Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Mr. McMahon <br /> replied that he disagreed. <br /> <br />Chuck Mechling, <br /> 1990 West Pointe Drive, brought forth a concept and did a <br />scenario of numbers saying as a County they need to take care of all situations and look at all <br />different sides. This would give a quicker cash flow upfront, allowing roads to be built and <br />creating a planning stage that could be followed throughout the county. <br /> <br />George Hamner Jr., <br /> P&Z Commission member, liked the idea of “pay as you go”, <br />but he did not understand what that does for planning. He wanted to know when they would <br />see the numbers. <br /> <br />Attorney Collins thought they need to know what could be required of the road <br />system, whether it is vested or not. <br /> <br />Administrator Baird stated that as long as a developer pays his impact fees, that is <br />his risk, and the County will not issue the land development permit unless their is capacity on <br />the roads. <br /> <br />Commissioner Davis said he sees a problem because after the third person, the <br />system breaks, and now they are talking about a policy to implement it. <br /> <br />Chairman Neuberger inquired from staff whether the current system was a good <br />working system. <br /> <br />Director Keating replied it was, but not with the Pending Ordinance. They are <br />looking at the first time an applicant is allowed to vest and the last time he has to vest. The first <br />point is when the developer has a complete land development application in. The applicant <br />MAY 23, 2006 <br />11 <br />JOINT WORKSHOP P&Z/BCC <br /> <br />