Laserfiche WebLink
John Higgs <br />, resident on Myrtle Way, wanted the Board to make sure that the public <br />and the people are not saddled with a development they do not want. He agreed with Mr. Brackett <br />who suggested they enter into a discretionary agreement and follow the process used to amend the <br />Mr. Higgs <br />5-year plan. He felt it would eliminate a lot of dissension and any legal problem. <br />expressed concerned that the Board may find themselves in a position to pre-approve a developer <br />that has not gone through any process, but staff advised him it has to be financially feasible to go <br />Mr. <br />on the CIP, and the Board has complete discretion when a project is not in the 5-year plan. <br />Higgs <br /> agreed with Mr. Christopher regarding waiting for the consultant’s report and then consider <br />the two ordinances. <br /> <br />Chairman Neuberger announced that they would not be taking action today. <br /> <br />Joseph Paladin <br />, Chairman of the Growth Awareness Committee, a private sector <br />group, felt our County would be less affected by Senate Bill 360 because we have taken on a <br />management plan. He thought staff took a conservative approach to Senate Bill 360 in wording <br />the ordinance, and he sees the proportionate share as another tool to getting roads built where <br />normally they could not. He felt it was important to point out that part of the model ordinance was <br />not included in the draft ordinance. He read “…under this process development may proceed <br />Mr. Paladin <br />despite a lack of adequate capacity or impact of the transportation system.” <br />concluded stating that the developer can always pay more than his impact fee allowance, but he <br />can never pay less. <br />Director Keating explained that there is a provision in Senate Bill 360 that actually <br />allows local government to approve a development project where the applicant is entering into a <br />proportionate share agreement, even if he does not fix all the existing deficiencies. It has some <br />qualifying wording that the proportionate share improvements have to supply some significant <br />benefit to the impact of the transportation system. Staff did not feel it needed to be in the ordinance <br />and felt it was not consistent with the County’s philosophy. <br />March 3, 2006 <br />5 <br />Public Workshop <br />Proportionate Share Ordinance <br /> <br />