My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/29/1981
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1981
>
7/29/1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:18 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 1:33:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/29/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
J U L 1981 eoorr.4 7 Pa 14 <br />GE <br />ATTORNEY HOULIHAN STATED HE DID NOT HAVE ANY PROCEDURE <br />PROBLEMS. THE BOARD HAS 30 DAYS TO REACH A DECISION ON THE DEVELOP- <br />MENT ORDER AND IF THERE IS INFORMATION THE BOARD FEELS THEY DO NOT <br />HAVE AND THEY ARE NOT PREPARED TO MAKE A VOTE, THIS MEETING CAN BE <br />CLOSED. <br />VICE CHAIRMAN VIODTKE COMMENTED THAT HE PERSONALLY WOULD HAVE <br />NO PROBLEMS IN STATING THAT THEY JUST WANT TO LOOK FURTHER INTO <br />SEVERAL AREAS, AND THAT THEY INSTRUCT THE ATTORNEY TO DRAFT A DEVELOPMENT <br />ORDER BASED UPON WHAT WAS DISCUSSED THIS EVENING. HE ADDED THAT HE <br />WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER IN WRITING BEFORE THE BOARD <br />SIGNS IT, SO IT SHOULD BE PUT BACK ON THE AGENDA FOR APPROVAL. <br />COMMISSIONER BIRD COMMENTED THAT THE BOARD ALL AGREED THAT <br />THEY LIKE THE PIECES, AND SIMPLY MUST PUT IT ALL TOGETHER. <br />DISCUSSION ENSUED ABOUT THE TWO BOARD MEMBERS THAT WERE <br />ABSENT FROM TONIGHT�S MEETING, AND ATTORNEY HOULIHAN ADVISED THAT <br />HE WOULD HAVE TO DO MORE RESEARCH ON THE MATTER OF THEIR VOTING. ON <br />THIS MATTER. <br />COMMISSIONER BIRD THOUGHT THAT THE MEMBERS WHO WERE ABSENT <br />COULD REVIEW THE TAPE AND READ THE MINUTES, PLUS THEY WILL SEETHE <br />FINAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER. <br />ADMINISTRATOR NELSON COMMENTED THAT THROUGH THE MINUTES OF <br />THESE PROCEEDINGS AND THE TAPE, HE DID NOT FEEL THERE WAS A PROBLEM. <br />COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK INTERJECTED THAT UNLESS THERE WAS SOME <br />PROBLEM WITH THE CHLORIDE, HE WAS IN FAVOR OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER. <br />IT EITHER. <br />ATTORNEY ,JOHNSTON STATED THAT HE HAD NO PROBLEM WITH <br />DTSCUSSION FOLLOWED AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT ATTORNEY <br />HOULIHAN WOULD PREPARE THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO <br />THE BOARD. <br />THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ON MOTION MADE, SECONDED <br />AND CARRIED, THE BOARD ADJOURNED AT 10.25 O'CLOCK P.M. <br />ATTEST: <br />CLERK +C14AIRMAIV, <br />0.9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.