Item 1: PH on Ordinance Amending Metro Plan (Delta Sand and Gravel)

Home Browse Search

Mr. Belcher supported leaving the record open for 90 days. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding future deliberation of the information in the record, Planning Director Howe said e-mailed commission questions would be responded to until the record was closed and then the commissions would go into deliberations. He said questions could still be answered by staff after the record was closed but no new information could be submitted after the record was closed. He said there needed to be a period for new information to be submitted, a period for reply, and a period for rebuttal of new information by the applicant. Lane County Planning Commissioner John Sullivan noted that the attorney for the opposition only needed 60 days. Steve Cornacchia suggested having another public hearing in 60 days where everyone who had testified that -evening would be. prohibited from testifying again to avoid repetition. He said all of the questions raise4 could be responded to by the applicant. He expressed his preference for a 30 day extension period . He said a 90 day period was excessive. Planning Director Howe said there could be a 60 - day extension and the commissions could continue the hearing on a date certain of January 17. Mr. Zdzienicki said he did not agree with restricting who could speak at the next hearing. Mr~ Sullivan agreed and encouraged continuing the hearing to a date certain of January 17. Mr. Duncan stressed that people who had not testified wanted to testify then they should be allowed. He expressed a hope that the testimony would not be repetitious. Mr. Lawless supported 60 days while still leaving the record open during that time. Mr. Dignam said he supported that idea. Ms. Kirkham, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, moved to leave the public record open and continue the public hearing in 60 days (January 17, 2006) and preclude any testimony other than expert witnesses. - Mr. Zdzienicki said he would prefer 90 days but, in the interests of cooperation, would support the motion. Ms. Arkin offered a friendly amendment which was accepted to allow the attorney for the opposition enough time to present a full argument. The motion, as amended, passed unanimously. Eugene Planning Commis~ioner Phillip Carroll expressed ~s discomfort with limiting/restricting anyone's testimony. Ms. Colbath called for a motion from the Eugene Planning Commission MINUTES--Lane County Planning Commission - Eugene Plannillg Commission November 15,-2005 Pag~ 10