5/22/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MAY .2 2 1995 BOOK a S PAilF 98 ordinance ... "upon receiving an extension, all approved site plans shall comply with all applicable County regulations as they exist on the date the extension is granted." The Commissioners agreed to include this and any other changes that might be made this morning in one Motion at the end of this hearing. Administrator Wright explained that the Technical Review Committee is chaired by the Planning 8 Development Director, and that it is specified that we schedule a site plan for review within 12 days of its submittal date. Commissioner Bowman noted that there isn't any definition of "minor site plan" in the ordinance, but Director Keating advised that definition is covered under "Applicability" on Page 3, and that definitions were set out in the overall Zoning Code. He noted that "shall" is mandatory and "may" and "should" are optionable. The Board then discussed at great length the "Paved Road Requirements" in Item #3 on Page 18 of the ordinance. Director Keating felt that this was one of most controversial provisions in the entire proposed ordinance and staff made some changes based on the input received during the workshops. The main concern is whether or not the owner of a piece of property should be responsible for contributing to the paving of a road that he does not use for access. Staff has been following the policy in these cases of requiring the developer to escrow an amount equal to their contribution under the petition paving program. Attorney Brandenburg was concerned that this might conflict with the impact fee formula developed as a result of the study underway. He explained that this provision applies only to subdivisions fronting on unpaved roads contained on the Thoroughfare Plan, which are arterials and collectors; however, the impact fee consultants have been instructed to price the paving, drainage and pedestrian access into the impact fee for 28 ® r