Laserfiche WebLink
Vice Chairman Ginn believed State law did not help the Board in this matter. <br />Discussion ensued. <br />Commissioner Tippin felt this type of regulation was going beyond the scope of what <br />the County Commission should be doing. He thought it might lead to a proliferation of all <br />kinds of feuding and fighting. <br />County Attorney Bangel asked if Vice Chairman Ginn was looking for a regulation <br />that would apply only to future uses or perhaps would it make some sense to insert some <br />kind of amortization of existing uses so they would have to come into compliance within a <br />certain amount of time. <br />Vice Chairman Ginn stated she did not have anything in particular in mind except <br />County Attorney Bangel's memo indicated that the Board may enact regulations consistent <br />with the right -to -farm act. <br />County Attorney Bangel advised he would look into it. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion <br />carried 4-1 (Chairman Adams opposed). (Proposed ordinance <br />not adopted.) <br />Director Boling advised that the next ordinance under consideration would allow in <br />all cases new private roads to be named. The vote at the first hearing was 5-0 to bring it <br />forward unchanged and it is now in final form for their approval. <br />The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in <br />this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing. <br />November 7, 2000 <br />142 <br />OK 1 15 PG 8 51 <br />0 0 <br />