Laserfiche WebLink
OCT 3 1 198 <br />6300K 62 PAGE 698 <br />Chairman Lyons felt that since we are looking at a <br />20 -year plan, it is certain that roads will be needed at <br />sometime in the future in that area. <br />During considerable discussion on the feasibility of <br />reserving setbacks, Carolyn Eggert noted that it has been a <br />major problem of the' Planning & Zoning Commission and she <br />felt that the inequity that stands with the current policy <br />is very deeply felt and that some credit should be given. <br />Commissioner Wodtke wondered if every one of those <br />roads would need widening in the future since it would <br />involve significant amounts of right-of-way. <br />Director Davis explained that we are not really <br />planning on a major increase in traffic volume on a lot of <br />the secondary roads, but they are designed to serve the <br />surrounding properties by providing a center left-hand turn <br />lane. <br />Duncan Bowman of Laurel Builders asked if the impact <br />fee ordinance would allow the flexibility for developers to <br />be compensated for dedication of property on roads that are <br />not on the Thoroughfare Plan. <br />Commissioner Scurlock spoke of how difficult it has <br />been for him, personally as a Commissioner, to receive <br />donations from some people and not others, and he felt he is <br />at a point of going to the policy of paying everyone for <br />everything and then tax it, even though it is cheaper for <br />the County to encourage people to give right-of-way. <br />Mr. Bowman emphasized that his concerns are more <br />directed at credits under the impact fee ordinance, and <br />Director Davis explained that the drafted ordinance calls <br />for credit to be given only for roads designated on the <br />capital improvement plan. <br />Commissioner Bird asked if we adopt Alternative #2 and <br />the proposed impact fee ordinance as presently drafted, <br />would the combination of the two make it more equitable for <br />22 <br />