My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/28/2002 Meeting Minutes
DOcument-Host
>
Mayfield Village
>
Meeting Minutes
>
2002
>
01/28/2002 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2019 9:30:59 AM
Creation date
7/24/2018 9:30:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Legislation-Meeting Minutes
Document Type
Meeting Minutes
Date
1/28/2002
Year
2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
1-28-02 <br />Page 6 <br />Mrs. Mills said we need recommendations from Planning and Zoning at this time and I will be <br />firm on that. I am not on the Commission now; Mr. Marquardt will be taking that position over. <br />I hope that he will share my feelings at this time on this matter. <br />I <br />Mr. Marquardt said I would agree, in light of the whole issue. <br />Council President Buckholtz addressed Mr. Diemert and asked: where does it put it in terms of <br />the reading? Are we back to that it has been read once? <br />Mr. Diemert said tonight's reading could count as a second reading and you can table it <br />thereafter. It has already been read, you read it; you can table it now and it stays on the table <br />until a majority of Council bring it up. <br />Mr. Buckholtz said we have that motion now. <br />Mrs. Mills said yes; I made that motion. <br />Dr. Parker said so the difference would be if there wasn't a second reading tonight, then it would <br />just be left to be put on another Council meeting for it to proceed; whereas, with a tabling it <br />requires a new vote to come back on. <br />Mr. Diemert said yes. <br />Dr. Parker said I just wanted to make sure that distinction was clear. <br />Mr. Ilacqua addressed Mr. Diemert and said did you say by Bill reading it that it has been legally <br />read a second time already. <br />Mr. Diemert said if the majority of Council want to call it a second reading, you can do that if <br />you choose. <br />Mr. Ilacqua asked: aren't we doing that with the tabling or not? <br />Mr. Diemert said no. <br />Council President Buckholtz asked how would we do that? What you are saying is that tabling <br />takes if off until such time as we bring it back on. When we bring it back on, is it a new <br />ordinance or does it come on for its final reading. <br />Mr. Diemert said it will come back on for its third reading but you can bring it back onto the <br />table and not give it a third reading if the majority choose not to. You have had ordinances that <br />have sat there pending third reading for a long time. You could do that if you chose. What <br />tabling this will do will suspend all further actions such as the advertising which we would do <br />tonight--starting tomorrow we would start the 30-day advertising and all of that--and that will be <br />suspended pending this being on the table.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.