Laserfiche WebLink
with our understanding of the rules, we, at the same time, <br />object to the rules. <br />Commissioner Bird's point was that the Planning <br />Department's recommendation is in conflict with our proposed <br />resolution, and if the Board does wish to accept the staff <br />report, he did not feel it should accompany the resolution. <br />Attorney Caldwell agreed that the report from staff is <br />in conflict with what the Board has discussed today and <br />would definitely be in conflict with the material that most <br />of the people who spoke today would be sending in <br />themselves. He stressed that we are trying to establish <br />that this area is developed, and the people who were here <br />earlier have engineering backup, scientific reports, etc. to <br />uphold their position. Attorney Caldwell believed the basic <br />Resolution the Commission asked their attorney to draft will <br />be gutted if the staff analysis becomes part of their <br />report. <br />Discussion continued as to whether we should merely <br />accept the staff report without endorsing it, or why it <br />should be approved at all if we don't agree with it. It was <br />noted that all this is called a "preliminary" report in <br />answer to their preliminary report. <br />Commissioner Wodtke felt we could comment basically <br />that "the best we are able to determine according to your <br />definitions is that you are greatly in error within your own <br />map." <br />Commissioner Lyons noted that he did include in the <br />Motion that we disagree with their definitions, and he had <br />no problem with having the Motion call our report a <br />preliminary report in response to their preliminary report. <br />Considerable discussion continued in regard to being <br />consistent. Attorney Brandenburg believed that he has a <br />good understanding of what the Board wants and suggested <br />that he proceed to draft a Resolution and work with Planning <br />MAR 10 1992 NcK 49 PAGE <br />25 <br />