Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Cornacchia said he had heard new information that evening and what concerned him the most was the <br />testimony challenging methodology used by the consultants for the applicant He suggested a 30 day extension of <br />the record to be used for response to new material submitted that evening and not for the submittal to new evidence. <br /> <br />Mr. Stotter said there was a written request to allow a response any new information and noted that State Law <br />specifically provided the right.to provide responsive evidence to any new information submitted by the applicant. <br />He said it would be a procedural violation to not allow rebuttal to new information submitted by the applicant. <br /> <br />Mr. DuPriest said if the applicant put in new information then the opposition had the right to rebut that information. <br />He asked for time to review any new information by the applicant and provide a response. <br /> <br />Lane County Planning Director Kent Howe offered a suggested timeline. He suggested leaving the. written record <br />open for 30 days for anyone to submit new evidence, allow response to that information by anyone who wanted to <br />respond for an additional 14 days and then allow the applicant to provide final rebuttal for an additional 14 days. <br /> <br />Mr. DuPriest suggested 30 day periods for each side on new evidence to be submitted. <br /> <br />Mr. Stotter said it would make more sense to allow the opposition to respond with new evidence to rebut any <br />evidence submitted by the applicant's representatives. <br /> <br />Mr. Cornacchia said there had to be an end to new evidence being submitted. He suggested 30 days for the <br />applicant, 30 days for opposing rebuttal,.and 14 days for final applicant rebuttal. <br /> <br />Mr. Howe suggested a new timeline. He said the record could be left open for written testimony provided by <br />anyone for 30 days. Resaid an additional 29 days, (until Friday, March 17), would be allowed to respond to any <br />new evidence but with no new evidence to be submitted. He said 14 days could then be allowed for final applicant <br />rebuttal. <br /> <br />Mr. Stotter said it would be a violation of state law to not allow new evidence to be submitted in response to new <br />evidence submitted by the applicant. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved that the applicant be allowed 30 days to submit new <br />information in response, and the opponents 29 days to respond to that new information, to be <br />followed by applicant rebuttal period of 14 days. The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />Mr. Dignam, seconded by Mr. Zdzienicki, moved to pass the same time periods as were approved <br />by the Eugene Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />Ms. Colbath closed the public hearing on behalf of the Eugene Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Carmichael closed the public hearing 'on behalf of the Lane County Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Howe said there would be separate deliberations for the commissions in April. <br /> <br />The meeting adjourned at 10:30 pm. <br /> <br />(Recorded by Joe Sams) <br /> <br />MINUTES~Lane County Planning Commission <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br /> <br />January 17~' 2006 <br /> <br />18 <br />