Laserfiche WebLink
February 16, 2005 the County Council approved Bill 356 on <br /> the first reading with a majority vote. <br /> Conclusion Claim I. <br /> 48. By reviewing and voting on Bill 356 the County <br /> Council is approving the lack of proper spacing of public <br /> accesses as committed by the Subdivision Agreement without <br /> proper notice and public debate. <br /> 49. The County Council must have reviewed and <br /> approved the spacing of public accesses committed by the <br /> Subdivision Agreement in principle because a majority of <br /> the Council Members approved Bill 356 at first reading. <br /> 50. The County Council must have approved the spacing <br /> of public accesses committed by the Subdivision Agreement <br /> in principle because the Council Members approved the <br /> language of the bill at first reading. Bill 356 <br /> incorporates the design standards for the public accesses <br /> in the Subdivision Agreement in condition "D" by reference. <br /> 51. Or, maybe the County Council did not bother to <br /> spend the time to review the spacing of the public accesses <br /> for the proposed subdivision in the residential district <br /> <br /> but approved the public access spacing committed by the <br /> terms of the Subdivision Agreement solely on the Planning <br /> Director's recommendation. <br /> ]3 <br /> <br />