My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/15/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
1/15/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:43 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 8:38:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/15/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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
Ij <br />�I c_'� <br />li O V r.�. <br />—j <br />6 F,�rs, ao.y <br />Director Keating <br />stressed the staff's need for <br />direction <br />because of the short timeframe, pointing out that the Plan's <br />adoption is scheduled for February 13th and after that staff has <br />only 5 days -to put everything together and transmit it to DCA. <br />They, therefore, need at least tentative decisions from the Board <br />today so that they do not have to do a lot of rewriting at the <br />last minute. When the plan is sent back to DCA, they have 45 <br />days to review it and they then make a notification of intent <br />either to find the plan in compliance or not in compliance. The <br />County still has to adopt its land development regulations 1 year <br />from the date the plan was submitted, whether it is accepted or <br />not. If DCA does not accept the plan, we can negotiate with them <br />and end up with a compliance agreement. The other alternative, <br />if found not in compliance, is to go through the 120 <br />administrative hearing process; which, in essence, is a trial in <br />front of an administrative hearing officer, and so far, the DCA <br />has been the winner in all those hearings. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked if there has been any appeal <br />beyond that administrative process, possibly as to its constitu- <br />tionality. He felt that in some of these cases they are getting <br />into the very thing the Commissioners are elected for - the <br />philosophy -of a community, our way of life. He could understand <br />from the state perspective that there should be good planning to <br />make sure that the infrastructure and the necessary things to <br />support life are available for growth to take place, but.he did <br />see some incongruities here in that some things they are <br />recommending actually put more demand on the infrastructure <br />rather than less. <br />Asst. County Attorney Collins explained that the 120 hearing <br />makes a recommendation to the Governor and Cabinet, who make the <br />final decision. After that, any of these things can be appealed <br />to the courts. <br />Commissioner Scurlock brought up the mobile home issue as an <br />example. Although we have identified that they do contribute to <br />4 , <br />M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.