Laserfiche WebLink
Honorable Gary Safarik, Chair <br /> and Members of the County Council <br /> February 2, 2005 <br /> Page 2 <br /> Is there merit to a challenge that the Council is unequal in its application of <br /> policy to other lands or any other legal principles? <br /> SHORT ANSWER: <br /> No. <br /> 4. The definition of the Conservation Designation is proposed to be <br /> expanded as follows: <br /> Conservation Area: Forest and water reserves, natural and <br /> scientific preserves, [open,] areas in active management for <br /> conservation purposes. areas to be kept in a largely natural <br /> state. with minimal facilities consistent with open space uses. <br /> such as picnic pavilions and comfort stations. and lands within <br /> the State Land Use Conservation District. <br /> For those properties designated Conservation in the General Plan and <br /> which are in the Special Management Area, in part or in whole--regardless <br /> of the State Land Use Classification--will the SMA requirement that <br /> development be consistent with the General Plan sufficiently limit parcel <br /> development to be considered a "takings"? (i.e., LUPAG changes I-3, I-8) <br /> SHORT ANSWER: <br /> No. <br /> DISCUSSION <br /> 1. Does the General Plan (Bill 163, Draft 4) meet with our approval as to <br /> form and legality? <br /> <br /> Answer: <br /> Bill 163 in its current draft meets county requirements regarding both format and <br /> legality. As long as a ramseyered version of the bill is available for the council <br /> members and the general public, any concerns that were raised by the court in <br /> <br /> the zoning code case should be addressed. If there are substantive <br /> <br />