My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/01/2007 (3)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2007
>
05/01/2007 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/1/2018 3:16:03 PM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:14:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/01/2007
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
3131
Book and Page
132, 778-847
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
4401
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Section 1.8 <br /> (Conflict of County Ordinances with Municipal Ordinances) <br /> <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner O’Bryan, SECONDED by <br />Chairman Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the <br />inclusion of Section 1.8 in the Draft Charter document. <br /> <br />Section 1.8.1 <br />Under with subsections 1 through 4 (Urban Services Boundary for the <br />County and its Cities), Attorney Watts explained that he had added language to show the purpose <br />of the referendum. Said provision read, “If permitted by law, such plan amendment shall be <br />effective only upon vote of the electors, of the County at a referendum. If a referendum is not <br />permitted, such amendments shall be adopted by ordinance approved by not less than four <br />Commissioners.” Attorney Watts wanted to revise this Section to establish county pre-emptive <br />planning jurisdiction. He also discussed new language for Section 1.8.1.1 – Urban Services <br />Boundary, which provides that the County’s Comprehensive Plan in effect on May 1, 2007 <br />establishes an urban services boundary. <br /> <br />Attorney Watts <br /> responded to questions from Vice Chair Bowden as to whether <br />cities have any recourse if they run into this situation regarding annexed lands outside the urban <br />service boundary. He asked the Board if they wanted the stricture of a super-majority to apply to <br />all amendments of the urban service boundary or to only those, which occur inside a city. <br />Chairman Wheeler and Commissioner O’Bryan favored “all”. <br /> <br />Chairman Wheeler wanted to see language added that says, “unless provided by Interlocal <br />Agreement”, as it pertains to conflicting ordinances between a municipality and county. <br /> <br />Attorney Watts <br /> agreed that there could be an inclusion that reads, “The County <br />Plan prevails except when otherwise provided by an Interlocal Agreement.” <br /> <br />Attorney Collins believed it would be useful to have that provision. <br />May 1, 2007 35 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.