Laserfiche WebLink
Assistant Attorney DeBraal stated concerns that such an ordinance could have a <br />discriminatory effect on commercial developments. <br />Peter Robinson, 315 Greytwig Road, wanted to leave the "pending Ordinance" in place <br />and suggested having a workshop on what the concurrency situation was, such as roads, water and <br />sewer plants. <br />Discussion ensued regarding traffic congestion on US 1, impact fees, vesting, and capacity. <br />Commissioner Davis liked vesting at permit because of the affordability issue felt it would <br />give the small builder more opportunities. He thought the answer to the situation would be to start <br />addressing the road issues. <br />Administrator Baird told the Board that they needed to decide, get a consistent plan and not <br />overreact to the economy. <br />After a long discussion, Commissioner Davis expressed that he supported staffs <br />recommendation and would like to take away the "scarcity issue of concurrency". He added that <br />when vesting early, if capacity was there, a percentage or a number needed to be assigned. <br />George Christopher, 945 Painted Bunting Lane, said there needed to be rationing and he <br />did not think it mattered if a percentage or a "meaningful" number were used. He suggested <br />varying it depending on the size of the road. He noted a few discrepancies in the Amendments to <br />Chapter 910 and gave an analysis to links for concurrency and traffic. He suggested the Board <br />continue with what they were doing, and have staff come back with a recommendation and provide <br />examples of traffic reports. <br />7. WRAP UP <br />January 5, 2007 9 <br />CHAPTER 910 <br />