Laserfiche WebLink
n <br />County Attorney Bangel asked if they could bring it back for ratification, and Chairman <br />Adams suggested it could be a pending ordinance and that it would be brought back for ratification <br />(adoption). <br />In response to Vice Chairman Ginn's inquiry, Mr. Barkett indicated that would be satisfactory <br />for his client. <br />9.A.5. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2000-026 - LDR <br />AMENDMENT CHAPTER 901, DEFINITIONS; CHAPTER 911, <br />ZONING; CHAPTER 912, SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT - <br />BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS <br />PROOF OF PUBLICATION WILL BE ON FILE <br />IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD <br />Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed a Memorandum of July 6, 2000, and used the <br />sketches provided in the backup to illustrate his presentation. He advised that there was a minor <br />correction to the sketch on page 133 (20' should have been 10'). <br />TO: James E. Chandler <br />County Administrator <br />D SI N HEAD CONCURRENCE: <br />7 <br />Robert . Keating, AICP -7 <br />Community Development Zor <br />Ij <br />FROM: Stan Boling, AICP <br />Planning Director <br />DATE: July 6, 2000 <br />SUBJECT: Proposed LDR Amendment: Building Height Regulations <br />It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County <br />Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 18, 2000. <br />July 18, 2000 <br />53 <br />BK 114 PG 261 <br />• <br />