My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/18/1995
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1995
>
7/18/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:05:11 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 2:42:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/18/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
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
BOOK 95 FACE 722 <br />County Attorney Vitunac thought the Board could find an <br />exception, seeing that we have since amended the law and we'll <br />enforce the new law, and because the old law was too confusing to <br />enforce against these two candidates. <br />Commissioner Bird wondered what to do with the other political <br />candidates that had their bonds retained, but did not bother to <br />appeal. <br />Chairman Macht commented that it was not the same situation; <br />the others were very flagrant with signs everywhere and without <br />permits. That was why he suggested the motion ought to be along <br />the lines of amnesty. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, <br />SECONDED BY Commissioner Bird, to grant the <br />appeal because of the ambiguities in the old <br />ordinance, and to not prejudice but to enforce <br />the new law. (CLERK'S NOTE: Kathaleen <br />Inman's appeal [next item] included in this <br />motion.) <br />Under discussion, Commissioner Bird commented that it was not <br />just the ambiguities in the ordinance, but also the ambiguities in <br />the appeal process. He wanted an appeal process set up where the <br />guidelines pertain to this situation so that it's clear to the <br />appeal board what the duties are. He believed the County needs a <br />strong political sign ordinance, which staff could enforce, and the <br />candidates need to understand that there is a risk if they did not <br />abide by the ordinance. He hoped that would avoid appeals in the <br />future, because it would be spelled out so everyone knew what was <br />right and what was wrong. <br />Director Keating reviewed the penalties if a permit were never <br />obtained, which were the typical misdemeanor violation penalties, <br />a $500 fine or 60 days in jail. He suggested other ways which the <br />law might be amended including starting a Code Enforcement action <br />with a special master in order to fast track the process, and <br />institute a fine per day for those who have not obtained a permit <br />and not posted a bond. Director Keating commented that only part <br />of what had been discussed had been corrected thus far. They still <br />have more corrections to cover the situation if a sign is moved to <br />22 <br />July 18, 1995 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.