2/6/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M raised enough questions that we don't feel comfortable with it now and will not until we receive the traffic study. Commissioner Scurlock reported that at the last meeting of the Transportation Planning Committee, the traffic analysis consultant was not able to give even a rough idea as to what the study might find. Attorney Caldwell had complete sympathy for what the County is trying to do in keeping a handle on the densities until the transportation study is complete, but he felt that the developers with vested rights should not be stopped. Commissioner Scurlock asked Attorney Brandenburg what criteria would be needed to consider whether this specific situation is vested. Attorney Brandenburg explained that "vesting" is a term that has been developed by the courts, as opposed to administrative bodies, and it relates to when someone relies justifiably on an act or omission of government to their substantial detriment and as a result, the courts rule that it is inequitable and unjust for the government to pull the rug out from under them, so to speak, and the court enters a judgement saying that the development is vested and can proceed as originally planned. Commissioner Scurlock felt then that the act here would be that the Planning & Zoning Commission failed to act in a timely fashion, but Attorney Brandenburg believed Attorney Caldwell would argue that it was based on the existence of the zoning, the submission of the site plan based on the site plan ordinance, the expenditures made in preparation of plans and the reservations of utilities. Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that the Comp Plan, however, always has contained a traffic service level requirement of C and D, but when the State did their traffic analysis, it was the first time the County had a study that showed that those levels of service were being exceeded or would be exceeded if more development was approved. The red flag was raised at that 51