|
1714 LAWS OF MARYLAND [Ch. 6
LAND OCCUPIERS OF THE PROPOSED NEW DISTRICT;
(5) THE PROBABLE EXPENSE OF CARRYING ON
EROSION CONTROL OPERATIONS WITHIN ANY DISTRICT; AND
(6) OTHER ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL FACTORS
RELEVANT TO THE DETERMINATION, HAVING DUE REGARD TO
THE LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATIONS SET FORTH IN §8-102.
HOWEVER, NO DISTRICT OR DISTRICTS MAY BE DIVIDED OR
COMBINED, OR BOTH, IF A MAJORITY OF LAND OCCUPIERS
VOTE AGAINST EITHER THE PARTICULAR DIVISION OR
COMBINATION WHICH IS SUBMITTED TO THEIR VOTE.
(F) COMMITTEE SHALL RECORD DETERMINATION; CERTIFY
APPROVAL.
IF THE COMMITTEE DETERMINES THAT THE DIVISION OR
COMBINATION, OR BOTH, IS NOT ADMINISTRATIVELY
FEASIBLE, IT SHALL RECORD THE DETERMINATION AND DENY
THE PETITION. IF THE COMMITTEE DETERMINES THAT THE
DIVISION OR COMBINATION, OR BOTH, IS ADMINISTRATIVELY
FEASIBLE, IT SHALL RECORD THE DETERMINATION AND
PROCEED WITH THE DIVISION OR COMBINATION, OR BOTH.
REVISOR'S NOTE: This section presently appears as
Art. 66C, §102(a), (b), and (c) of the Code.
The last phrase of subsection (a) is proposed
for deletion because no provisions of the
present subheading sets forth the
requirements for a petition to organize a
district. Chapter 752, Acts of 1969,
repealed a prior section (§92) of Art. 66C
which provided for the creation of soil
conservation districts and established the
appropriate procedures for petitioning.
Under the present statutes, districts may
only be divided or combined; the creation of
new districts apparently is not permitted.
New language derived from the last sentence
of §102(c) is added in the second sentence of
subsection (a). The present provision in
subsection (e) that requires the Committee to
determine whether division or combination is
administratively "practicable" is proposed
for deletion because the words "feasible" and
"practicable" are synonymous. The word
"feasible" is used throughout this Article
instead of "practicable" because
"practicable" is often confused with
"practical".
|
