I have no clue about the tax situation. We are certainly not paid but there are expenses for the board, like photocopying plot plans and notifying land owners. I assume these are paid for through the assessment, although, as I understand it, the county hasn't paid it for some time.
As for the 4.5 miles limit, it was enacted by the STATE legislature in 1977 because of concerns that the was no control over development near city limits and that, once a subdivision was developed, the property owners might request annexation and the subdivision would not be in any way compatible with the existing city codes. The City County Planning Board existed before that, as far back as the late 1950's, if what I read in the newspapers of that era are correct, but it was not defined in the same manner.
When the state legislature passed the so-called doughnut law, giving the power to expand planning, the board was altered and new legislation passed locally to reflect that change. The 4.5 miles is measured from the city limits, and therefore is as erratic as the city limits themselves. One caveat, a property must be 100% IN to qualify. Unlike like flood plains (another topic over which the planning board has no jurisdiction or influence) a property cannot be partially in and partially out. If a portion is out, the whole parcel is out.
Apparently, a final map or some other detail was not filed properly in 1977. The board has been operating for the past 33 years without this causing any problem and it was rectified when the map was filed.
Mr. Leidholt's fence was never presented to the Planning Board. Ever. Never mentioned. Never discussed. How he got the idea he can't built a barbed wire fence in the county is beyond me, as, to the best of my knowledge, he can. He can't build one in the city limits but that is NOT a planning board recommendation. Again, that issue, whatever it is, NEVER came before the planning board in any way, shape or form.
As for city ordinance, they apply WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. The planning board has NOTHING to do with city ordinances or their enforcement. The 4.5 mile limit, which has been in place for more than three decades, has NOTHING to with ordinances. It has to do with developing subdivisions in some sort of planned manner so we don't end up with weird streets and no utility access or whatever was grandfathered in before planning was considered.
I did not attend the public meeting but I gather most of what was discussed had nothing to do with the planning board. The County Commissioners in attendance could have answered many of the questions, such as the way members of the board are selected and appointed, how the board is funded, but chose not to do so.
Again, I don't know about the funding issue but I do know that barbed fences do NOT come under our jurisdiction. City ordinances do NOT come under our jurisdiction. We approve the written plats for new subdivisions to make sure they meet legal requirements such as street width and legal language.
So, except for the funding thing, which is a pretty itty bitty amount, what other complaints are there that actually APPLY TO THE PURVUE of the City County Planning Board?
[This message has been edited by Amorette Allison (10/30/2010)]