Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Christopher <br /> suggested the inclusion of Section 1.8.1.4 regarding densities, <br />which he thought was a critical provision. Discussion ensued on whether to take out this Section. <br /> <br />Attorney Watts <br />advised that this was a policy choice, and if the Board wanted to <br />limit the referendum to density increase, which would apply only to residential Comprehensive <br />Plan changes, they could do that. He felt the open question was, “Shall we limit the provision for <br />referendum super-majority to amendments effecting an increase in density?” <br /> <br />Attorney Collins sought clarity on the final wording for S. 1.8.1.4 regarding <br />densities. Attorney Watts explained that only the following sentence would be added: “If <br />permitted by law, any such plan amendment effecting an increase in residential density shall be <br />effective only upon vote of the electors of the county at a referendum, and if a referendum is not <br />permitted such amendments should be adopted by ordinance approved by not less than a majority <br />plus one.” <br /> <br />Attorney Watts <br /> asked for the Board’s pleasure on the proposed Sections 1.8.1 and <br />1.8.1.1. Board members were comfortable with those provisions. <br /> <br />Attorney Dill <br /> questioned language in Section 1.8.1.1 which states that the “Board <br />of County Commissioners may amend its comprehensive plan… in the manner provided by law: <br />…” He suggested the provision read, “…. in the manner provided herein.” He understood this <br />would only apply to density and perhaps intensities and asked why they could not leave the <br />industrial/commercial to the cities without the county having to vote every time a city wants to do <br />an industrial or commercial. It was explained to him that intensities would be left out. <br /> <br />Commissioner O’Bryan asked if they could add a Section 1.8.1.2 that reads, “… <br />with the exception of lands that are annexed for commercial/industrial, the above provisions do not <br />apply.” Commissioner Davis did not believe that was good policy. <br /> <br />May 1, 2007 37 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />