My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/13/1982
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1982
>
7/13/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:39 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 2:10:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/13/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
and the type of development that would occur in the County. <br />Mr. Parent asked how all these specifies came about <br />and Mr. Challacombe told him the existing standards state the County <br />would have to maintain the standard of level service. Mr. Challacombe <br />told him of the general policy of the County Commission, that as much <br />as possible, the County will maintain impact fees and work -through <br />enterprise funding to have development pay for itself; rather than to <br />be a burden on the individual taxpayers. He noted that was the main <br />reason this change was provided for. <br />Mrs. Bowman didn't see how the impact fee had anything <br />to do with the level of service. <br />Attorney Brandenburg explained the way it was now <br />worded, it lead you to believe if he was to go out and build a housing <br />project with 3,000 houses in it, which would severely impact a major <br />thoroughfare, the County has already made a statement that it will, <br />in fact, insure that level of service will be maintained on that <br />thoroughfare by lending of advalorem tax dollars to bring that road <br />to standards. He noted the proposed changes gave more specific <br />guidelines, saying "if a development is going to impact a roadway <br />significantly; so that it degrades a roadway, below level of service <br />D, that either one of two things will occur. #1. Development will <br />not proceed; or,the road will be upgraded to the level necessary, <br />but it doesn't make a statement as to whether the developer is going <br />in <br />to wait until the County gets aroundAits normal course of road im- <br />provements to bring it up to standards; or whether the developer is <br />going to volunteer to make contributions to the County roadway system <br />itself . <br />Mrs. Bowman felt the County should never have to "stoop <br />to level D". She asked if the stop lights -at 12th and 16th on U.S. <br />1 were that level and stated she didn't know how many of those the <br />County could tolerate. <br />Attorney Brandenburg explained the idea behind the <br />Land Use Plan or Zoning Code, is based on protection to the public <br />health, safety and welfare.- In order to justify imposition of a re- <br />striction, limiting development of an individual property, it has to <br />be justified on those basis. He went on to say if they were to <br />r. limit this to Level C, which was a designed capacity of roadway, the <br />r <br />optimum load conditions that the road was designed for; df you were <br />A <br />_ JUL 131982 -3- ATTArTTmFNT 41 ` (11, of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.