Laserfiche WebLink
16. PAGE 5, SECTION 5D(4) - ENGINEER DAVIS PREFERRED TO SEE IT <br />REWRITTEN SO THE APPLICANT WOULD SUBMIT THIS. COMMISSIONER BIRD <br />FELT HE WOULD RATHER KNOW WHAT THE MCO WOULD SAY IT WOULD COST RATHER <br />THAN WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD SAY. <br />17, PAGE 11, SECTION 6(3)(C) - CHANGE 10 WORK DAYS TO "15" AND 20 <br />WORK DAYS TO "25." <br />18. PAGE 18, SECTION 9(C)(5) - AFTER `SPECIES," ADD "THROUGH THE <br />FORESTRY DEPT." <br />19. PAGE 18, SECTION 9, NINTH LINE FROM TOP, STRIKE "REQUIRED" AND <br />ADD "RECOMMENDED." <br />COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK ASKED PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER IF HIS <br />STAFF COULD REALLY ENFORCE THIS ORDINANCE, <br />MR. REVER FELT THE BURDEN FOR ENFORCEMENT SHIFTS FROM <br />THE PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT TO THE ENGINEER, AS THE PLANNING <br />DEPARTMENT IS JUST A PART OF THE PROCESS. HE ADDED THAT THIS IS NOW <br />A MUCH MORE TECHNICAL DOCUMENT AND IT REALLY NOW LIES IN THE PUBLIC <br />WORKS DEPARTMENT AND THEY SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. <br />COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK THEN ASKED THE ENGINEER IF THERE WAS <br />ADEQUATE STAFF IN HIS DEPARTMENT TO DEVOTE THE TIME NECESSARY TO <br />IMPLEMENT THE ORDINANCE. <br />ENGINEER DAVIS STATED THAT BY TRANSFERRING IT TO THE PUBLIC <br />WORKS DEPARTMENT, IT WOULD CREATE A HARDSHIP ON HIS TIME, AND HE <br />WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ADEQUATE STAFF. <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AND IT WAS DETERMINED TO HAVE A WORKSHOP. <br />MEETING ON FRIDAY, .JUNE 19, 1981 AT 1:30 O'CLOCK P.M, AT CITY HALL. <br />ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO RECONSIDER THE PROPOSED MINING <br />ORDINANCE AT A LATER DATE. <br />JUN 31981 57 =;«: <br />