Laserfiche WebLink
,-.zy-.,.. Tis-, ss?! --''r, •s:.r;{^' ,'�s�-a.rz,,'.w -sTm.r�, �.. Ya--.rs .'n. r -: w.�..,�^-'�v-,�?"^ssr-sr � F:•- .-- -gas^-_.w- , mw -h.- - Y rte- �y=.T:;- 77- �� zc <br />APR 151981 roc . +*2 <br />r <br />A. Proceed to make corrections on an individual basis, relying on <br />isolated policy decisions, and making further changes and adjustment <br />when the Comprehensive Plan is adopted. This will continue the present <br />situation of producing numerous ordinances to amend a single document. <br />These are often difficult to keep track of and,make enforcement and <br />compliance a problem. <br />B. Do a comprehensive modification of the document now. This would be less <br />confusing. However, such an effort would precede the adoption of the <br />proposed Comprei6nsive Plan and it's coordinated set of,goals, objectives, <br />and policies, upon which such regulation should be based. Such a document, <br />while comprehensive, would fall short of implementing new directions and <br />methods for development. <br />C. Continue to develop a set of regulations for subdivisions concurrently with, <br />and directly related to the proposed "Plan". This process will afford time <br />for analysis of alternative methods by all County departments affected. <br />Make final adjustments to the document immediately following adoption of <br />the proposed plan and adopt the new subdivision regulations as soon as <br />'possible after plan adoption. <br />RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING <br />The Administration recommends alternative "C". The County Commission has <br />authorized a significant effort to produce a "Plan" and the basic implementing. <br />documents. It was recommended that these efforts be undertaken simultaneously <br />to reduce the lag time between plan adoption and implementation. This effort is <br />proceeding to an expected conclusion by mid -summer. The effect of handling the <br />various components of the "Plan" and it's implementation separately, and out of <br />context, could delay implementation and compliance with the State mandate. This <br />also would cost the County further staff time which could be applied to other <br />efforts. <br />APPROVED AGENDA ITEM <br />FOR /L — f <br />BY - -� <br />NAN:ms <br />COMMISSIONER FLETCHER SUGGESTED THAT THIS ITEM BE REMOVED <br />FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. <br />MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY <br />COMMISSIONER BIRD, TO APPROVE THE ADMINISTRATORS RECOMMENDATION IN <br />HIS MEMORANDUM OF APRIL 2, 1981 REGA6DING THE NEW SUBDIVISION <br />REGULATIONS. <br />ADMINISTRATOR NELSON EXPLAINED THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO <br />MEET THE DEADLINE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ASKED THE BOARD TO <br />APPROVE HIS RECOMMENDATION OF ALTERNATE C IN HIS MEMO. IN THE <br />MEANTIME, A WORKSHOP CAN BE SCHEDULED SO WORK ON THIS PROJECT CAN <br />CONTINUE. <br />8 <br />