Laserfiche WebLink
FEB 25 1981 <br />o0oK 45 PAGE 871 <br />COMMISSIONER FLETCHER QUESTIONED SECTION Z, PARAGRAPH (B) <br />WHICH STATES THAT IN THE EVENT MORE THAN IO LOTS OR PARCELS ARE BEING <br />REZONED, NOTIFICATION SHALL BE BY PUBLISHED NOTICE ONLY, AND IT WAS <br />EXPLAINED THAT WHEN A LARGE NUMBER OF PARCELS ARE INVOLVED, IT PUTS <br />A TREMENDOUS BURDEN ON THE STAFF TO SEND OUT THE MANY NOTICES IN- <br />VOLVED; IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THIS INVOLVES ONLY THE NOTICE <br />TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, NOT THE NOTICE TO THE OWNERS OF <br />THE PROPERTY TO BE REZONED. <br />DISCUSSION ENSUED ABOUT HAVING THESE NOTICES SENT BY CERTI- <br />FIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, AND IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED THE <br />COST WAS WORTH IT, <br />ADMINISTRATOR NELSON QUESTIONED WHO SPECIFICALLY WAS TO <br />MAKE UP AND PUBLISH THE NOTICE OF THE REZONING HEARING BEFORE THE <br />BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THE CLERK IS REQUIRED BY STATUTE TO <br />NOTIFY EACH REAL PROPERTY OWNER, AND THE ORDINANCE STATES THAT THE <br />COUNTY COMMISSION SHALL PUBLISH THE NOTICE OF HEARING <br />PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER STATED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT <br />HAS BEEN CARRYING OUT THAT FUNCTION AND HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE <br />CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE BOARD'S SECRETARY IN THIS REGARD, AND HE FELT <br />THEY COULD CONTINUE TO DO S0, <br />ADMINISTRATOR NELSON FELT THE ORDINANCE WAS IN A SENSE <br />BY-PASSING HIS OFFICE BY HAVING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR WORK DIRECTLY <br />WITH THE CLERK AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S SECRETARY AND <br />THAT THIS SHOULD BE ROUTED THROUGH HIS OFFICE. IN DISCUSSION, THE <br />BOARD POINTED OUT THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR ACTUALLY IS HEAD OF THE <br />PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENTS; HE CAN SEE ANY OF THE DOCUMENTATION <br />ANY TIME HE WISHES; AND THEY DID NOT FEEL IT NECESSARY TO HAVE THIS <br />WRITTEN IN THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT CAN BE HANDLED INTERNALLY. <br />THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AGREED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR WOULD BE KEPT <br />ADVISED OF THE REZONING PROCESS. <br />DISCUSSION THEN FOLLOWED WITH REGARD TO OBTAINING THE <br />CORRECT ADDRESSES FOR NOTIFICATION PURPOSES, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS <br />STATED THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO SEND THE NOTICE, NOT TO <br />31 <br />