Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Mr. Kim <br /> stated his intent was to try and get the Board to account for everything. <br /> <br />George Christopher <br />wanted the issue addressed that P&Z has had a lot of debate. <br />It is regarding how the traffic analysis handles previously approved projects that have not yet <br />vested when a new development does a traffic study to determine their development’s impact <br />on the road system. <br /> <br />Mr. Kim <br /> responded that projects in the approval process should be identified as an <br />intermediate in the Concurrency Management Database in order to become active in the <br />system, and become final when they apply for their impact fees. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding various development projects throughout the County <br />and Mr. Bruce felt they needed to be cognoscente of what is coming online. <br /> <br />George Christopher <br /> asked if the growth rate is to be used, or if the approved <br />numbers should be used determining the impact the new project is going to have on the <br />highway system. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued and Director Keating emphasized that the developer cannot pull <br />a building permit until they pay the impact fees for any amount of land use that is approved for <br />development. He continued reviewing the rules back to 1991, when there was an economic <br />downturn. They allowed the developers to take the risk, get a preliminary plat or subdivision <br />approved, but were not required to be vested. Now staff is working on an LDR amendment to <br />Chapter 910, to require vesting earlier in the process. <br /> <br />Commissioner Davis was not sure he agreed with that process. Ideally, he would <br />like to get into the system that nobody vests until they absolutely have to, and that means the <br />MAY 23, 2006 <br />5 <br />JOINT WORKSHOP P&Z/BCC <br /> <br />