HomeMy Public PortalAbout6.6.2006 Planning Board Agenda and MinutesTown
ITEM #1
ITEM #2:
ITEM #3:
AGENDA
PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
7:00 PM, Town Barn
Call to order and confirmation of a quorum.
Adoption of minutes from April public hearing and May meeting
Additions to the agenda & agenda adjustment.
ITEM #4: Committee reports and updates
• Board of Adjustment
• Parks and Recreation Board
0 Strategic Growth Plan
• Churton Street Task Force
• US 70 Corridor
ITEM #5: Review and discussion of possible text amendments relating to noise.
Action requested: Discussion
ITEM #6: Review and discussion of possible text amendments to change the site plan review
process.
Action requested: Discussion
ITEM #7: Adjourn
Please call the Planning Department if you cannot attend.
732-1270 extension 73 (this line is connected to voice mail)
101 East Orange Street • P.O. Box 429 • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
919-732-1270 • Fax 919-644-2390
Minutes
PLANNING BOARD
June 6, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Boericke, Eric Oliver, Edna Ellis, Toby Vandemark, Matthew Farrelly,
Barrie Wallace, Paul Newton, Dave Remington.
STAFF: Margaret Hauth
ITEM #1: Call to Order and Confirmation of a Quorum.
Mr. Farrelly called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and confirmed the quorum.
ITEM #2: Adoption of Minutes.
MOTION: Mr. Newton made a motion that the minutes of the May meeting be adopted.
SECOND: Mr. Vandemark.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
ITEM #3: Additions to the Agenda and Agenda Adjustment.
Mr. Farrelly noted the some members had expressed interest in continuing the
discussion regarding the Old 86 Commons from last night's Joint Planning meeting. He
said we might focus on what we want the applicant to do before they come back, or did
we want to talk about the issue as a whole. Mr. Newton suggested creating a list of
items for the developer to come back with responses to at our next meeting, unless there
was a desire to enter into another discussion now. Mr. Newton suggested adding onto
the list Ms Wallace had already started. Mr. Oliver questioned whether we should be
discussing this now since the public hearing was still opened, and we had not provided
them with a list last night. Ms. Hauth said procedurally the item could be discussed
only from the standpoint of creating of list of information you would like to see. She
said she would hesitate to get into the full discussion because the public hearing was
still open. Ms. Ellis stated that a number of problems were highlighted last night that
need to be corrected, such as the discrepancy between what was recorded at the Court
House and what was presented to the Board regarding the recombining of the lots. She
said the public needed to be present when those issues were brought forth. Mr. Farrelly
agreed with Ms. Hauth, stating that the applicant had asked for direction and we needed
to provide that explicitly. Mr. Boericke asked what liability the Town assumed for
annexing that floodplain, if in fact a serious flood occurred. Ms. Hauth said the Town
did not own the property and had no liability for any development on it. She said it
would be more productive for the applicant to respond to our questions and provided
additional information at our next meeting rather than the Board discussing
MOTION: Mr. Newton moved to add Item #6b to the agenda, to prepare a list of issues to be
provided to the Old 86 Commons applicant for a response at the Planning Board's and
Town Board's next public meeting.
SECOND: Mr. Oliver.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
Mr. Farrelly said Mr. Hornik had indicated that we should not limit the applicant's
speaking time, and wondered if we wanted to be more systematic in public hearings to
limit the public's speaking time, perhaps to 5 minutes. He said it was possible we could
allow one person to give their time over to another who might have a longer
06/06/2006 Planning Board Minutes
1
presentation, but there was a lot of redundancy in what people said. Mr. Farrelly asked
if we should ask people to keep their comments to 5 minutes, and requested that we add
an agenda item to talk about those kinds of protocol issues for public hearings.
MOTION: Mr. Boericke moved to add Item #6c to the agenda, to discuss public hearing protocol
issues.
SECOND: Mr. Remington.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
ITEM #4: Committee Reports and Updates.
Board of Adjustment
Ms. Wallace noted that the Board of Adjustment had not met, so there was no report.
Parks and Recreation Board
Mr. Jones said they had discussed the Fairview Master Plan project, with phase II
scheduled to begin in the fall of 2007. He said the aspects of that phase would be based
on available funds. Mr. Jones said the Walkable Hillsborough event was held this past
weekend. He noted there was a proposal for a Park sand Recreation budget that was
around $1.6 million for the coming year, designated primarily for Gold Park. Mr. Jones
said the Town was the recipient of a $500,000 grant. Ms. Hauth said that was the
maximum amount a town could receive from the State's Parks and Recreation Trust
Fund, and we had gotten the maximum. Mr. Farrelly congratulated Ms. Hauth, since
she was the one who had prepared and submitted the application. Mr. Jones said that
Fairview Live in the Park Day on June 24. He said the Town Board had asked the
Parks and Recreation Board to take on the Fit America project, which was a Statewide
program designed to recognize and reward cities who promoted healthy lifestyles. He
said the Town would be able to apply for grants over a two-year period in the amount of
$30,000 annually. Mr. Farrelly said if the Parks and Recreation Board wanted someone
to review what was prepared, he would volunteer to do that since it was similar to what
he did for a living. Mr. Jones said the last issue was a recommendation to the Town
Board for the Town Code to address park hours of operation, and they would proceed
with some type of interim signage.
Strategic Growth Plan
Mr. Newton stated they had met last month and had reviewed the three planning
scenarios that they had previously established, one being a what would a planning map
of Hillsborough look like, another being if we did not change anything what would that
map look like, and the third being what was reality. He said as a group exercise we
brought Lego bricks and a map of Hillsborough in and we placed those blocks where
we would like to see residential and commercial development. Mr. Newton said the
consultant would come to a later meeting with a fourth scenario for our review. He said
it was an interesting exercise, in that the members of providing active input. Mr.
Newton said the group leaned towards having more commercial development than
residential, which was not a surprise.
Churton Street Task Force
Mr. Remington said there had been two public presentations, one Last Friday that
generated a lot of interest and input and a second during the Walkable Hillsborough on
Saturday, which had also generated a lot of input. He said the feedback had been
06/06/2006 Planning Board Minutes
i
largely positive with some focused suggestions. He said it appeared to be something
that people wanted to see implemented, noting that most of the questions were directed
on how quickly it could be implemented. Mr. Remington said the Task Force had met
to discuss the next stages, noting there would be more presentations to business groups
and others, including the Town Board. He said the Task Force would meet again to
review all of the information as well as the drafts of the overall plan and the design
guidelines, as well as the implementation plan. Mr. Remington said still to be decided
was how the implementation phase would be overseen, and who would be the site plan
reviewers and how that would be translated into other parts of Town. He said they
wanted it to be a rigorous but understandable process.
Mr. Remington noted that the roundabout on Highways 86 and 57 had been added to the
drawings. Mr. Farrelly asked if they would have an information booth at the
Hillsborough Hog Day. Ms. Hauth said there would be one for the Strategic Growth
Plan but not for Churton Street. Mr. Remington said he believed those two efforts
would have to inform each other.
US 70 Corridor
Ms. Hauth said the Town Board and the EDC were focusing on redevelopment in the
US 70 Corridor, and for the first phase they wanted to focus from Kerr Drugs to
Lakeshore Drive. She said they had held a neighborhood meeting to introduce people
to the concept and had a large turnout. She said three residents and three business
owners within the corridor had expressed interest in participating, and had volunteered.
She said they would like to have a Planning Board member from each jurisdiction, a
Town and County Board member, and an EDC member for a maximum of 11 people to
meet for six to nine months to look at redevelopment potentials and some basic design
guidelines, land uses, access management, and other issues. She said that the EDC was
the lead on this, and they had indicated that the first meeting would be in June. She
asked if any of the Planning Board members were interested in volunteering. Ms.
Vandemark said if the meetings were on Monday nights she could do it, and possible
some other night as well. Ms. Wallace said if Ms. Vandemark could not serve, she
would volunteer.
Item #5: Review and Discussion of Possible Text Amendments Relating to Noise
Ms. Hauth said this issue had first been brought forward in August of 2005 regarding
commercial impacting residential, and had asked the Attorney to look at zoning
ordinance provisions and identify weaknesses. She said provided with the materials for
tonight's meeting she had taken the Zoning Ordinance, Section 5.16 that dealt with
noise and suggested the changes that might need to be made, and had also provided
descriptions of decibel levels of common noises. Ms. Hauth said many of the suggested
changes were aimed at eliminating some of the grandfathering that had occurred in the
past and increasing our flexibility for enforcement.
Ms. Hauth noted that in the Town Code there was a list of noises that were exempted,
and she could provide the appropriate sections if the Board wanted to see those. She
said the Town Code also contained a list of noises that were specifically prohibited, as
well as other language regarding enforcement. Mr. Farrelly said there was some vague
language in the Town Code, noting it said things like "permitted during daytime hours"
06/06/2006 Planning Board Minutes
3
but the definition of that might vary. He said the consequences for offenders and repeat
offenders were "ridiculous," noting the fine remained the same regardless of the number
of times someone violated the ordinance. Ms. Hauth said she would provide the Town
Code section to the Board and note suggested changed
Mr. Newton said anything that would allow the Police to react and enforce the
ordinance was needed, noting the lack of clarity and the confusion within the
regulations was an issue for police officers. He noted that if Wal-Mart was cited for
cleaning their parking lot at 2 a.m., the penalty needed to be much more severe. Mr.
Newton said there might need to be an accompanying information campaign once
changes were adopted, and suggested a press release that stated something like "as of
today Hillsborough will be a quiet town." Ms. Hauth said the Town required that
businesses contract with a dumpster service, so we would have to make sure they knew
they could not service dumpsters at particular times. She said the same would be true
for the County, because they serviced their own property. Mr. Farrelly said he was
curious to know what other towns did regarding these types of situations.
Mr. Oliver said he was concerned about existing businesses that were noisemakers and
had, for example, been at their location for thirty years. Then we change the zoning to
allow a subdivision to be built next door and then someone wanted to apply the noise
limitations to that business. Mr. Oliver said he was concerned that we would be taking
away that permitted use. In order words, he asked if we would be using the Noise
Ordinance to push certain commercial ventures out of Hillsborough. Ms. Hauth said it
might be possible. She said one reason this issue was on the agenda was because of an
existing business appearing to have expanded its hours and causing difficulty for
residents, and because that business had been there for so long we do not know what
their noise level was and can't determine if they were exceeding their grandfather
status.
Mr. Farrelly asked where the complaints were captured. He said he knew the Police
received some. Ms. Hauth said she received a lot as well, noting that the mine and
Hampton Point generated the majority of complaints. She suggested the Board might
want to have a member of the Police Department attend a meeting and respond to some
of the complaint issues. Mr. Newton said part of the reason for placing this on the
agenda was to get the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code in sync, to allow the Police
Department to respond to and enforce the regulations. Ms. Hauth agreed, noting that
zoning enforcement was not the solution for construction noise. Mr. Oliver suggested
perhaps involving the owners of the mine in rewriting the ordinance or have them
participate in some other way. Ms. Hauth said she could approach them about that idea.
Mr. Farrelly asked if the mine had any type of noise mitigation. Ms Hauth said she did
not know, but noted that much of the noise problem resulted from trucks backing up
across the property. She said much of their noise could not be mitigated other than
hours of operation. Mr. Farrelly asked if barriers to project the sound would be a
solution. Ms. Hauth said it would regard huge, high walls, so that was not feasible. Mr.
Farrelly wondered what if anything had been explored, noting that there were noise -
canceling devices.
06/06/2006 Planning Board Minutes
V
Ms. Hauth said what she had gathered from those who had complained was that they
would be satisfied with a day -and -a -half of peace and quiet each week. In order words,
she said, that if they would limit their hours on Saturday and not work on Sunday they
would be satisfied. Mr. Oliver asked if the mine itself was in Hillsborough. Ms. Hauth
responded the buildings were, but where the actual excavation was taking place was
not. She said that all of it was in the Planning Jurisdiction, and therefore under the
jurisdiction of our Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Farrelly asked Ms. Hauth for a recommendation. Ms. Hauth said she was hearing
that for next time the Board wanted to see the Town Code language with suggested
changes, and make a specific invitation to Piedmont to participate, and also make a
specific invitation to the Police Department to send a representative that might help us
understand exactly what language would help them regarding enforcement. She said
staff could also investigate hours of operation, and what other jurisdictions that had
franchise agreements did about dumpsters. Mr. Farrelly said he would be curious what
Chapel Hill and other jurisdictions did about penalties associated with violations.
Mr. Oliver asked if we used progressive penalties for false alarms. Ms. Hauth said she
believed so, noting we used progressive penalties for stealing water and a few other
things.
ITEM #6a: Review and Discussion of Possible Text Amendments to Change the Site Plan
Review Process
Ms. Hauth said there had been some interest by the Town Board in adjusting the entire
site plan review process, and to avoid the supermajority rule and to allow some appeals
to go directly to the Town Board. She said the simplest way to accomplish that was to
rename the Board of Adjustment and let them continue to function in that way, but
when reviewing a site plan they would function in a particular way. Ms. Hauth said she
had provided with the materials suggested language to revise the ordinance. She said
Mr. Homik had suggested creating a Board of Adjustment and a Site Plan Review
Board, but somewhere in the language to say they were essentially the same board. She
said his language was easier to understand that what she had provided. Ms. Hauth
suggested that this be discussed in general terms.
The members expressed concern about taking on this change when a comprehensive
ordinance re -write is planned in the near future. Ms Hauth noted that it was also related
to other larger topics such as tying design review into the process and integrating other
recommendations that would likely come from the Strategic Growth Plan. Members
also expressed concern about the details of the text amendment and how voting and
alternate members would be address. Members discussed the desire to meet regularly
with the Town Board to improve communication and coordination between the two
boards, particularly on annexation issues. The members also discussed and generally
supported adjusting the meeting schedule so that public hearings were separated from
the decision to allow more time for minutes to be reviewed, research, and deliberation.
The board also noted that important amendments to the ordinance could proceed or be
partially developed in advance of the comprehensive rewrite.
ITEM #6b: List of Issues for Developer of 86 Commons to Address
06/06/2006 Planning Board Minutes
S
Mr. Farrelly said we would begin Ms. Wallace's list provided via email. He said their
goal with this discussion was to produce a list of issues for the applicant for Old 86
Commons to address at the next public hearing. Ms. Hauth said the Board should keep
the discussion very much on what information the applicant could provide that would
help the Board make its decision.
Ms. Hauth said Ms. Wallace's first issue was "Provide a drawing that shows only and
all the environmental regulations that apply to this property." Ms. Hauth said she
interpreted that to mean to show the Board a map of the site that detailed floodplain,
stream buffers, and calculate for us what buildable area remained after all those
restrictions. She said that was a hard and fast piece of evidence that the applicant could
provide to help inform the Board.
Ms. Hauth read the second comment: "Provide a drawing/plan showing what the
applicant could build that would conform to Orange County's zoning, with municipal
water and sewer." She said that same question had come to her from the Town Board,
so she was going to get the County ordinance that applied to that property and review
the site plan under it and then talk about where the current site plan did not meet the
current ordinances that applied to the property, in more detail that what had been
received with the County's comments.
Ms. Hauth said the third comment was, "Provide a drawing showing what the applicant
could build that would conform to Hillsborough's zoning." Ms. Hauth said the only
two things that the applicant had not met were the lot size and the front setback on the
one lower property. She said that would be a minor change, to either change the square
footage of that building or push it back on the lot. She said she did not know if that was
worth a drawing.
Mr. Farrelly asked if Ms. Ellis' issue of combining or not combining the lots was
relevant or just a clerical error. Ms. Hauth suggested referring this to the Town
Attorney, since this Board could not resolve the issue. She said it was a legal issue and
we did not know if it would affect the project, but it did need to be resolved.
Ms. Hauth read the next issue: "Could the applicant provide these drawings/plans two
weeks before our next meeting so that we would have time to review?" Ms. Hauth said
we certainly could ask for the information two weeks in advance. The next issue was
"Would the applicant consider placing the parking between, instead of behind, the two
buildings that are on the north side of the property to allow for visibility into the parking
lot from the road." Ms. Hauth said we could ask the applicant to do that, but suggested
that she look into some of the standards of the "Safety through Design" and see what
those standards recommended as far as parking lot location related to building location
and bring back to the Board something that was more objective rather than the
applicant's willingness or unwillingness to redesign the site. She said now we had our
standards that wanted buildings in the front, but if these other guidelines for safety
recommended otherwise, then the beauty of the special use permit and master plan was
that the Board could waiver that.
06/06/2006 Planning Board Minutes
Mr. Farrelly asked if there were other items that would provide information for the
Board to make its decision. Mr. Remington asked if there was any data or studies
available that dealt with questions of public safety related to where parking lots are
placed and the effectiveness in terms of crime control with different types of barriers
between properties, whether vegetative, wood fences, brick walls, or others. He said
there were many allegations from both sides regarding barriers, and since this was a
quasi-judicial process it would be helpful to have any available facts that were known
about that.
Mr. Oliver said he was looking for the applicant to highlight in their design "Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design," know as CPTED. He said those standards
had been available for ten or more years, and he wanted the applicant to identify
through their design those characteristics. He said he believed that would provide some
surprises about what was considered to assist with crime prevention.
Ms. Wallace said regarding the floodplain, did we need to have an expert come in and
explain the effect that would have on the people living in or on the edge of that
floodplain, or were we going to rely on our common sense. Ms. Hauth said she
believed we should evidence in the records in case the Board wanted to take action on
that. She said she would ask our consulting engineers who conducted stormwater
review to comment on it. She said they had reviewed the plans so it would be
reasonable for them to either provide written comment or attend a meeting to testify so
that the Board would have technical evidence to review.
Mr. Newton said he would like the Police Department to look at the plan, look at their
current patrol routes, and then give an honest assessment of how easy or difficult it
would be to effectively patrol that area. He said assuming that parcel was developed
before Waterstone, that would be an out -of -the way spot, but he did not want to make
assumptions. Mr. Newton said he would prefer that the Police Department address that.
Mr. Oliver and Mr. Farrelly asked if the drainageway might actually be a stream and
subject to buffers. Ms. Hauth said she did not know, but we would ask the applicant if
they had met with the County's Water and Soil Erosion Control Officer and had stream
determinations done on all of these features so that we knew for certain that the plan
they were bringing in did or did not comply with the Neuse rules, and that they had had
all of these issues looked at and determined whether it was a stream under State
regulations. Mr. Farrelly said he had visited that area and found crawfish in the area
they called a drainageway. He said to him it appeared to be a small stream that
contributed to Cates Creek, and drainageway made it sound like a ditch that was dry
much of the time.
Mr. Boericke said it appeared that there were issues with water pressure as well as the
sewer system and pumping. He wondered if the Town Engineer could comment on
that, and what it might mean for the Waterstone development and other nearby
residences. Ms. Hauth said the Town Engineer had the plans but did not know if he had
reviewed them.
06/06/2006 Planning Board Minutes
Ms. Wallace asked if we could designate what source the applicant used to document
the environmental constraints on the property. Ms. Hauth stated there were FEMA
maps of floodplains that the applicant should be using that were readily available.
Mr. Jones said last night Margo Pinkerton made a comment about level spreaders, and
asked if they were required. Ms. Hauth replied yes. She said there was two types of
stormwater, stormwater and erosion control that happened during construction and then
there was the long-term after -the -fact stormwater. Ms. Hauth said the devices that you
used for each was different, and there were rules regulating each one. And, she said,
you had to have a plan for each one on most every site. Ms. Hauth said what would
prevent silt from entering a stream during construction was different than the
mechanism that would hold back stormwater and detain it on the site. She said that a
level spreader was not an erosion control device, but a stormwater control device. Ms.
Hauth said the level spreader Ms. Pinkerton had mentioned was not going to assist with
erosion control and it was not meant to do that. She added the applicant had not
submitted erosion control plans as yet, but he would have to and the County would
review them.
Mr. Farrelly said one thing that had come up was a reference to the history of what had
been discussed through the EDD, and any possible inconsistency between what was
being proposed and what the intent of that was. He asked how the Board could become
educated about that. Ms. Hauth said she would review the plans as if it was in the
County's EDD, because that would address those issues. Mr. Farrelly said he had heard
that there was a precedent that when the property was annexed it could carry over
whatever the County guideline was. Ms. Hauth said if they had an approved plan under
the County's jurisdiction then we could find a way to work it into our ordinance if we
annexed it. She said since we were calling a hearing to annex it into the Town's district
that would make it harder. She said if you annexed something and did not rezone it at
the same time, and 60 days past then the County zoning would stick. She said the Town
did not usually let that happen, most often because the reason someone was requesting
annexation was because they did not want their current zoning.
Mr. Boericke said he believed part of the problem with flooding today involved the
culverts under Old 86 not being sufficient to handle the runoff. Mr. Boericke said his
question was at the point that the road was widened, was there a possibility of
increasing the culvert's size to reduce the difficulties currently being experienced. Ms.
Hauth said when NCDOT began that project they would have to perform a hydrology
study and properly sized those culverts, if and when that widening project was done.
Mr. Boericke said regarding the current developer, if anything that he put there
aggravated the current flooding conditions would fixing the culverts be a reasonable
thing to ask. Ms. Hauth replied we should first identify if what was being proposed
impacted the flood level, and we could ask the Engineer to comment on that and
possible mitigation. Ms. Hauth said our ordinance allowed development in the
floodplain and that was a FEMA -endorsed ordinance, and to her that implied that if we
were allowing that fill to occur in the flood fringe then there was no negative impact
associated with it.
06/06/2006 Planning Board Minutes
19
Ms. Wallace asked if someone from Orange County could explain why they don't allow
building in the floodplain. Ms. Hauth said we would ask. Ms. Ellis said if you built in
the floodplain then you had to have flood insurance. Mr. Oliver said the expansion of
the Orange County Court House was in the floodplain. Ms. Hauth said she did not
believe it was, noting it did not quite reach the parking lot. Ms. Ellis suggested we be
cautious regarding the lift pumps required on the sewer lines. She asked that the
Engineer address that, as well as the entranceway. Ms. Hauth said she could ask the
Engineer to provide information on that.
ITEM #6c: How to Manage the Public Hearings in Terms of Time Allotted to Individual
Members of the Public to Speak; Restrict Time; How to Manage Deferred Time;
How to Manage the Board's Questions During a Public Hearing
Mr. Farrelly said this issue related to whether to set a time limit, such as five minutes,
on members of the public to speak and whether people could transfer their time to
another person. He also asked for direction about managing board comments and
questions during the hearing. He noted Town Board members expressed concern about
the number of questions being asked and delaying the public.
Mr. Remington said the board could police itself on comments and questions and decide
whether to impose time limits based on the number of speakers. He said that lengthy
comments were rare in his experience and was concerned about establishing policies for
extreme cases. Mr. Farrelly said his experience indicated long speakers were more
common. Mr. Farrelly noted that with no policy and 20 to 30 signed -up speakers, a
meeting could run quite long.
Mr. Newton agreed, suggesting a policy be established and announced at the beginning
of each meeting and the Chair charges with enforcement and allowed flexibility. Mr.
Newton added that encouraging people to not repeat comments would also be helpful.
Ms. Wallace said it was important to know how many people shared an opinion. Mr.
Boericke agreed with stating the policy at the beginning. He also suggested that
speakers could be allotted additional time after all the speakers had finished. Mr.
Farrelly said often it was obvious that one person was representing a group of people,
and sometimes it was beneficial to let that representative have flexible time, and then
allow the group to say they agreed.
Mr. Jones agreed that it should be announced at the beginning of a meeting that the
public had a time limit, but also felt that sometimes five minutes may not be enough to
cover all the issues. He noted that public comments often bring a new item to light of
generate new thoughts.
Mr. Oliver said he believed it was important that everyone who signed up had an
opportunity to speak. He said the second point was how to limit members of the Board
who asked the questions. He suggested a time limit of 30 minutes on the applicant that
included time for board questions. Mr. Farrelly said there was a quasi-judicial element
to this, and the applicant was providing facts as part of the record. He said the Town
Attorney had been clear that we could not limit the applicant's time. Ms. Hauth said it
could be limited to some extent, but you could not say, for instance, that the applicant
06/06/2006 Planning Board Minutes
Q
had ten minutes to present a 300 -acre project, adding that providing 30 or 40 minutes
for such a presentation was more reasonable.
Mr. Oliver noted that the citizens were also trying to provide sworn testimony. Mr.
Boericke said the board had the option to keep the hearing open until everyone was
heard. Ms. Hauth said the burden of proof was also on the applicant. Ms. Vandemark
asked if the perceived difference was that the applicant supposedly provided factual
information about his plans, but the public was provided more emotional testimony
such as we don't want this because it might be noisy. Ms. Hauth said that did play into
it to some extent, and if you added up the time the public spoke it was likely much
greater than the time the applicant spoke.
Mr. Remington said he was convinced and suggested the Chair should also exercise the
discretion to waive that if someone obviously was presenting important information.
He said in certain cases there would be value in that. Mr. Farrelly said another option
would be to announce at the beginning what we recommend as a courtesy for everyone,
so that people are encouraged to be concise and not redundant. Ms. Wallace said other
public bodies managed their time in a similar way, noting that many times the public
came into a meeting with a strategy of its own. She said it appeared to be common
knowledge that people could cede their time to others, and that allowed someone to
speak for long periods. Mr. Oliver suggested that we get directly from the Town
Attorney any limitations that could be placed on people who were testifying, because
every word they spoke was considered evidence, as well as all of their written
comments.
Mr. Farrelly said he was not trying to eliminate board questions, but was simply trying
to determine when the appropriate time was to ask particular questions. Mr. Oliver said
he tried to ask question for which he wanted to hear the citizen's voices on, noting it
could be the Board's only opportunity. Mr. Farrelly asked if there was a way to manage
those questions, so the public wasn't waiting and waiting. He said some of the
questions were constructive and most likely got the public to modify what they had
planned to say, but other times he had felt like we were drifting.
Ms. Ellis said she had asked many questions last night, and she wanted the people who
lived in Cornwallis Hills to know she was studying the plans and paying attention. She
said she would ask questions and she would do her own research, and she wanted to
hear every word they had to say. Ms. Hauth said in the past it was questions of clarity,
which were quick questions to allow everyone to be on the same page and ready to
move forward. Ms. Hauth suggested maybe the Board could save their questions until
the end, since those questions were usually more probing. But, she said it was up to the
Board, and much of it was the Chair reading the body language of the public and of the
Board and reacting accordingly.
Mr. Farrelly said that was why he was asking, because everyone seemed to have a
differing opinion, which placed him in an uncomfortable position. He said he still was
not hearing ideas of how to control ourselves, but recommended starting out a public
hearing by suggesting or strongly urging that people limit their comments to five
minutes, and then if people wanted to cede their minutes to someone else he would be
06/06/2006 Planning Board Minutes
(a
inclined to recognize that. He said in the future he would take an occasional break and
remind people to indicate if they agreed with a previous speaker and not repeat it, and
provide new or additional information only. Ms. Hauth said in terms of addressing the
applicant issue, when applicants asked what the Board wanted to see she responded the
shorter the better. She encouraged them to provide a presentation in as little time as
needed to get the point across.
Ms. Vandemark said would that possibly cause Board members to ask more questions,
because they may not be getting as much detail as they might want. Ms. Hauth said it
could. Ms. Vandemark said she assumed they would get more when the issue came
before the Planning Board, and that would be when she asked questions in detail. Mr.
Oliver said he continued to find that you give people the time they needed at a public
hearing, but not necessarily at the Planning Board meeting.
Ms. Hauth said the public hearing was the only time the public was supposed to interact
with the Boards. Ms. Hauth encouraged the Board to asked questions of her during the
meeting if it was a pressing question, noting it was important that the question be in the
record. Ms. Vandemark asked if the public could question the applicant during a public
hearing. Ms. Hauth said the questions should be asked of the Board and the Board
would then ask it of the applicant. She said you would not want an exchange between
the public and the applicant at the podium during a meeting. Ms. Vandemark asked if
the Board could ask questions of the public. Ms. Hauth said yes, because they were
sworn and were subject to cross-examination. She said that was one reason why we
could not take just written comment.
Mr. Farrelly said the applicant had wanted to respond too many of the comments last
night, and he had not allowed him to do that. Ms. Hauth said since the public hearing
remained open, he could do that at the start of the next hearing.
Mr. Jones stated he was pleased this issue had been brought forward, because it would
help them in future meetings to better gauge their time. He said he felt better informed.
Ms. Vandemark said she had asked questions of some people after the meeting, but
would have asked them during the meeting had she been more aware of the procedures.
Ms. Hauth lobbied the board to keep in mind several things: quasi-judicial, no outside
conversations, if you conduct research bring it back to the entire board, and if residents
from Cornwallis Hills called to speak to you, do not discuss it outside the process
because the hearing was still open.
Mr. Farrelly asked if board members could explain the process to people generically.
Ms. Hauth said yes, but you could not accept their comments or engage them in a
dialogue about the project. She said it was always appropriate to refer people to the
staff.
Ms. Wallace said she had never fully understood the way in which public hearings were
conducted. She said she better understood after this discussion the important of
entering evidence into the record.
06/06/2006 Planning Board Minutes
N
Mr. Farrelly summarized the discussion., He said we wanted to ask questions of the
applicant that would clarify points about the application, and if there were things that
did not seem consistent with our regulations then those questions should be asked. He
said if the public brought forth concerns that you did not fully understand, and then they
should be questioned. Mr. Farrelly said any question that elicited better or clearly
information and that allowed the applicant to respond more precisely and allowed us to
then factor it into our deliberation was worthwhile. He said hearing the perspective of
the speaker who was a former police officer was interesting and helpful to him, so we
should be asking questions that would provide more information and allow us to make
better decisions, and would allow the applicant to respond in a way that was acceptable
to the Board. Ms. Wallace said she was hearing that we should get everything into the
record that we wanted in it, and then at the Planning Board we could get more specific
and begin to formulate our opinions.
Mr. Farrelly thanked the Board for its comments, noting it helped him to figure out a
way to manage the process during a hearing.
ITEM #7: Adjourn.
MOTION: Mr. Newton moved to adjourn the meeting.
SECOND: Mr. Boericke.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
Mr. Farrelly adjourned the meeting at 9:24 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret Hauth, Secretary
06/06/2006 Planning Board Minutes
P-