Support the Republican Newspaper! It's only $9.95/year for the online edition!
May. 5, 2011
A proposal to add language to the Garrett County Comprehensive Plan identifying certain mountain ridgelines as sensitive areas in need of protection from development is a dead issue, at least for the near future. The Garrett County commissioners and Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments in March, and the issue has been batted back and forth between them since then.
After reviewing public commentary from the hearing, the Planning Commission on April 6 voted three to two in favor of forwarding the proposal to the commissioners, who were to make the final decision about including the amendments into the plan on May 3.
Shortly after the April vote, however, Director John Nelson, GC Department of Planning and Land Development, reviewed state law and local procedures about transmitting the commission's public record to the commissioners. According to Maryland's Section 3.07(c) of Article 66B, Nelson determined, the Planning Commission's approval of a proposed plan amendment requires the affirmative votes of not less than the majority of all its membership, not just the majority of the members present at a meeting.
Four commission members, therefore, would have needed to vote in favor of the amendment in order for the proposal to be correctly forwarded to the commissioners for their approval/disapproval.
Upon learning about Nelson's assessment of the provisions, the county commissioners referred the proposed plan amendment back to the Planning Commission for its further review and consideration at its May 4 meeting.
Since four Planning Commission members, a majority, cast affirmative votes yesterday to let the commission's April decision, which was not a majority, stand, the ridgeline proposal cannot be forwarded to the county commissioners for them to vote on its possible inclusion into the plan.
A motion was also made at yesterday's Planning Commission meeting to reconsider the amendments and reinitiate the public hearing process on the proposal. But that motion failed by a three to four vote.
The Planning Commission received more than 100 oral and written comments regarding the now mute proposal during the public hearing process in March. About 90 opposed the measure, while 38 were for it. Several of the letters supporting the amendments, however, were from groups representing multiple members.
Read the full article here.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment