This letter is to Sydney Noyes the new County Attorney.
Mac Carpenter added this as an agenda item, if I understand what happened correctly. Since when do employees add items to the agenda?
Dear Sidney:
Well, I am not so dumb after all. Now, since the way the item was put on the agenda was not done according to county policy (as you admitted that Mac Carpenter put this item on the agenda), I am requesting this vote be formally voided and the proposed LDC changes be added to a future agenda per policy and voted on by the BCC to move to a public hearing.
I suggest all policies be put in one book so the BCC can remember what and when they approve any changes. In fact, according to the County's responses to the Planning and Development Services' findings and recommendations; dated July 25,2017, the county indicates they are still working to put this document together. Please provide the status of this document.
Please let me know your decision on how you will proceed as soon as possible.
In my opinion, when a change is made to go from 5,000 sf of nonresidential to 50,000-60,000sf without notification to adjacent property owners, no posted signs, and no newspaper advertisements, and no public hearings, the public's voice is silenced while the developer benefits.
In fact, the procedure for "adding an item to the agenda" states that an economic analysis of any proposed changes must be a part of the consideration. (See the "agenda" form included in the policy which requires sign off and analysis by others.)
Along the same line, with the drop in fees charged for minor developments versus major developments, what is the decrease in the amount of fees that will be collected by Planning? In addition, Cecilia Jones had the parking ordinance changes kicked to the Matrix study. Short of knowing what they recommend on parking, quickly approving these projects through minor review will certainly exacerbate an existing deficiency in parking. As we all know, conditions have changed. Traffic numbers as well will be accelerated prior to the study being completed analyzing Prop Share versus Impact Fees. Our traffic data is simply not up to date to evaluate correct dollar amounts for traffic impacts. Simply stated, the county is not prepared for the impacts of accelerated development.
I am aware that the Chairman sets the agenda so I take for granted Mrs. Jones approved this item being added. This, in my opinion, (as well as all residents who attended the BCC meeting), should not force citizens to have to spend their time educating the BCC on policies and procedures they have adopted and should be following. Remember the only person who spoke in favor of these changes was former developer Randy Gardner.
Suzanne Harris
Mac Carpenter added this as an agenda item, if I understand what happened correctly. Since when do employees add items to the agenda?
Dear Sidney:
Well, I am not so dumb after all. Now, since the way the item was put on the agenda was not done according to county policy (as you admitted that Mac Carpenter put this item on the agenda), I am requesting this vote be formally voided and the proposed LDC changes be added to a future agenda per policy and voted on by the BCC to move to a public hearing.
I suggest all policies be put in one book so the BCC can remember what and when they approve any changes. In fact, according to the County's responses to the Planning and Development Services' findings and recommendations; dated July 25,2017, the county indicates they are still working to put this document together. Please provide the status of this document.
Please let me know your decision on how you will proceed as soon as possible.
In my opinion, when a change is made to go from 5,000 sf of nonresidential to 50,000-60,000sf without notification to adjacent property owners, no posted signs, and no newspaper advertisements, and no public hearings, the public's voice is silenced while the developer benefits.
In fact, the procedure for "adding an item to the agenda" states that an economic analysis of any proposed changes must be a part of the consideration. (See the "agenda" form included in the policy which requires sign off and analysis by others.)
Along the same line, with the drop in fees charged for minor developments versus major developments, what is the decrease in the amount of fees that will be collected by Planning? In addition, Cecilia Jones had the parking ordinance changes kicked to the Matrix study. Short of knowing what they recommend on parking, quickly approving these projects through minor review will certainly exacerbate an existing deficiency in parking. As we all know, conditions have changed. Traffic numbers as well will be accelerated prior to the study being completed analyzing Prop Share versus Impact Fees. Our traffic data is simply not up to date to evaluate correct dollar amounts for traffic impacts. Simply stated, the county is not prepared for the impacts of accelerated development.
I am aware that the Chairman sets the agenda so I take for granted Mrs. Jones approved this item being added. This, in my opinion, (as well as all residents who attended the BCC meeting), should not force citizens to have to spend their time educating the BCC on policies and procedures they have adopted and should be following. Remember the only person who spoke in favor of these changes was former developer Randy Gardner.
Suzanne Harris
