Laserfiche WebLink
that would fall under the concurrency referenced in the Report, since they had already submitted <br />Ms. Mills <br />their site plan. responded “No”; they would not be able to by this document. <br /> <br />William Hughes <br />, School Board member, spoke about pressure by developers to use <br />adjacent areas to say there is capacity across County line. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding school concurrency versus traffic concurrency with the <br />County’s Community Development Director Bob Keating explaining the provision on Page 25 of <br />the ILA (15.6(B), which reads, “The Local Government shall not approve a final site plan for a <br />multi-family residential project or a final plat for a single-family residential project unless the <br />project is vested for school concurrency, ...”. He pointed out that early approval does not give any <br />vesting or exemption. <br /> <br />Director Keating suggested there be a consensus at a broad level, because what the <br />Department of Community Affairs wants to see is that pilot communities are in consensus before <br />they cut us the final check. <br /> <br />Chairman Neuberger <br />reminded the Panel that they needed a vote for the Motion. <br /> <br />The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the Motion <br />carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Chairman Neuberger <br /> clarified the prior Motion and noted there has to be another <br />Motion for Director Keating’s suggestion for a consensus at a broad level. <br /> <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Mayor Tom White, <br />SECONDED by Ann Reuter for a broad consensus of the <br />Interlocal Agreement, the Public School Facilities Element, <br />September 26, 2006 <br />8 <br /> <br />Joint Concurrency Workshop <br /> <br />