2/13/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M M M OBJECTIVE 1 COORDINATION AMONG ALL LOCAL PLANS The county will continue to utilize existing coordination mecha- nisms or modify them, as needed, to ensure that the adopted county comprehensive plan remains compatible with the school board, other local governments' plans, and adjacent counties' plans. Planner Rohani advised the Board that there has been a change in Policy 1.10 and a last paragraph added in regard to coordinating with all drainage districts based on the policies we have in the Drainage Sub Element. The new paragraph in POLICY 1.10 is as follows: The county will continue to coordinate with the municipalities in the county and the 298 drainage districts by implementing policies 4.1, 4.3 and 4.6 of the drainage sub -element. Planner Rohan! advised that staff, with the Board's permis- sion, will be updating Policy 1.6 in regard to coordination of plan elements with plans of other governmental entities, and Chairman Eggert believed that we will assume that anything that requires a change will be done with the Board's permission. Commissioner Bowman referred to Policy 1.13 which states that "The county, through coordination with municipalities shall ensure that future annexation will not create enclave areas." She wished to know why a municipality can annex something when the residents of that area are opposed. Attorney Vitunac stated that they can't. It either requires 1000 of the property owners to voluntarily join or a referendum with separate majorities in the unincorporated area and the city; so, it wouldn't happen. Director Keating noted some residents in an annexed area may not be amenable to it. Attorney Vitunac agreed, but stressed that the majority has to. He also advised that the legislature can come and do whatever it wants - that's how Rivers Edge happened - there was a Special Act de -annexing it. L_ �- , 147 BOOK. ��PA.i.E a