Motion for PC9 approval
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Sep 3, 2020
The published PDF. Its text could not be extracted — it is an image-only scan — so nothing in it is searchable here, but it reads normally.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Sep 3, 2020
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 1m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 94% of 16 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Yeah. So uh we're gonna we wanna go back to uh five or nine.
Fine.
Do the do the roll call vote for nine or a motion for nine and then we'll back go back to five.
Right. Mr. This Michael Cox approval on PC nine.
Okay, so we have a motion. Do we have a second?
Peter Hansel, second.
Okay, so we have a motion and a second further discussion on the motion. All in favor by roll call?
Michael Cox.
Hi
Peter Hansel.
Hi.
Christopher Poole?
Aye.
Chris Williams?
Aye.
Chairman Charles Gray. Aye.