Laserfiche WebLink
window whether it would preclude also pursuing a Comp Plan Amendment for Alternative <br />2 during the same period of time. <br />Chairman Adams responded that Director Keating would not want to do both, and it <br />was obvious that he was not especially in or of sending Alternative 1. <br />Director Keating thought it would be difficult to send two amendments, one of which <br />incorporates the other one. <br />Vice Chairman Ginn reiterated her desire to have PZC flesh Alternatives 1 ald 2 out <br />a little bit to see what they recommend. <br />In response to questioning, Director Keating advised that the PZG meeting is January <br />11 `", and there would still be time to bring it back to the Board before the January window <br />,lases. <br />Discussion ensued. <br />Mr, O'Haire suggested that ifAlternative 2 is ready by the end of January #o let that <br />go and he could Live with it; if it is not ready for the January window, then Altera native 1 <br />should go. <br />Vice Chairman Ginn was unwilling to approve #ha#unless i#has gone before the PZC <br />because this is a very serious change. <br />Chairman <br />Adams countered that she thought staff had done exactly what the $oard <br />had asked them to do. <br />Commissioner Macht agreed, but staff came back with a report that raises many <br />questions and many possibilities that the Board has not had time to consider or develop for <br />the generality of citizens. The Board had heard from developers today. They have legitimate <br />concerns but this is very far reaching. <br />Chairman Adams thought the Board needed to address the Clontz property concern <br />because they had been looking at the ag-urban interface for four years <br />December 12, 2000 <br />- PW <br />She felt they r. eeded <br />