it look like the 538 Planning Board isn't important it doesn't care and the people are not there and you're holding up the citizens. 539 10 14 1 540 Laura Nicholson: Is it possible that it was a communication issue, so for example, I knew I was going to be ten 541 minutes late so I emailed Tina but I don't know if she got my email so maybe it's that we need cell phone numbers of 542 staff so that we can call people and say hey, I'm going to be late or this came up or maybe it's just because I'm new. 543 544 Tina Love: One other thing we need is alternative numbers, cell phone numbers for Planning Board. 545 546 Laura Nicholson: So I see it as a communication issue that is holding up the quorum process and if we just over 547 communicate rather than under communicate it will solve itself. 548 549 Perdita Holtz: It really wasn't the issue of someone being ten minutes late and calling. It was people having full 550 calendars and just not making it to the meeting. 551 552 Laura Nicholson: And they don't know that in advance? 553 554 Perdita Holtz: I don't want to speculate on when people know in advance. 555 556 Laura Nicholson: I'm new so I can't comment but to me it seems simple you're supposed to be there, you're there 557 and if you're not you tell somebody. 558 559 Perdita Holtz: That's a wonderful outlook. 560 561 Pete Hallenbeck: Sometimes just the ebb and flow of life just doesn't work out. 562 563 Buddy Hartley: Things come up and when things come up, you contact staff and you let them know, I can't make this 564 meeting for whatever reason. Everyone won't be able to always make meetings and if that happened with 3 or 4 565 people for the same meeting, you might not have a quorum. 566 567 Lisa Stuckey: It's not a regularly scheduled meeting for us, it's an odd meeting and I think that's part of the problem 568 and it's on a Monday instead of Wednesday when we normally meet. Honestly when you're talking about going to 569 more meeting I wonder how many Planning Board members can really go to those neighborhood meetings. 570 571 Perdita Holtz: I'm a little fuzzy on a certain aspect of what you've discussed tonight; I hear that you want to attend 572 the public hearing whether those are quorumed or not quorumed that you want to attend to hear the public. 573 574 Lisa Stuckey: But if they change it and they're doing it six or eight times a year, are we really committed to that? 575 1 would be extremely skeptical. 576 577 Perdita Holtz: That is a question at this time, I don't really think they are going to be changing the frequency but 578 that's just my feeling from what we've heard. 579 580 Bonnie Hammersley: I will support Perdita on that. One of the things we have is for the November 241h quarterly 581 public hearing we don't have any agenda items and so it's difficult to try to justify adding more meetings so right now 1 582 don't see that being the will of the Board to change it. 583 584 Perdita Holtz: I hear that you want to attend the public hearing what I'm fuzzy on is I've also heard that you want to 585 do public meeting where the public can come to the Planning Board meeting and comment beforehand. There would 586 be an official agenda item, we would send out notices to any affected property owners and they could come and talk 587 with you. At that point, would you all make a recommendation at that Planning Board meeting and then attend the 588 public hearing or do you still want to wait to make the recommendation after the public hearing? We're just talking 589 about legislative not quasi - judicial for this. What I am trying to clear on, because I have to write something up for the 590 BOCC, is you want to attend the public hearing and you also want to have a pre- meeting where the public can come 591 and attend. If it involved a piece of property the public is going to get mailed notices and we are going to put notices/ 592 a sign saying come to the Planning Board meeting and let them know what you think. At that meeting will you all 11 15 II 1 593 make a recommendation prior to the public hearing or do you want to wait until after the public hearing to make a 594 recommendation? 595 596 Pete Hallenbeck: I think we can no more guarantee we can make a recommendation than the Commissioners can 597 guarantee they can make a decision at the quarterly public hearing much as happened with the solar project. I think 598 the best the Planning Board can do is to provide feedback based on our knowledge on the communities we come 599 from and maybe comment on what people say and yes there is a bit of a challenge there because there may be time 600 when all we can do is except that input and frankly there won't be a whole lot we can say that is terribly intelligent 601 other than thank you for the input. 602 603 Perdita Holtz: So after the public hearing you want to make a recommendation still so my concern is that on 604 legislative items, that do not have a neighborhood information meeting, you are now adding an additional meeting 605 before the public hearing that is going to make the process longer. I want to make sure that. 606 607 Pete Hallenbeck: I don't think I was saying it that way. 608 609 Perdita Holtz: You're having a Planning Board meeting that we are going to send out notices. 610 611 Craig Benedict: We'll send out the letter out and decide. 612 613 Perdita Holtz: No, they're saying they don't want to decide, I know that is what we talked about two weeks ago but 614 this is not what's being talked about tonight. They want to wait to decide until after the public hearing. 615 616 Herman Staats: My own personal feeling about making a recommendation is what I said earlier, if you have 617 opportunity for public input but no one comes then yes we can make recommendations based on the written 618 guidelines but you still don't have public input. So the whole goal of us discussing this tonight was to increase and 619 have a better access to public input but if they don't come then we're not increasing public input. I thought this whole 620 process came up of how do we get more feedback from the public and how do we get them involved. 621 622 Perdita Holtz: That's one part of it. 623 624 Maxecine Mitchell: Right now, I'm going to go with leaving things the way they are right now. 625 626 Perdita Holtz: Increasing the public involvement, that's certainly one part of it Herman, about increasing the public 627 involvement however, the increasing of public involvement is really pertinent to quasi-judicial matters and so I am 628 trying to nail down more of what you are all thinking about the legislative matters and we're going to have to tackle 629 quasi-judicial at some other time. 630 631 Pete Hallenbeck: Yes, I agree, just talking legislative and I think I agree with Herman that if we can make a 632 recommendation or decision, we will but there may be circumstances where we just can't. 633 634 Michael Harvey: Is the concern that not enough citizens are interested in showing up and you're going to make a 635 recommendation in a vacuum. 636 637 Pete Hallenbeck: No, if nobody shows up and they have met all the requirements for what they are trying to do and it 638 meets the UDO, I say we make a decision and say yes, we're all for this. I think the times where we wouldn't make a 639 decision would be like the solar array. 640 641 Paul Guthrie: It's not judicial, we're not encumbered on that solution that we have something, nobody shows up, we 642 have a question about it, we could send that to the Commissioners and it could be incorporated in the call for the 643 public hearing. 644 645 Pete Hallenbeck: Yes, all that is possible and again it's part of being an advisory board there 646 12 16 II 1 647 Tony Blake: Let me just suggest just opposing the whole thing for just a second here. Why not add, and I think other 648 boards have this thing that they have sort of a County Commissioner liaison. Why not require that liaison to be here 649 for quasi judicial, no quasi - judicial right? Then they can carry that feedback back to the other County 650 Commissioners. 651 652 Pete Hallenbeck: We're going to stick with the legislative, quasi-judicial is a very strict process. 653 654 Perdita Holtz: There are reasons there's not a BOCC liaison for the Planning Board and I don't think there is going to 655 be. 656 657 Pete Hallenbeck: I think the changes we're talking about is we have the 45 days, we're just saying let the public 658 come and present input either in writing or verbally at the Planning Board meeting that's part of the notification they 659 get. We will discuss it there will be times when we can make a recommendation and there will be times when we'll 660 just throw our hands up and there will probably be times when we go, we don't really want to get near this thing and 661 we kick it back to the Commissioners. 662 663 Paul Guthrie: Would that be mandatory or just advisory? Could we simply say you may wish to come to a Planning 664 Board meeting prior to the public hearing? 665 666 Pete Hallenbeck: Yes, but part of this is to explain the process, is that exact language. You're not required but if you 667 care to this is great as it gives us better input sooner, the Commissioners read your feedback before the quarterly 668 public hearing. That explanation should enough to let a citizen realize how the process works. 669 670 Paul Guthrie: Probably a good idea. 671 672 Laura Nicholson: To me there is just some things that seem really cut and dried and there are some things that are 673 really squishy. Is there a way we can delineate that and say these things we agree on and bring a recommendation 674 on these things and these things we still want to talk about more, is that a possibility? 675 676 Pete Hallenbeck: Part of why I tried to say it's important to be at the QPH not wild about the quorum and you're 677 comments you really think the quorum will help. The Planning Board taking citizen input, it sounds like everybody is 678 good with that and more input is good. We realize this is legislative that is 88% of what we see, all Planning Board 679 members get notification of any neighborhood information meetings and we realize that the quasi-judicial is a 680 problem for another day we need more education as there are very strict rules. That's ok because we've just dealt 681 with 88% of what we deal with and I would say that's the summation of what we are putting before the 682 Commissioners along with this process. 683 684 Craig Benedict: Chair, based on the direction the Commissioners gave the manager and the attorney and staff is this 685 interim report is not going to make decision so, that interim report will say probably some things are easier to achieve 686 and some things are a little bit harder so I think in essence we are going to get some ideas on which way we can 687 move with it. Where's there's some clarity and which areas might need a little more time. That's why they said the 688 November 611 meeting wouldn't have everything done by then. We'll let them know where we are in the process that 689 we were getting consensus on some areas and we are also determining that there are differences, clear differences, 690 on how the Board's role is for quasi-judicial versus legislative and how we get community input that might take a little 691 longer. 692 693 Pete Hallenbeck: That's also why we're not going to vote tonight on this and what we recommend. We've talked 694 they get to sludge through it and see what we're thinking and it goes on from there. Ok, the last item on the agenda, 695 I'll entertain a motion to adjourn 696 697 *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 698 Email from Lydia Wegman: 699 13 17 II 1 700 From: Lydia Wegman [mailto:lnwegman @gmail.com] 701 Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:12 PM 702 To: Perdita Holtz 703 Subject: Re: October Planning Board Materials 704 705 Hi Perdita, 706 707 Thanks for that helpful explanation of the status of the recommendations on the public hearing process. I am very 708 sorry to be missing the discussion tonight. As a new member of the Board, I feel I would benefit from hearing the 709 views of the folks who have served on the Board longer than 1. 1 do, however, have two thoughts to offer, which are 710 laid out in the next paragraph. In addition to that, I plan to read the minutes of tonight's discussion and then offer my 711 thoughts on the conclusions reached, if any. I know this is not the best way to engage in discussion, but given that 1 712 am out of town, I think it's the best I can do. 713 714 Here are my views on two issues for tonight's meeting: First, I do not think the Board of Adjustment should handle 715 Class A SUPs. I think those should continue to come to the BOCC and to the Planning Board for a recommendation 716 to the BOCC. I feel that decisions on these SUPs concern the way in which the county is using the precious land 717 within its boundaries and those decisions should be left to the elected, not appointed, officials. I think it's important 718 for the Planning Board to offer its views to the BOCC. My second thought is that the the Planning Board should 719 make its recommendations to the BOCC after the conclusion of the public hearing, as is done now. I think the 720 Planning Board should be required to attend the public hearing and am not sure why there has been such a problem 721 with attendance at the quarterly hearings. Is there really such a problem? If so, I suggest that the Planning Board be 722 asked to solve it. I don't think the solution is to cut the Board out of that process. But even if the Board is not 723 required to attend the public hearing, it should be required to listen to the hearing before offering its views to the 724 BOCC. The information at a public hearing is in my view essential to helping the Board thoughtfully consider what 725 recommendation to make. 726 727 1 hope these views can be considered at tonight's meeting. Thanks very much. I look forward to hearing about the 728 discussion at the meeting. 729 730 Lydia 731 732 733 734 735 14 Pre - Application Conference Required for rezonings to Conditional Zoning amw istricts. Strongly recommended for all other projects (e.g., text amendments, general use districts) The Planning Department intends to begin posting a list of applications received on its website so members of the public can be informed about projects early in the process. Application Submittal Staff Representatives of various County departments and other agencies, as needed The draft legal ad would no longer be a Consent Agenda item. It would be circulated via e-mail to BOCC members a few days prior to publication with the County Manager, Attorney, and Planning Director resolving any conflicting Planning Board Meeting to This is a proposed new step in the process to Review Application / Make accommodate the ability of the Planning Board to Recommendation hear from the public prior to making a recommendation and to involve the public in the process earlier. DAC (Development Advisory time before potentially revisiting whether the frequency of Committee) Review /Comments public hearings for legislative items should be increased. The public could comment at the meeting where the Publish Legal Ad / Mail Planning Board reviews legislative items (the existing Notifications for Public requi rement for written comments only would be Hearing removed). Planning Board action could be: 1. Make a recommendation to the BOCC. 2. Make a preliminary recommendation to the Mail Notifications (for map BOCC with a request that if significant new amendments only) via first information is presented at the public hearing, class mail about the Planning the BOCC will send the item back to the Board meeting to Planning Board for further review and a adjacentinearby property potential new recommendation. owners and post sign(s) on hearing portion of the later BOCC agenda and the property public could make oral comments). The draft legal ad would no longer be a Consent Agenda item. It would be circulated via e-mail to BOCC members a few days prior to publication with the County Manager, Attorney, and Planning Director resolving any conflicting Planning Board Meeting to comments. Review Application / Make Recommendation An increase in frequency is no longer being suggested. Staff recommends trying the new process for a period of time before potentially revisiting whether the frequency of public hearings for legislative items should be increased. Planning Board members would be encouraged to attend Publish Legal Ad / Mail but a quorum of members would not be necessary in order Notifications for Public to hold the hearing. Hearing The public hearing would be closed at the conclusion of the hearing. Written comments would no longer be the required method of making comments after the public hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the BOCC could do the Quarterly Public Hearing following: (BOCC only) * 1. Defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date (items would no longer be listed on the public hearing portion of the later BOCC agenda and the public could make oral comments). TBOCCDecision 2. Refer an application back to the Planning Board for * further review. 3. Make a decision at the conclusion of the hearing.