Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CTC CONTln <br /> <br />from the City staff were forwarded to <br />the LUC and the LUC has the right to con- <br />sider the City designation and has the <br />right to accept, recommend thati the City <br />modify them, or take the City to court <br />or the governors office. <br />The hearing at the LUC will be the last <br />week in July. <br />Mr. Houlehan stated that the matter that <br />will remain for consideration will be <br />based on Geologic Hazard designation. <br />He stated that it was still an open ques- <br />tion exactly what is the standard, as to <br />whether the City is acting properly under <br />HB 1041 of 1974 and he thought that the <br />City will have to assume that the test <br />is the same as in all other administrative <br />law; if the City acted reasonably in light <br />of all the evidence it had before it. <br />Approximately two weeks ago the preliminary <br />pun was presented to the Louisville Plan- <br />ning Commission and they recommended to <br />Council the approval of the pun plan and <br />the annexation agreement. <br />Mr. Houlehan stated that in regards to the <br />annexation and zoning agreement; this <br />agreement is about the same as the one <br />that was recommended for adoption in <br />the spring of 1975, however, when the <br />court decree came down early 1976, the <br />Lun indicated thoroughly that if an annex- <br />ation agreement was adopted between the <br />developer and Louisville that this would <br />be contracting away the Police power by <br />Louisville, which was identified both by <br />the City Attorney and the developer, that <br />the present Council can not bind future <br />Councils and the agreement simply <br />memorializes the discussions of negotiations. <br />The LUC indicated that there would be all <br />kinds of problems in another annexation <br />agreement was entered into. The agreement <br />was then modified strictly to a services <br />agreement that concerned only water <br />and sewer. <br />Mr. Houlehan stated that the LUC repre- <br />sentative, Mr. Kurtz-Phalen, stated that <br />almost every thing was in order in re- <br />gards to land use compliance, but the <br />City did not have an annexation agreement, <br />so they could not properly control this. <br />Since the LUC has changed, we have all <br />changed with them and new have an <br />annexation agreement which is similar to <br />the old one. The annexation agreement <br /> <br />8 <br />