Laserfiche WebLink
JUL 18 1983 <br />Commissioner Scurlock stated that if anything is <br />inconsistent with our present Comprehensive Plan and it is <br />more restrictive, staff should vote No. If it is less <br />restrictive, then there is no harm done. The Board agreed. <br />Further discussion ensued as to the possibility that <br />Mr. King might possibly have missed some change in going <br />over the plan, and if that were so, he should address it in <br />the same way, making sure that it is consistent with our <br />current plan. <br />Mr. King commented that the policy statement re <br />transportation is consistent with ours, although the figures <br />they generate may be different. If we disagree with the <br />traffic count information, etc., he noted that the Board has <br />the option to do our own study. <br />Chairman Bird requested that the final document to be <br />submitted be well identified and revised per the Board of <br />County Commission's directions. <br />Commissioner Bowman presented the argument that the <br />County will be accused of being parochial. <br />Commissioner Lyons did not understand that argument. <br />He emphasized that we did not send anyone down to amend our <br />Master Plan; they don't have the right. <br />Commissioner Bowman noted that the Regional Planning <br />Council has taken a regional view. Actually what we are <br />doing is setting up a State Master Plan, and she believed <br />the State is asking for the same regional view from us. <br />Commissioner Wodtke noted that the State reviewed each <br />county's plan and approved them,. and Commissioner Scurlock <br />pointed out that we were asked to be part of this committee <br />as a model and therefore, our Plan should be the model. <br />There being no further business to come before the <br />16 <br />