IF HISTORY INDICATES ANYTHING, YOU MAY NOT SEE THIS ANYWHERE ELSE...

I placed myself on the Board agenda at the July meeting. I wanted to address what I considered some important flaws in the Board's draft minutes. Since these flaws involve whole sections of Planning Commission reports and discussion being omitted, I place my comments here--JUST IN CASE THEY DON'T SHOW UP AGAIN!!

Good evening, and thank you for this opportunity to address you as a body, since this is the only place I can do that.

I debated some time about whether to come before the Board with this. I do not like spending my time as a Planning Commissioner or as that body's Chair in this way. However, I would not be saying this here and now if the draft minutes of the May Board meeting and the Roundtable meeting had not (as it appears to me at least) been written selectively, resulting in an unjust circumstance.

At the May Board meeting, there were two citizens who spoke during the public comment period. I felt that their comments were incorrect and misleading. Since I was giving the PC Liaison report that night, I did not respond during the public comment period, but instead gave a very full and responsive report and explanation of the Commission's stance on the matters raised at the comment time.

In reading the draft minutes, the two citizens' remarks were there in what I consider misleading detail. My full report? It was reduced to one non-informative line: "Planning Commission Chair Nancy Sauber provided a summary of the May 2, 2017, Planning Commission meeting." What I had stated during my report was important and specific and shed light on the various matters. Yet NO details at all were given.

Again, the draft minutes of the Roundtable Meeting held no report of the various Commission comments and discussion. Those comments and discussion were pertinent to the agenda and were brought up for good reason. The minutes say only "Nancy Sauber initiated discussion on the following" with just a list of the Commission's requested agenda items for that meeting. So the minutes held no more information than the agenda.

Why are some voices virtually silenced in effect, while others' opinions based at best on incorrect information are reported? Is this giving citizens a fair and correct understanding of what happened at a meeting? The Township should not be editorializing by omission!

The Planning Commission has a say in the Roundtable meeting minutes as it is a joint meeting. The Board deals with its own minutes, but surely including detail from the Commission report, details that show reasoning for decisions and/or responses to unfounded allegations concerning those decisions is the honest and proper thing to do! I believe the Board recognizes the value of the Commission's report. It ought to be included in the accounting of the meeting.

Here are some details I would like to see included in tonight's minutes:

1) At the May Board meeting, a citizen stated he felt the issue regarding a building right was "being delayed" as the Board of Supervisors unanimously acknowledged the applicants had a building right at the March Town Board meeting.

What he failed to note was that that acknowledgement was, by Board motion, subject to documentation being provided. The attorney also made this important point during the May meeting, but that did not appear in the minutes either. The Commission was working with the attorney on this documentation so that correct procedure would be followed per the Board's own motion. At no time was the intent to be obstructionist!

2) This same citizen claimed the intent or purpose of the ordinances at a public hearing was unclear and "there was no regard for public comment." This is not true. The intent of protecting property rights and welfare is obvious. The reason for the agricultural and horticultural language was explained. There was plenty of regard for public comment. The Commission listened respectfully to each speaker and the points made. Some adjustments to the ordinance language were made where deemed appropriate based on that input.

This citizen stated "we had someone from__________(a well-known Eureka business) there."

Yes, that person was present at the hearing and the ensuing Commission meeting when discussion of the hearing took place. She did not make any comment or ask even one question. Apparently the proposed ordinance language was clear to her and she had no objection to it.

There was a person who spoke at the public hearing who said he had no problem with the language and that he believed it provided a benefit. How did our public commentator "regard" that individual's input? He said the individual "must have been confused."

When it was questioned and the attorney advised four instead of three opportunities for ordinance language comment, the Commission did exactly that and made every effort to follow protocol and to assure that all in attendance had every opportunity and all the time they needed to be heard.

3) The second individual giving public comment at the May Board meeting asked why "Eureka didn't have a culture of helping people" and noted that "personal attacks" must stop.

The Commission bent over backward trying to help the applicants I believe he referred to, giving up meeting preparation time and personal time. As noted at the Roundtable, the Commission's and the Board's job is not to "problem solve" but to explain and clarify the ordinance and procedures. That is what was done.

When directed first to the Clerks, the applicants indicated that the Clerks did not have the information necessary.

Two Commissioners subsequently met with the applicants when the Clerk asked for their help at Town Hall, and explained what can be a confusing procedure to them. When the applicants said they were confused, the answer was, well, it can be confusing; let me go through it again for you. The procedure was explained patiently and multiple times. For example, it was explained how an undeveloped building right would exist and how applicants would have to ask the involved landowner if such a particular right were for sale. The applicants asked for a list of building rights for sale in the Township. I told them that such a list does not exist, that this is a private transaction, and invited them to stay and check the Township map for undeveloped quarter-quarters and building right possibilities.

Actually this transfer procedure was outlined expressly to keep the Township out of personal details. Neither I nor any other Commissioner should be filling out applicants' forms for them. That is not appropriate.

When I was asked a question by the applicant that required a substantive response, I said we would have to deal with that at a meeting as a body. This apparently made the applicant unhappy as she challenged this reply. I then explained the history and the Township policy on not speaking for the body as just one person. At all times, the Commission tries to follow policy. Applicants need to understand that.

4) Regarding the public comment about "personal attacks," I can only imagine what might have been represented to this individual. I do know that I did not receive the courtesy of a call to hear my explanation of the full background before he made his public comments.

 5) This second citizen stated that the Commission should work with the attorney on building rights. That is exactly what we did. Again, he did not call me for clarification although the landowner referenced did and he and I had a productive conversation.

6) When an applicant stated a procedure took 8 months, please note that they appeared at a meeting, maybe two, several phone calls were exchanged, ending in a building right sale falling through. Then the Commission heard nothing from them for the next 4 or 5 months-their choice. Then they came in again in the spring and it was finalized. To say it took 8 months is wrong.

Citizen applications continue to be submitted to the Planning Commission with mistakes or void of site plans or other information necessary to process the application. This is not just occasionally, but on a regular basis, unfortunately.  The Clerks need to be very familiar with the ordinances and policies. I am looking for solutions. If it is a matter of not having enough time to review the applications, perhaps the Board might consider authorizing more hours. 

It is not beneficial to citizens to allow them to come before the Commission only to hear that they have not submitted the required information to recommend approval of those applications. When a citizen submits an application and it is accepted, he would have no reason to think it is incomplete if he is not told that right away so he can complete it. The applicant most likely believes he is "all set" for the Commission meeting. I would. Too often applicants are not "all set." This cannot continue; it is not good procedure.

Are too many people giving information to the Clerks? Information that is not correct? Perhaps the Clerks should consult with the Chairs of the two bodies or the Vice Chairs if the Chairs are not available.

The accuracy and completeness of the minutes is absolutely necessary. The citizens who are unable to attend the meetings count on accurate and detailed minutes as a resource for information of issues of concern in the Township. The minutes are the official records of the meetings for the Township. They can and have been referred to in court proceedings, for example. This is no light matter.

Last, if I may offer my opinion, I think that government ought to be wary if its different components and bodies are pitted against each other for another's purpose and should react accordingly and be supportive of each other, which I will continue to try to do.