My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
MIN CHC 1999-09-08
PublicDocuments
>
County Clerk - Council
>
County Clerk
>
Charter Commission
>
2000
>
Minutes
>
MIN CHC 1999-09-08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/9/2018 12:30:06 PM
Creation date
3/6/2018 3:12:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
AGE/MIN (Charter Comm.)
Agency
Charter Commission
Year
1999
Meeting date
9/8/1999
Type
MIN
Document Relationships
AGE CHC 1999-09-08 SP MTG
(Related)
Path:
\County Clerk - Council\County Clerk\Charter Commission\2000\Agendas
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
GOLDSTEIN: I think there are problems with that. Legally, problems with that, if <br />we're supposed to be consistent, and not, quote, arbitrary. <br />IRVINE: We've heard that. Is there a mandate for consistency? <br />GOLDSTEIN: 1 think there is. <br />RAY: Any more questions on this? And before we leave this section, <br />anything in Chapter IV, Qualifications of the Director, anything else you want to take <br />the opportunity to ask her, just as much as we can get out on the table tonight. Sue. <br />IRVINE: 1 did have one more question under Section 5.4-2(d). It says that <br />the Planning Director reviews the proposed capital improvement and prioritizes such <br />things for the County. We were given testimony, at one point, that that really didn't <br />happen. Do you do that, or is that a good idea to leave it in there, or is it done more by <br />the Mayor and his department heads meeting together? Can you tell me? <br />GOLDSTEIN: 1 would have to say I don't know that, over the years, it's been <br />consistently done, but I think in the past couple of years, we have tried to fulfill this <br />particular function. In particular the Deputy has been charged with recommending <br />those kinds of priorities, and it's just a recommendation, but the idea of the <br />recommendations coming from the Planning Department and the Planning Director is <br />this, just so that there is some amount of that consistency with the general plan. <br />IRVINE: Thank you. <br />RAY: Steve. <br />BESS: 1 was just going to ask Virginia, you know, the Board of Appeals - <br />Since most of the decision making on permitting, all of it, is going to be sent over the <br />Public Works, why wouldn't it make sense to keep the Board of Appeals, to staff it with <br />Planning Department, because they would be independent. They wouldn't have that <br />conflict of interest, for the most part. 90-95% of the actions would involve Public <br />Works. It wouldn't involve them. <br />GOLDSTEIN: I have to say this, and if I look at the overall structure of things, <br />maybe it might make sense because the department is still the body that provides some <br />amount of that policy kinds of advice to both the Mayor and the County Council, so that, <br />from a policy standpoint, it might be okay. From a practical standpoint, I suppose this <br />whole thing of budget. <br />RAY: More questions for Virginia? In regard to this Division of <br />Permitting, I guess we need to get Public Works a little bit more into the loop and on <br />24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.