Larimer County staff proposes standardized hearing procedures; commissioners ask for clearer guidance on videos, time limits and decorum

Larimer County staff presented a revised draft of hearing procedures for land-use hearings on Jan. 6, asking the Board of County Commissioners to provide direction on several specifics including time limits, handling of presentations and decorum at hearings.

Rebecca Everett, community development director, said staff revised a prior draft to align the written procedures with the county’s land-use code and to create predictability for applicants, commenters and the board. The draft sets a general three-minute limit for public commenters, allows an applicant presentation with a general time note (with applicant response limited to five minutes) and clarifies that the chair has discretion to adjust times based on community interest. "The code outlines the order of proceedings for a hearing. We have added a note that public testimony is generally limited to 3 minutes per commenter," Everett said, adding that the term "applicant" includes the owner and any representatives (attorneys, engineers, ecologists) who present on the project.

Commissioners sought precise, written explanations for perceived discrepancies between what applicants are allowed and what members of the public may do. Several commissioners — including Commissioner Shadrach McBride and Commissioner Kristen Stephens — urged a script for the chair to ensure consistent application and fairness across hearings; Stephens said a standard script would reduce perceived unfairness when time allowances vary between speakers. Legal counsel and commissioners discussed whether allowing applicants to present videos or slide decks while restricting the public would be inconsistent; County Attorney Frank Haug noted applicants bear the burden of proof and that it is common practice to allow applicants more presentation time because they have the evidentiary burden.

Staff recommended requiring hard-copy materials to be provided in seven copies to ensure the file is placed in the record, and to receive any digital presentations in advance so staff can verify files and avoid in-meeting technical delays and security risks. Staff emphasized they would not pre-screen content for substantive acceptability, only check files for technical integrity and cybersecurity concerns.

Commissioners also asked that the written procedures explicitly address disruptive behavior (signs, clapping, noises) and the rules about approaching the dais with materials. Several commissioners said those expectations should be posted and repeated at hearings to avoid confusion. The draft will be revised to include clarifying language about applicant time limits (applicant team total rather than per individual) and the rationale for any distinctions between applicant and public allowances.

Next steps: staff will revise the draft to reflect commissioners’ direction, produce a chair script for meetings and circulate a new draft for review. Everett asked commissioners to provide any additional comments; staff aim to finalize procedures in January so they are in place before a set of expected large hearings in February.

Ending: Commissioners agreed staff should return with an updated draft and a script; staff will post the procedures online and provide handouts at hearings to improve public understanding.