[00:00:01]
YOU.[I. CALL TO ORDER]
I'D LIKE TO TAKE THIS MINUTE TO CALL TO ORDER, UH, THE CITY OF NEWBURY'S BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING.AND WOULD LIKE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? I'M GONNA START WITH, UH, BOARD MEMBER JAMES FERGUSON.
AND WE'D LIKE TO DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.
ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE.
[IV. CHAIRMAN REMARKS]
A COUPLE OF COMMENTS TO START OUT AND REALLY WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE TO EVERYBODY THAT THIS IS A VOLUNTEER BOARD.UM, WE ARE NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS.
WE, WE ARE HERE TO TRY TO HELP THE, THE PUBLIC MAKE GOOD DECISIONS, UH, AND FACILITATE, FACILITATE THE PROCESS.
AND SO THIS BOARD IS, AND I'M GONNA TRY TO READ, UH, UH, A LITTLE BIT HERE IN REFERENCE TO HOW THE PROCESS WORKS.
AND WE'RE A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING BOARD, WHICH PROCEEDS VERY SIMILAR TO A COURT.
WE ASK THAT YOU ALL RESPECT EVERYONE IN ATTENDANCE AND DO NOT ENGAGE IN DISORDER OUTBURSTS OR DISRUPTION.
AND LAST GO ROUND AT MEETINGS AND TAKE A BREAK HERE FOR A SECOND AND SAY THAT WE REALLY DID NOT REQUIRE A, A MINUTE LIMIT.
AND I THINK THERE'S GONNA BE SOME DISCUSSION LATER TODAY TO, UM, POTENTIALLY DISCUSS MAYBE THREE MINUTE LIMIT, UM, TO CONVERSATION.
UH, BECAUSE I THINK WE GOT A LITTLE LONG-WINDED, MAYBE A TIME OR TWO.
UM, AND WE PROBABLY COULD HAVE SAID A LOT BETTER STATEMENTS IN SHORTER PERIODS OF TIME.
UM, SO WE MIGHT TRY THAT IN THE FUTURE IF YOU INTEND, IF ANYBODY INTENDS TO SPEAK.
AND I'M, I WAS GONNA SAY, IF YOU, THERE'S NOBODY HERE TONIGHT, SO I'LL TRY TO REPHRASE THAT.
UM, IF A PERSON INTENDS TO SPEAK, PLEASE BE MINDFUL.
UM, IF A PERSON DOES EXCEED A TIME LIMIT, IF WE SO CHOOSE TO PUT IN THE THREE MINUTES, UM, I, AS THE, THE BOARD CHAIR, WILL DO MY BEST TO SAY THAT WE'RE AT THE LIMIT AND MOVE FORWARD ON TO THE NEXT PERSON.
AND REALLY THAT'S DONE TO TRY TO FACILITATE, GIVE EVERYBODY AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
AND I REALLY DON'T WANT TO HIT THE GAVEL.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S PLEASANT FOR, I THINK, MYSELF AND OR, UH, THE BOARD MEMBERS AND OR THE PUBLIC.
UM, SO IT'S, IT'S A, A THING THAT WE NEED TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WORK OUT.
UH, AND WE'LL MOVE FORWARD AS THE BOARD PROGRESSES, UH, THROUGHOUT THE SEASON.
AND I SAY THE SEASON FOR THIS YEAR, UH, IT'S THE BOARD'S POLICY AFTER THE PRESENTATION IS HEARD FROM STAFF TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK FIRST AND LAST CITIZENS HAVE SIGNED UP, OR WE HOPE THEY HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, UH, WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THEIR TESTIMONY.
TWO THINGS, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THIS.
UM, WE WOULD LIKE PEOPLE TO SIGN UP AHEAD OF THE MEETING, NAME AN ADDRESS, UM, AND WE WILL ACTUALLY HAVE A, A LIST, UH, HERE AT THE FRONT AND WE CAN TRY TO CHECK OFF.
AND SO IF A PERSON DOES DESIRE TO SPEAK WHO'S NOT ON THE LIST, WE WILL ASK Y'ALL TO SIGN UP.
UM, AND SO WE CAN MOVE ON THAT WAY.
WHILE THE BOARD CANNOT ONLY, CAN ONLY, UH, CONSIDER FACTUAL EVIDENCE OR EXPERT OPINION IN HIS DECISION, REASONABLE CONDITIONS MAY BE APPLIED BASED ON THE PUBLIC'S TESTIMONY.
SO AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY DEEMED A A REASONABLE FOR A PERSON JUST TO SAY, WE KNOW TRAFFIC'S GOING TO BE INCREASED.
I MEAN, THE PEOPLE HAVE SPENT IN, WHEN I SAY PEOPLE, THE APPLICANT IN MANY CASES HAVE SPENT, UH, A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF RESOURCES TO COME UP WITH A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT HAS BEEN DONE BY PROFESSIONALS.
AND THERE'S, WE HAVE TO, AS BOARD MEMBERS LOOK AT THAT AS EVIDENCE.
UM, JUST, UH, UM, AN OPINION IS NOT TECHNICALLY EVIDENCE.
SO PLEASE RESPECT THAT, UH, IN THE
[00:05:01]
FUTURE AS WE MOVE FORWARD.AND I THINK THAT'S DONE WITH THE COMMENTS.
UM, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT I MIGHT HAVE MISSED THAT WE, A BOARD MEMBER MAY WISH TO ADD TO THOSE COMMENTS? OKAY.
[V. DECISION – SUP-002777-2023 (Motion Needed)]
OUR FIRST AGENDA ITEM, UM, IS A DECISION THAT WE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING, UH, THE THRIVE MORE COMMUNITY.AND WE NEED TO TAKE A, A VOTE TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THAT DECISION THAT WE MADE AT THE MEETING.
UM, SO WE'RE HERE TO OPEN FOR A MOTION.
I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE THRIVE MORE COMMUNITY PARCEL REQUEST.
SECOND CASE THAT WE HAVE A, I THINK THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE THRIVE MORE COMMUNITY WRITTEN DECISION.
IS THAT YOUR MOTION, MS. MARTIN? YES, MA'AM.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND.
AND I, I BELIEVE IT'S POLICY THAT WE CAN ONLY HAVE BOARD MEMBERS THAT WERE HERE PRESENT DURING THE SIT THE DECISION VOTE.
UM, AND SO FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO, UH, DO WE HAVE A FORUM AS FAR AS FOLKS THAT WERE HERE FOR THE DECISION? YES, SIR.
AND I GUESS WE SHOULD DO A ROLL CALL ON THE DECISION SINCE IT MIGHT BE CONFUSING THAT SOME FOLKS WERE HERE AND SOME FOLKS WERE NOT.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO DO A ROLL CALL, I ABSOLUTELY CAN.
SO I, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE GOOD TONIGHT SINCE THERE'S NOBODY IN THE AUDIENCE AND IT MAY BE A LITTLE CONFUSING.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DO.
UM, I, I'LL BRING THAT UP SINCE WE'VE HAD SOME COMMENTS EARLIER AND WE'LL MOVE FORWARD.
FOR THE FIRST BOARD MEMBER, UH, MS. KATHLEEN MARTY AYE.
AND THEN SECOND HERE, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AND FOR THE THIRD BOARD MEMBER, UH, MR. ERIC THOMPSON, I WAS NOT PRESENT.
I THOUGHT YOU HAD BEEN, UH, MS. BARBARA SAMPSON THEN? YES.
ALRIGHT, MR. GOLD AND THEN MR. MIKE DUFFY? YES.
SO THE MOTION CARRIES, WE HAVE APPROVED, UH, THE DECISION FROM THE LAST MEETING.
[VI. COMMENTS]
TO THE NEXT ITEM, COMMENTS.AND SO I'D LIKE TO REALLY OPEN UP AND IF, IF SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO EXPAND A LITTLE BIT MORE ON OUR EARLIER DISCUSSION IN REFERENCE TO TIME, UM, LIMITATIONS FOR SPEAKERS, UM, OR ANY OTHER PART OF THE PROCESS, UM, THAT MAY HELP US FACILITATE A, A BETTER, UH, DISCUSSION.
WELL, WHAT THE BOARD OF ALDER DOES WHEN THEY REVIEW ZONING CHANGES, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, REZONING, IS THEY ASK THAT, UM, PEOPLE LIMIT THEIR COMMENTS TO, TO NEW, UH, AREAS OF IMAGES.
AND THAT IF SOMEONE'S THERE, THEY TRIED TO PICK SOMEONE TO SPEAK FOR THE GROUP WHEREVER POSSIBLE, THAT SEEMS TO WORK REASONABLY WELL.
SO, ALTHOUGH ON, UM, THE, UH, STARS AND STRIPES ONE, THERE WERE SO MANY PEOPLE THAT LITERALLY TOOK TWO HOURS AND THERE WAS ANOTHER MATTER OF THAT AND THEY BOTH GOT TURNED DOWN.
UM, SO THAT'S THE WAY THEY DID IT.
THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, IT, IT WOULD'VE TAKEN TWO, IT WOULD'VE TAKEN THREE HOURS NO MATTER WHAT.
THEY WERE JUST DOWN THE PLACE WAS FILLED, YOU KNOW,
SO YES, IT WAS, SO YEAH, I WOULD TALK A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH WITH, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE COMING UP AND COMING DOWN.
AND SO ANOTHER THING THOUGH THAT I'D LIKE TO ADD, I GOT, I HAD BROUGHT THIS UP BEFORE YOU GUYS WERE IN OFFICE BEFORE THE CHANGE AND UM, I HAD GOT A, UM, PUT IN A REQUEST TO THE, THAT THE, UM, TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USAGE SHOULD BE CONCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE AND, UH, FOSTER USING IN FACT THAT IT WOULD BE DONE IN THE FUTURE, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE HAPPENED FOR US.
SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA FOR US TO, TO HAVE IT AS PART.
'CAUSE WHEN WE'RE LOOKING, MIKE, THINK LAST TIME WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS
SO IF THEY PUT IN FOR SOMETHING ELSE, THEN, YOU KNOW, THAT COULD BE WORSE.
YOU KNOW, WE CAN CERTAINLY PRINT THOSE OFF AND KEEP THEM SAY LIKE YOUR DOES.
SO WE CAN GET YOUR AND UH, ROBERT FF I'M THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, UH, YEAH, WE CAN CERTAINLY INCLUDE A TABLE OF PERMITTED USES IN, IN EACH ONE OF THOSE, UH, PACKETS THAT YOU RECEIVE, WE'D LIKELY INCLUDE THEM
[00:10:01]
WITH THE NAME PLACARDS THAT WE KEEP FOR THE BOARD MEETING AS WELL AS THE GAVEL.UH, AND WE'LL JUST KEEP ALL OF THAT STUFF TOGETHER.
AND YOU CAN USE THAT AS REFERENCE MATERIAL.
YEAH, I'LL MAKE SURE IT GETS ADDED TO THE PACKAGE FOR YOU.
BUT IT COULDN'T EVEN BE PERMANENT, WHAT THEY USED TO DO IN, IN A COMMITTEE THAT TURNED OUT TO BE A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME.
TREMENDOUS CITY RESOURCES WAS, UM, A PERMITS COMMISSION, WHICH I WAS ON.
'CAUSE AGAIN, THEY COULDN'T GET ANYBODY ELSE
YEAH, WE WOULD JUST KEEP IT WITH YOUR NAME, WHATEVER'S EASIER, YOU KNOW, IT'D BE GOOD TO HAVE IT, HAVE IT THERE TO KNOW EXACTLY, YOU KNOW, IF IN CASE WE TURN SOMETHING DOWN AND THE PERSON DECIDES TO, YOU KNOW, PROPOSE SOMETHING DIFFERENT, WE'RE ALL VERY LIMITED IN TURNING THINGS DOWN,
THAT I THINK THAT, WELL, THE POINT TAKEN ON THE, THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS, THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING LAST TIME WHAT ELSE COULD BE DONE THERE, IF YOU KNOW, I I WAS THINKING IN CASE WE TURNED IT DOWN.
YEAH, I, I THINK IN SOME CASES, AND I MEAN, Y'ALL CAN, STAFF CAN CORRECT SOME, YOU KNOW, HOW FAR CAN WE GO THAT, IS THAT STARTING TO GET OUTSIDE SOME OF THE LIMITS AS FAR AS THE, THE DATA OR JAMIE? I MEAN, I, I SEE YOUR EYES, THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO ASK THE QUESTION.
NO, I THINK IT'S ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE THE TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USES IN THE PACKET.
IT'S ALSO AVAILABLE ONLINE, UM, WITH THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.
BUT IF YOU PREFER TO HAVE A WRITTEN COPY, I THINK MR. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR HAS AGREED TO ACCOMMODATE THAT REQUEST.
BUT IT IS GERMANE TO YOUR CONSIDERATIONS BECAUSE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE TO ANSWER IS WHETHER THE USE IS BEING APPLIED FOR, IS ALLOWED BY THE ORDINANCE.
SO IT'S CERTAINLY RELEVANT TO THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE CONSIDERING.
AND WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW THE TIME LIMIT, I THINK IT'S GOOD TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF RULE IN PLACE EVEN THOUGH WE HAVEN'T HAD A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE TO REALLY COME AND SPEAK, BUT WE CAN PUT THAT RULE SO IN THE FUTURE WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT TRYING TO MAKE IT IN.
AND, AND I, AND I ALSO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVING A GROUP SPEAKER, UM, WHO WAS STATED EARLIER THAT, THAT'S PHENOMENAL.
YOU KNOW, I, I, UH, IT, IT'S PROBABLY IN SOME CASES, UM, SPEAKING TO THE PUBLIC DIFFICULT, UM, TO HAVE A GROUP SPEAKER.
UM, MANY TIMES PEOPLE COME TO THE MEETINGS AND DON'T EVEN KNOW THEY'RE NEIGHBORS ANYMORE.
UM, OR, OR, UH, RESPECT THEM ENOUGH TO SPEAK.
AND I KNOW THAT MAY BE A CHALLENGE, HOWEVER, I WOULD, WOULD ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO, TO GET TOGETHER AND, AND AT LEAST IF IT'S A COMMON GOAL, UM, BECAUSE IT IS DIFFICULT TO HEAR THE SAME WORDS REPEATED TIME AND TIME AGAIN, UM, FROM A LOGISTICS STANDPOINT AND KEEPING TIME UP.
I I BELIEVE ONE OF THE CHANGES WE TALKED ABOUT MAKING IS THAT THEY'RE SIGNING UP TO SPEAK.
CAN THERE ALSO BE A SPOT ON THE SIGNUP, YES OR NO, OR CHECK WHETHER OR NOT THEY RECEIVED A NOTICE OF THE HEARING? IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT NOTICES GO OUT TO ALL INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE STANDING FEE.
IT'S A BUFFER THAT'S CREATED FROM THE PARCEL, FROM THE PROPERTY.
AND SO, AND, AND PLEASE, I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION.
DO WE HAVE, WHEN WE HAVE THESE HEARINGS, DO WE HAVE TO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMITS THAT ARE PRESENTED AS I UNDERSTAND IT? MM-HMM.
UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A PARTICULAR STATUTE, HOWEVER IT PERTAINS TO THEM HAVING STANDING, IT IS WRITTEN THROUGH THE STATUTE AND IT TALKS ABOUT STANDING RIGHT.
SO THE RECEIVING OF THAT LETTER IN THAT SENSE, IT'S, YEAH.
AND THAT, ANY QUESTION, AND THAT'S I GUESS MY, MY THOUGHT WITH THINKING ABOUT THE LAST, UM, HEARING THAT WE HAD, IF, YOU KNOW, WE HAD ON THE AGENDA THE PERMIT APPLICANT AND THEN THOSE IN OPPOSITION SPEAK, AND THEN A SEPARATE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, THOSE IN OPPOSITION THAT CAN SPEAK DURING THAT PERMIT TIME, YOU KNOW, HAVE TO HAVE STANDING.
I, I, I'M NOT SAYING WE LIMIT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, IF THERE'S GONNA BE A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, OR, UM, JUST SO WE'RE AWARE, AND EVEN IF WE DO LET 'EM ALL SPEAK, MAKE SURE WE HAVE A RECORD OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY RECEIVED A, UM, A, A NOTICE.
BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD BE GERMANE TO OUR CONSIDERATIONS OF WHETHER TO TAKE THEIR TESTIMONY INTO CONSIDERATION.
AND JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL SPEAKING THE SAME LANGUAGE, MR. FERGUSON, YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
[00:15:01]
WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THOSE TWO VERY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS, YOU MAY WANT TO ANALYZE THEM VERY DIFFERENTLY.YEAH, I, I THINK, AND SO I GUESS THAT'S MY QUESTION IS DURING THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING, IS IT REQUIRED THAT WE HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD DURING THAT HEARING? IT, IT, THAT IS NOT REQUIRED.
UM, THE STATUTE IN THE CASE LAW REQUIRE DICTATES THAT IF SOMEONE IS COMING TO OFFER EVIDENCE ABOUT A PARTICULAR PROPOSAL, THE THRESHOLD ISSUE FOR YOU ALL IS TO DETERMINE IF THAT PERSON HAS STANDING.
SO THAT MAY BE HELPFUL BY HAVING THE PERSON'S ADDRESS AND WHETHER THEY WERE A NOTIFIED PERSON.
NOW THAT MAY NOT BAR SOMEONE, SOMEONE MAY BE ABLE TO OFFER EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, PARTICULARLY HARMED DIFFERENT THAN OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD AND CAN DEMONSTRATE STANDING.
UM, BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE THRESHOLD ISSUES THAT YOU ALL HAVE TO CONSIDER BEFORE YOU CAN WEIGH WHETHER THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY'RE, UM, TRYING TO OFFER IS COMPETENT MATERIAL.
IT MAY GET A LITTLE MUDDLED IN THE SENSE THAT EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED DURING PUBLIC COMMENT.
IT, IT WOULD BE THE BOARD'S, UH, BOARD MEMBER'S POSITION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE STANDING.
SO THEY COULD PRESENT EVIDENCE, UH, DURING PUBLIC COMMENT.
AND ANY PERSON FROM THE COMMUNITY WHO HAS INTEREST IN IT COULD ALSO PRESENT THEIR COMMENTS AND NOT HAVE STANDING.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING STAFF NECESSARILY CHECKS, UH, BECAUSE ANYBODY DRIVING BY CAN SEE A PUBLIC NOTICE, UH, POSTED ON THE PROPERTY, UH, AND NOT BE AFFECTED AND NOT HAVE STANDING.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WOULD HAVE TO SIFT THROUGH IF THAT'S SOMETHING THEY WANTED TO UNDERTAKE.
IF WE'RE GOING THAT WAY, I THINK WE'D HAVE TO RESTRUCTURE IT.
'CAUSE IT STANDS NOW WE HAVE PEOPLE COME IN AND IF THEY PLAN TO OFFER SPEAK, YOU KNOW, WE ASK THEM TO BE SWORN IN.
SO WE MIGHT HAVE TO HAVE TO READJUST THAT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T VERY WELL SWEAR THEM IN.
SO WE'RE NOT GONNA, AND, AND IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE, JUST FROM A LOGISTICAL, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM A LOGISTICAL STANDPOINT, WE CONTINUE THE PROCESS AS IS, BUT INCLUDE, MAKE SURE WE HAVE THEIR ADDRESS, MAKE SURE WE HAVE WHETHER OR NOT THEY RECEIVED A NOTICE.
AND THEN IF, IF THE BOARD HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE INDIVIDUAL SPEAKING DURING THAT HEARING HAS STANDING, THAT WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF THEM TO ESTABLISH THAT.
UM, AND THAT WAY WE'RE NOT EXCLUDING ANYONE INTO A, YOU KNOW, PUSHING THEM INTO A PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION WHEN THEY SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, PRESENTING EVIDENCE IS ABSOLUTELY OKAY.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN DO, CORRECT.
AND, UM, AN APPLICANT, IF THEY'VE HIRED REPRESENTATION, IF THEY HAVE AN ATTORNEY I'VE SEEN IN THE PAST, UH, THAT ATTORNEY MAY QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON SPEAKING AGAINST THE ITEM HAS STANDING.
UH, AND THAT'S FOR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATION.
YOU SAID A COUPLE OF COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS ALSO, UM, WITH THE SIGNUP SHEET AND THE ADDRESSES AND NAMES, IS IT POSSIBLE TO DEVELOP A MAP? UM, SO A LOT OF US DON'T KNOW THE COMMUNITIES VERY WELL, AND SO IF SOMEBODY GIVES A NAME AND ADDRESS, THEY MAY NOT KNOW HOW THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH A PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY IN THE APPLICATION.
SO WITH EACH ONE, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE FOLKS THAT CAN GET, UM, NOTIFICATION, UM, BEYOND A MAP TO WHERE WE COULD SEE THAT? OR IS THAT, UM, SOMETHING WITHIN, IS THAT PERMISSIBLE? UM, SO THERE'S A COUPLE DIFFERENT THINGS IN TERMS OF THAT SPECIFICALLY, BUT YES, I CAN ABSOLUTELY HAVE, UH, PROBABLY ONE OF THE FOLKS THAT WORK WITH THE GIS, THEY CAN PRODUCE A MAP THAT'LL SHOW THAT BUFFER AREA, SO TO SPEAK.
IT'S LIKE A, BASICALLY WHAT IT DOES IS IT DRAWS A RED CIRCLE, UM, SURROUNDING THE PARCEL AND THEN GIVES YOU THAT A HUNDRED FOOT, UH, DISTANCE TO SHOW YOU AND ENCOMPASS THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT WOULD BE IMPACTING OR RECEIVE A LETTER IN THAT SENSE.
I CAN ALSO INCLUDE PROBABLY A MAILING LIST THAT GETS GENERATED, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THAT PROCESS WORKS WITH THE CREIGHTON COUNTY GAS.
ONCE YOU DO IT, YOU CAN GENERATE A MAILING LIST THAT GETS EXPORTED, AND THEN IT GIVES YOU THE DIFFERENT FOLKS THAT GOT MAIL OR ESSENTIALLY ARE IN THAT A HUNDRED FOOT.
SO, AND, AND, AND I THINK THAT WOULD HELP OF, OF INDIVIDUAL US AS BOARD MEMBERS, YOU KNOW, DETERMINE THE STANDING PROCESS.
AND THEN THE, THE SECOND COMMENT WOULD BE, UM, FROM AN AGENDA STANDPOINT, IS IT POSSIBLE TO SPLIT THE MEETING PUBLIC COMMENT VERSUS PEOPLE WHO WERE NOTIFIED HAVE THEM? OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T WANT TO ADDRESS OR GET INTO? I THINK WE MAY BE, YOU KNOW, OVERREACTING TO THIS A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, DON'T FORGET THE PETITIONER WHO THE PROPERTY OWNER, UM, CONTRIBUTED TO THE PROBLEM BY GOING OUT TO SPEAK TO THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AT CAROLINA CARTER COUSIN AND TRIGGERED THIS ATTENDANT THE SAME HIMSELF.
THEY WOULDN'T HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT OTHERWISE.
AND MR. CHAIR, IN THE SPIRIT OF BEING HELD FLAT, I, I DON'T THINK PUBLIC REC, SO I'M NOT SURE THAT'S GONNA NECESSARILY HAPPEN AGAIN.
YOU KNOW, SO IT TURNED OUT TO BE, I THINK, A MISTAKE ON HIS PART THAT A LOT OF THE ACRIMONY STUFF CAME FROM PEOPLE WHO WE TOLD AT THE MEETING, AT THIS MEETING THAT HE DECIDED TO DO ON HIS OWN BECAUSE HE WAS, UH, AN OFFICER, THAT ORGANIZATION.
[00:20:01]
PARTICIPATION IS A PROBLEM NECESSARILY.I THINK FROM AN EVIDENTIARY STANDPOINT AND A LOGISTICAL STANDPOINT FOR YOU ALL, YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE EVIDENCE YOU'RE RECEIVING IS ACTUALLY ADMISSIBLE.
UM, AND IT MAY BE THAT IN YOUR RECITATION OR YOUR COMMENTS TO THE PUBLIC INSTRUC IN THE HEARING THAT YOU ALL ASK, YOU GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE APPLICATION, THEN YOU OFFER, UH, THE FLOOR TO NOTIFIED OPPONENTS.
SO PEOPLE WHO RECEIVED A LETTER IN THE MAIL, UM, THAT GIVES US A BASELINE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY MAY HAVE STANDING THEN NOTIFIED PROPONENTS, PEOPLE WHO ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT, AND THEN ANYBODY ELSE WHO MIGHT BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY HAVE STANDING.
SO WHETHER THEY RECEIVED A LETTER OR NOT, IF THEY'RE ABLE TO COME UP UP, IF THEY'RE JUST A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, AS MR. DUFFY ALLUDED TO THAT MAY BE ABLE TO OFFER SOME EVIDENCE TO YOU ALL ABOUT SOME SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE THAT GIVE THEM STANDING, THAT YOU CAN GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
IF THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY HAVE STANDING, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ENTERTAIN THEIR COMMENTS.
UM, BUT YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO SO BECAUSE YOU MAY FIND THAT THERE'S SOME VALUE IN ALLOWING THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK.
NOW WHEN YOU GET TO YOUR DELIBERATIONS, HOW YOU WEIGH THAT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT IF THAT'S HELPFUL.
AND, AND YEAH, AND I AGREE WITH, I AGREE WITH THE CHAIR THAT I THINK THAT STRUCTURING THE AGENDA THAT WAY SO THAT THE AUDIENCE IN PART, YOU KNOW, WHOSE ATTENDANCE KNOWS WHEN THEIR PARTICULAR TIME TO SPEAK, BECAUSE I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO HEAR THOSE NOTIFIED IN OPPOSITION, THOSE NOTIFIED IN SUPPORT, AND THEN OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC IN THAT ORDER.
I THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO, WE COULD CERTAINLY WORK ON THE DIALOGUE THAT THE CHAIRMAN OR, OR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WOULD HAVE WHEN CONDUCTING THE HEARING.
WE CAN CERTAINLY, UM, WORK ON SOMETHING TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.
UH, AND I CAN TOUCH KIND OF ON THE WHOLE, UH, CONCEPT OF A MAP OF ALL THOSE WHO SIGN UP THAT LOGISTICALLY AND AS FAR AS THE TIMELINE'S CONCERNED, THAT PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE A THING THAT COULD HAPPEN BECAUSE THE LIST IS CREATED AT THE MEETING AND WE DON'T HAVE GIS STAFF WHO CAN PRODUCE A MAP IMMEDIATELY FOR YOU.
UH, BUT THE MAILING LIST IS SOMETHING THAT IS GENERATED AS SOON AS WE RECEIVE THE COMPLETED APPLICATION AND WE START PROCESSING IT.
AND WE CAN CERTAINLY INCLUDE THAT, THAT IS COMPETENT EVIDENCE.
YEAH, I, I THINK THAT WOULD BE MOST HELPFUL.
AND I, I GUESS ON THE WEBSITE, THE DEFINITIONS OF STANDING, UM, DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE IS THAT SOMETHING THAT MAY BE INCLUDED TO WHERE A PARTICULAR, UH, APPLICANT OR A PERSON THAT MIGHT WANT TO SPEAK WOULD, WOULD THEN SEE, UM, WHAT WE STRUGGLE WITH.
UM, 'CAUSE IT, I, I'M, I'M, I THINK IN SOME CASES THERE MAY BE, UM, A DIFFERENCE OF THOUGHT PROCESS ABOUT WE AS THE BOARD THINK IS STANDING AND IS EVIDENCE AND OR WHAT, UM, A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL IS PUBLIC WOULD BE AND TO TRY TO FACILITATE.
WELL, MR. THE LAST SET THAT WAS SENT OUT, THAT, THAT WAS IN THE LETTER THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE LETTER THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WERE ONLY ALLOWED TO CONSIDER CERTAIN THINGS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, MR. CHAIR, IT WASN'T THE NEGLECTED ALL TOGETHER.
WAS THAT RIGHT MR. CHAIR? AS FAR AS THE STANDING AND THE DEFINITION BREAKDOWN FOR THAT, THERE'S NOT REALLY A SPECIFIC BREAKDOWN OR DEFINITION THAT I'M AWARE OF.
SO THAT KIND OF FALLS TO WHAT, UM, MS. JANIE WAS STATING HERE AS FAR AS FOR YOUR DISCRETION AND THE BOARD'S DISCRETION IN TERMS OF MAKING THAT DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT PERSON HAS STANDING.
WHAT MAY BE BENEFICIAL IN THAT SITUATION IS TO EXPLAIN THE RATIONALE BEHIND WHAT YOUR BELIEF IS TO THE INDIVIDUAL.
UM, SO THAT WAY MAYBE IT'S BETTER RECEIVED, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY SUGGESTION THAT I CAN REALLY GIVE FOR ALL PURPOSES ON THE PROXIMITY.
THE HUNDRED FOOT PROXIMITY, ISN'T THAT ONLY GERMANE TO US IN TERMS OF PROPERTY VALUES? NO, SIR.
SO QUESTION ON THE TIME CONSTRAINTS.
UM, MOST CERTAINLY WITH THE, UM, SPEAKERS WITH REGARD TO A GROUP SPEAKER, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO ADD A PROVISION TO ALLOW THEM MAYBE FIVE MINUTES IF THEY'RE GONNA SPEAK ON BEHALF OF A GROUP VERSUS ONLY THREE MINUTES IF AN INDIVIDUAL COMES TO SPEAK? YEAH.
AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING OF CONSIDERATION FOR ALL THOSE, AND I, I TOTALLY AGREE.
I THINK THAT'D BE A, YOU KNOW, A GREAT IDEA BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE CONDENSING A GROUP OF PEOPLE WITH ONE SPEAKER.
AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? CORRECT.
TECHNICALLY THEY DON'T HAVE TO LIMIT THEMSELVES TO ONE GROUP SPEAKER.
THEY CAN HAVE MULTIPLE SPEAKERS.
IF THEY FEEL THAT THEY CAN'T LIMIT TO ONE PERSON WITH THREE MINUTES, THEY CAN DESIGNATE A COUPLE PEOPLE.
AND, AND I HAVE, I HAVE SOME, I HAVE SOME HEARTBURN WITH THE, I MEAN, I THINK WE CAN ENCOURAGE, IF, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE ALL OPPOSED TO THIS, IF YOU COME UP WITH A GROUP SPEAKER, WE CAN ENCOURAGE IT.
BUT I HAVE HEARTBURN WITH ANY TYPE OF REQUIREMENT THERE, BECAUSE I THINK IF, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE 20 PEOPLE SITTING THERE WITH STANDING THAT WANNA TALK ABOUT IT, I THINK WE GOTTA GIVE THEM,
[00:25:01]
I MEAN, WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM THEIR OPPORTUNITY OR ELSE WE'RE DENYING THEM THAT OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.YOU DON'T HAVE TO DESIGNATE SOMEBODY A GROUP SPEAKER.
SO IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT'S ENCOURAGED.
I THINK IF WE, WE CAN STRONGLY ENCOURAGE IT, BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN MAKE A POLICY TO DO THAT.
SO, AND THAT'S NOT MY RECOMMENDATION, JUST YEAH.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, AND YEAH, I GUESS FROM A LENIENCY STANDPOINT OF LETTING THE CLOCK HERE GO A LITTLE BIT OVER WOULD BE WELL WITHIN THE, THE REALM OF WHAT WE CAN DO, UM, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S GONNA, WILL BE LOOKING AT A CLOCK OTHER THAN, UH, UM, UNFORTUNATELY I GUESS WHOEVER IS MYSELF HITTING, SITTING AT THE BOARD AND WHOEVER'S TO MY RIGHT, UH, WE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE IT.
UM, AND WE CAN KIND OF WORK IT OUT FROM THERE.
AND I THINK A, A COMMENT THAT I THINK JAMIE MADE, UM, IN THE DECISION, I KNOW SOME, SOME OF THE DISCUSSION BY EACH OF THE BOARD MEMBERS AS THEY, YOU KNOW, MAKE RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND OR ASK QUESTIONS TO BE ABLE TO EXPAND ON THE PROCESS ABOUT WHY OR WHAT, OR THEIR THOUGHT PROCESS WOULD DEFINITELY GO A LONG WAY TO, UM, I GUESS I, I'M, I'M NOT, I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE WORDS I WANT TO USE HERE, BUT WOULD REALLY HELP, UM, BOTH THE PUBLIC AND OTHER BOARD MEMBERS UNDERSTAND THE THOUGHT PROCESS, UM, TO DETERMINE STANDING AND OR EVIDENTIARY, UM, VERSUS NOT.
BUT, UM, AM AM I GOING DOWN THE RIGHT ROAD, JAMIE? I, I THINK SO.
I THINK HAVING THE, THE INTER INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS IN THE BEGINNING, TALKING ABOUT THE PROCESS AND LAYING OUT THE FORMAT FOR THE HEARING IS GONNA BE VERY HELPFUL BECAUSE IT SETS EVERYBODY'S EXPECTATIONS AT THE OUTSET.
AND THEN AS YOU GET INTO THE HEARING AND YOU ARE ASKING QUESTIONS, LET'S SAY OF, OF SOMEONE WHO DID NOT RECEIVE A LETTER FOR WHATEVER REASON, BUT MAY BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING IN THAT INQUIRY THAT YOU ALL ARE MAKING AS FACT FINDERS.
UM, ONCE YOU ARE SATISFIED THAT YOU HAVE SUFFICIENT FACTS IN ORDER TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT THAT PERSON'S STANDING, YOU CAN MAKE THOSE PRONOUNCEMENTS DURING THE HEARING, WHICH WILL ARTICULATE WHAT YOUR RATIONALE AND WHAT YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS IS IF YOU FIND YOURSELF IN SUCH A SCENARIO.
I JUST HAVE LIKE A QUESTION SO I CAN MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR.
IF A PERSON HAVE A PROFESSIONAL OPINION ABOUT ANY ITEM YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, MAYBE LIKE DRAINAGE OR ENDANGERED SPECIES AND THEY DON'T LIVE IN THAT AFFECTED AREA, BUT THEY MIGHT BE A CONCERNED CITIZEN OR MAYBE A COMMUNITY LEADER SOMEWHERE ELSE, WE ARE THERE.
THIS, YOU KNOW, WE STILL WEIGH ON WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THAT'S A, THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.
SO EXPERT TESTIMONY IS REQUIRED ON CERTAIN ELEMENTS THAT YOU ALL CONSIDER.
AND IF THE, YOU KNOW, NOTIFIED, LET'S JUST SAY OPPONENTS FOR EXAMPLE, HAVE RETAINED AN EXPERT TO OFFER EXPERT TESTIMONY, THEN I THINK YOU CERTAINLY COULD CONSIDER THAT TESTIMONY.
SO, SO LONG AS YOU'RE SATISFIED THAT THAT PERSON IS AN EXPERT IN A TOPIC THAT IS GERMANE TO THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT YOU ALL ARE RECEIVING.
IF SOMEBODY HAS A, A PHD IN SOMETHING THAT IS UNRELATED AND JUST WANTS TO TALK 'CAUSE THEY'RE A SUPER SMART PERSON, THEN YOU MAY, UM, ANALYZE THAT FACTUAL SCENARIO COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY.
IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.
I WAS JUST MAKING SURE THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO STAY, HAVE, BE LIVE IN A AFFECTED AREA IN ORDER TO HAVE A PROFESSIONAL OPINION.
AND THE SAME CAN BE SAID IF YOU'RE WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET.
JUST BECAUSE YOU LIVE WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET DOES NOT MEAN YOU'RE PROVIDING EXPERT TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE.
UH, THAT IS STILL SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD'VE TO DETERMINE THE A HUNDRED FEET JUST DETERMINES THEY HAVE STANDING.
AND, AND SO I GUESS GOING BACK ON THE, THE MAPPING QUESTION ALSO SINCE WE GOT BACK TO THE A HUNDRED FEET, UM, IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE OTHER ADDRESSES, UM, JUST, YOU KNOW, 10 OR 15 WITH THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE A HUNDRED FOOT? AGAIN, JUST SO A PERSON, IF SOMEBODY SPOUTS OFF AN ADDRESS, THEY KNOW THAT THEY LIVE WITHIN A SPECIFIC AREA VERSUS NOT SO MUCH.
UM, AND IF NOT, SO, AND I GUESS WHERE I'M GOING WITH IT IS WHEN IT COMES TO THE, THE STANDING PROCESS.
IF, IF A PERSON LIVES ON THE SAME ROAD WITH AN ADDRESS THAT'S FIVE MILES AWAY, JUST WHERE DO WE GO THERE? YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS.
YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF THE, THE SPEAKER.
UM, I UNDERSTAND YOU LIVE AT 1 2 3 MAPLE STREET.
DOES YOUR PROPERTY LINE TOUCH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AREA? THAT MIGHT BE ONE QUESTION THAT YOU ASK.
OKAY, THEN THEY'RE NOT ADJOINING OR A BUDDING ARE, IS YOUR PROPERTY WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY? IF THEY SAY NO, THEN THAT ALSO GIVES YOU SOME MORE EVIDENCE TO WEIGH AS TO WHETHER THEY HAVE STANDING EACH AND EVERY ONE.
IF THEY'RE TWO OR 300 FEET AWAY.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN REASONABLY SAY THAT, UH, IS CLOSE AND THEY COULD REASONABLY BE AFFECTED BY SOMETHING, LET'S SAY TRAFFIC.
LET'S SAY THEY'RE A PROFESSIONAL IN TRAFFIC AND THEY LIVE 200 FEET AWAY.
[00:30:01]
IT, IT'S REASONABLE WITH YOUR QUALIFICATIONS AS WELL AS LIVING REASONABLY CLOSE THAT YOU HAVE STANDING AND YOU ARE ALSO ABLE TO PROVIDE EXPERT TESTIMONY.JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT EXACTLY A HUNDRED FEET DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN, YOU HAVE TO LIMIT YOURSELF TO ONLY THOSE WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET.
BUT I THINK THE COMMONALITY BETWEEN WHAT ROBERT AND I ARE SAYING IS YOU ALL, AS THE FACT FINDERS CAN ASK QUESTIONS.
UM, SO IF, IF THE MAP IS INSUFFICIENT TO SATISFY YOU ABOUT WHETHER THE PERSON IS CLOSE ENOUGH TO HAVE STANDING, YOU CAN ASK THAT INDIVIDUAL ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THEIR PROPERTY IS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND, AND EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US HAS THAT OPPORTUNITY, YOU KNOW, IN THE DISCUSSION PROCESS.
YOU KNOW, IF, IF, IF ONE OF US MAY NOT EVEN MAKE A COMMENT BECAUSE WE MAY HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF WHERE THAT ADDRESS IS OR WHETHER THAT PERSON MAY OR MAY NOT BE A PROFESSIONAL, WELL SOMEBODY ELSE THAT DOESN'T, I MEAN, FEEL FREE DURING THE COMMENT PROCESS TO ASK.
'CAUSE WE'RE ALL IN IT TOGETHER AND WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT EXPERTISE THAT WE MAY NOT BE AWARE OF.
UM, AND IT'S, IT'S ALL A PROCESS TO WHERE WE CAN ALL COME UP WITH A, A GOOD DECISION.
IT IT'S GENERALLY PRETTY EASY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A STATEMENT CAN BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE OR FACTUAL TESTIMONY.
UH, AND IN MOST CASES, UM, THAT I'VE SEEN IN ALL THE DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS I'VE WORKED, THERE'S NOT REALLY AN ISSUE WITH DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY HAS STANDING.
UH, SO THIS MIGHT BE GETTING A LITTLE TOO FAR INTO THE WEEDS.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, ALL FOLKS ARE ALLOWED TO SPEAK, UH, EVEN WITH OR WITHOUT A TIME LIMIT.
AND IT'S STILL THE BOARD'S JOB TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A, THEY HAVE STANDING AND B, THIS IS FACTUAL OR EVIDENCE.
UM, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY BOARD MEMBERS BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE NEXT, UH, AGENDA ITEMS FOR KENDRICK TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HIS THOUGHTS? JUST A TECHNICAL POINT.
IF THERE WAS A STREET IN BETWEEN THAT, THAT, UM, THE CROSS SECTION OF THAT STREET DOES NOT COUNT.
SO THAT, SO THEORETICALLY YOU COULD BE FURTHER APART.
SO I GUESS IT WAS LIKE BOY STREET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE WOULD BE THEORETICALLY BY THE STATUTES ON STREET IF, IF LET'S SAY THE A HUNDRED FOOT WOULD DETERMINE ONE SIDE OF THE STREET VERSUS ANOTHER SIDE OF THE STREET, IT'S REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET MAY HAVE STANDING.
THEY JUST MAY NOT HAVE GOTTEN THE LETTER.
SO IF SOMETHING MAY, MAY HAVE HAPPENED OR SOMEBODY MOVED, ADDRESS CHANGED.
SO WE, WE ALL HAVE HICCUPS THAT WE NEED TO TRY TO WORK THROUGH, SO.
WELL I APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS.
I'M GONNA DO MY BEST TO TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THAT AND WE KIND OF, UM, BLED INTO A LITTLE BIT OF SAME, SIMILAR WITH SOME OF THE STAFF COMMENTS THAT I WAS GONNA MAKE.
JUST SOME RELEVANCE TO THE PROCEDURE AND UPDATES TO THE PROCESSES AND WHATNOT.
I WANNA TRY TO MAKE IT AS SMOOTH AS POSSIBLE TO PROCEED.
UM, AND JUST TO KIND OF TOUCH ON SOME OTHER LIKE, WELL I GUESS THE SAME, SIMILAR, BUT THE IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE TIME LIMIT, IT'S, THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE DISCRETIONARY AND GONNA BE ESSENTIALLY LEFT UP TO YOU.
UM, IT'S JUST TO TRY TO MAKE MORE FLUENCY THROUGHOUT THE ACTUAL MEETING IN ITSELF AND TRY TO CONTAIN ANY DISRUPTION OR DISORDER THAT WE KIND OF EXPERIENCED IN THE FIRST MEETING, UH, LEADING INTO THAT.
UM, THE REASON I AM KIND OF REITERATING THAT IS THE POINT THAT OUR NEXT UPCOMING MEETING, WHICH IS GOING TO BE FOR FEBRUARY 22ND, UM, THIS IS GOING TO HAVE A VERY SIMILAR ITEM IN ESSENCE.
AND THIS IS START OF THE STRIKE PROJECT.
UM, THEY'RE DOING THE SAME SIMILAR USE, IT'S MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE USE, SPECIFIC TO JUST THAT.
UM, AND BASICALLY IT'S GOING TO DRAW, UH, SOME CONTENTION AS WELL, MOST LIKELY.
SO IF WE CAN KIND OF AVOID THE SIMILAR SITUATION THAT WE JUST EXPERIENCED FROM THRIVE MORE, THAT WOULD BE THE GOAL.
AND THE OBJECTIVE IS TO TRY TO INCREASE THE FLUENCY AND MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN CONTAIN ANY DISRUPTION.
UM, THERE'LL BE SOME OTHER OR ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT ARE PUT IN PLACE.
I'M GONNA ALSO BE CONTACTING, YOU KNOW, OUR LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENT TO KIND OF STAND BY AND, UH, IN ESSENCE NECESSARILY FOR THAT MEETING JUST IN CASE.
SO THAT SHOULD KIND OF HELP US SOLVE SOME OF THAT.
BUT THE PROJECT COMING UP, AS I SAID AGAIN, IS MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTS, SAME, SIMILAR, RATHER MARCH MIXED.
I BELIEVE IT'S GONNA BE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TOWN, TOWN HOMES IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
SO YOU'LL SEE THAT, UH, FEBRUARY 22ND, THAT'S GONNA BE, UM, THE ONLY ITEM, UH, AT LEAST FOR THAT HEARING.
SO, BUT SOMETHING TO LOOK FORWARD TO.
UM, OUTSIDE OF THAT, WE TALKED ABOUT MOST OF WHAT I WAS GONNA DISCUSS AS FAR AS FROM, LIKE I SAID, THE PROCESS OF PROCEDURAL UPDATES.
AGAIN, I'M GONNA DO MY BEST TO TRY TO SEE IF THAT GETS, UH, IMPLEMENTED
[00:35:01]
AS SMOOTHLY AND QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.SO, BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO ADJOURNMENT, CHAIRMAN, YOU WELCOME TO DO SO.
FAIR ENOUGH THIS QUESTION? YES.
SO THE, THE DATES THAT YOU GAVE US FOR THE MEETINGS ARE CONFIRMED AND IN PLACE? ABSOLUTELY, YES.
BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS SOME BACK AND FORTH WITH SOME OF THE EMAILS, BUT I GOTCHA.
NO, THOSE DATES THAT YOU RECEIVED ARE CONFIRMED.
THE ONLY WAY THAT THOSE WILL TYPICALLY CHANGE IS IF FOR SOME REASON WE DO NOT HAVE A QUORUM, THEN I WILL REACH OF COURSE BACK OUT TO EVERYBODY AND SAY, HEY, WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM, SO THE MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELED AND YOU'LL RECEIVE A CANCELLATION NOTICE AND BASICALLY IT GETS BROADCASTED TO EVERYONE TO MAKE SURE THAT NOBODY'S LEFT OUT.
UM, SO, BUT YES, THOSE DATES ARE CONFIRMED.
AND, AND JUST SO THE, THE RECORD IS CLEAR, I THINK STAFF HAS CLEAR DIRECTION.
IS THERE A CONSENSUS FROM EVERYBODY TO IMPOSE A TIME LIMIT FOR SPEAKERS FOR UPCOMING HEARINGS? I'M SEEING SOME HEADS SHAKE.
DO WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT? AS LONG AS, AS LONG AS EVERYBODY'S IN AGREEMENT AND EVERYBODY'S CLEAR.
IS I, I HEARD A COUPLE OF NUMBERS TOSSED OUT.
IS IT THE DIRECTION YOU'RE GIVING STAFF TO DEVELOP A POLICY TO LIMIT INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS TO A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES? YES.
THEY WAS A GROUP, IT WAS A PERSON TALKING FOR A GROUP.
JUST IN FIRST JUST ABOUT INDIVIDUAL INDIVIDUALS.
IS THAT, IS THAT THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? YES.
AND MS. SAMPSON WAS GETTING TO GROUPS.
IF, IF A GROUP WANTS TO ELECT ONE OR MORE SPOKESPERSONS, THAT TIME LIMIT SHOULD BE FIVE MINUTES, FIVE MINUTES, FIVE MINUTES PER SPOKESPERSON? YES.
IF THE GROUP HAS MORE THAN ONE, I THINK YOU HAVE TO GIVE EACH OF THOSE PERSONS IN THAT GROUP THE FIVE MINUTES.
JUST TO INTERJECT, I GUESS, UH, WE HAD HAD A SIMILAR OCCURRENCE ACTUALLY WITH THE PREVIOUS ITEM.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL REMEMBER, BUT THEY HAD THE ENGINEER, THEY HAD THE TRAFFIC PERSON.
UM, THEY ALSO HAD A, I BELIEVE A SURVEYOR TO SOME DEGREE OR AN APPRAISER AT LEAST.
AND THEN HE ALSO HAD THE ACTUAL APPLICANT HIMSELF WHO WAS, YOU KNOW, HE WAS ESSENTIALLY INVOLVED TO THAT DEGREE AS WELL.
MOST OF THOSE GENTLEMEN, THOSE YOUNG LADIES WERE EXPERTS IN THAT EFFECT OR A GROUP SPOKESPERSON.
SO EACH SPOKESPERSON COULD IDEALLY RETAIN FIVE MINUTES.
AND JUST TO CONSIDER, WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT A, A GROUP COULD BE DEFINED WITH MAXIMUM THREE SPOKESPEOPLE AND BEYOND THAT WE CONVERT BACK TO JUST INDIVIDUAL TIMELINES AT THAT POINT? THAT'S KIND OF, IF WE'RE AT FOUR, THEN WE WOULD BE THREE MINUTES PER PERSON, BUT FIVE MINUTES PER PERSON UP TO THREE PEOPLE FOR GROUP SPOKESPERSON.
I THINK THAT WOULD WORK BETTER.
DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND? YEAH.
IS EVERYBODY IN AGREEMENT? YES.
SO YOU'RE SAYING IF THERE'S A SPOKESPERSON APPOINTED FOR A GROUP APPOINTED FOR A GROUP MM-HMM.
I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE THE MOST THEN THAT WOULD BE MAXIMUM FIVE MINUTES PER PERSON.
SO IN THAT, I'M JUST WANNA, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE APPLY THAT TO THRIVE MORES SITUATION, THEY COULD ONLY HAVE THE APPLICANT AND TWO OTHER EXPERTS.
IS THAT THE EFFECT OF THE RULE? AND THEN IF IT ESSENTIALLY IF THEY WERE TRYING TO ADD ANY MORE, THEY WOULD JUST REVERT BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL, TO INDIVIDUAL THREE EACH BECAUSE WHAT YOU MIGHT GET, AND SO IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN TWO EXPERTS, APPLICANT AND TWO EXPERTS, YOU END UP GETTING THREE PER MINUTE PER RIGHT.
'CAUSE WHAT YOU MIGHT GET IS YOU'LL HAVE SEVEN EXPERTS AND THEY ALL WANT BE DEFINED AS THE SPOKESPERSON AND YOU HAVE 7 35 MINUTES, THAT'S 35 MINUTES.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? AND IT BECOMES EXPLOITABLE.
THAT'S A GOOD, THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THAT POINT.
I JUST, I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT IF THE BOARD HAS QUESTIONS FOR A PARTICULAR EXPERT ON THE APPLICANT'S SIDE, THAT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY PUBLIC COMMENT.
IF THE BOARD WANTS TO ASK THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER TO COME UP AND MAKE A COMMENT ON SOMETHING YOU MAY NEED CLARIFICATION ON, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD PLACE A TIME LIMIT ON.
YEAH, I, MY ONLY, YEAH, MY ONLY CONCERN, AND I GUESS, I MEAN TO KENDRICK'S POINT, IT, IT CONVERTS BACK IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN THREE.
UH, SO THIS CONCERN IS ADDRESSED, BUT IF YOU HAVE TO HAVE MORE THAN TWO EXPERTS TO MEET THE, YOU KNOW, ALL THE ELEMENTS OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, YOU KNOW, YOU WANNA MAKE SURE THEY HAVE ALL THE TIME, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ALL THEIR EVIDENCE, BUT IF IT REVERTS BACK TO INDIVIDUAL, THEN I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
AND THAT'S THE, AND THAT'S THE, THE DIRECTION YOU'RE GIVING STAFF TO BRING THAT POLICY BACK FOR IMPLEMENTATION AT SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS? YES.
I BELIEVE, JUST TO ADD INTO THAT, THE OTHER POINT, UM, THAT SHOULD PROBABLY BE A DISCUSSION BETWEEN YOU ALL, BUT HOW MANY TIMES FOLKS ARE ABLE TO MOVE BACK AND FORTH TO MIKE, WHICH I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALWAYS A REBUTTAL IN MOST CASES, BUT THERE HAS TO BE A LIMITATION.
THE APPLICANT IS GONNA BE FIRST AND LAST, AND THEN MR.
[00:40:01]
BACK, YOU KNOW, UP AND DOWN OF THE SAME INDIVIDUALS.THAT'S AN INCREASE POINT OF TIME BASICALLY, THAT THEY'RE OCCUPYING AT THE PODIUM.
UH, YEAH, SOME INDIVIDUALS WERE COMING BACK AND FORTH ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE TIMES.
YEAH, NO, I THINK IT, I THINK IT STAYS UNLESS, I MEAN, IF IT GOES TO A SITUATION WHERE THEY'RE INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS AS EXPERTS, THEN THEY'RE CAPPED AT THREE MINUTES.
AND THEN IF YOU HAVE A SITUATION, YOU KNOW, ONCE THEY'RE DONE, THEY SIT DOWN, UM, OPPOSITION CAN GO UP, THEY SIT DOWN, APPLICANT REBUTS.
I DON'T THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE ANY BACK AND FORTH.
THAT'S WHERE, UM, AND THAT WOULD BE, I THINK SHOULD BE ARTICULATED IN POLICY.
MY ONLY THOUGHT FOR ANYONE WHO HAS TO, ANYONE WHO HAS TO COME UP AND BACK AND FORTH SHOULD BE IF, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY WHO'S LODGING AN OBJECTION.
THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY, OR I'D PROBABLY SAY YOU AS THE BOARD.
OR IF WE WANTED THEM TO COME BACK AND TALK.
BUT YOU NEED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING THAT'S ABSOLUTELY, I, I WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WHAT WE HAD LAST TIME, YOU DON'T HAVE FOLKS IN OPPOSITION CONTINUE TO COME BACK UP AND REBUTTAL AND YOU GET THIS BACK AND FORTH NOW.
SO HOWEVER YOU WANNA ARTICULATE IN THE POLICY, I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GOOD IDEA.
I HAVE BASICALLY WRITTEN IT OUT AS THEY HAVE ONE OPPORTUNITY TO COME UP AND VOICE THEIR EXPLANATION PERTAINING TO THE ITEM THAT SHOULD OF COURSE BE IN LINE WITH THAT ITEM AS FAR AS IF THEY, IF YOU DETERMINE THEY HAVE STANDING TO ACTUALLY DISCUSS THAT ITEM.
IF THEY DON'T, THEN THEY CAN BE ASKED TO HAVE A SEAT AND THE NEXT PERSON BE BROUGHT UP TO BEGIN THEIR EXPLANATION.
AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE SOME NOTES, UM, PRETTY SPECIFIC TO TRY TO HELP FACILITATE THIS ALSO, BECAUSE IF WE DO LIMIT TIME, UM, THE, THE TIME TO GET TO THE BOTTOM WE'LL SAY, WILL BE THROUGH CONVERSATION BY THE BOARD MEMBERS BACK TO SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS IF WE NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
AND SO HAVING GOOD NOTES PUT TOGETHER TO WE CAN, YOU KNOW, ASK GOOD QUESTIONS OF THOSE PEOPLE, THAT'LL HELP MAKE THE PROCESS MOVE ON A LOT FASTER.
SO, AND THAT'S, THAT'S IT FOR ME.
I APPRECIATE THE, UM, THE EXPLANATION.
SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I MAKE A MOTION WE ADJOURN.