Laserfiche WebLink
-Paved Access for All Developments <br />A third alternative for the required paving component of <br />the County road paving policy is mandating that all <br />developments other than individual single-family homes <br />provide paved access to their site. This would achieve <br />the objective of improving unpaved roads. However, it <br />would not differentiate between intense heavy 'traffic <br />generators/attracters and those which are less intense <br />projects generating or attracting fewer trips, <br />particularly where a project is located on an unpaved <br />road a significant distance from the nearest paved road. <br />-Paved Access & Paving of All Abutting Roads <br />A fourth and final alternative of the required paving <br />component of the County road paving policy is requiring <br />that all developments other than single-family homes not <br />only provide access to their site, but also pave unpaved <br />roads abutting the project site. This alternative would <br />achieve the County's objective of improving unpaved <br />roads. As with the previous alternative, this <br />alternative would not differentiate between types of <br />projects and their location in relation to existing paved <br />roads. <br />° Responsibility <br />A second component of a County road paving policy involves <br />responsibility. As with the required road paving component, <br />several alternatives exist for establishing responsibility for <br />improving existing unpaved roadways. The four principal <br />alternatives are: the developer, the beneficiaries, the <br />County, or some combination of those entities. This component <br />is closely related to both the required paving*component and <br />the financing/timing component of the County road paving <br />policy. <br />-Developer <br />The first alternative for the responsibility component is <br />the developer. Under current County policy, it is the <br />developer who in most instances has the responsibility to <br />ensure that required paving occurs. While several <br />alternatives exist for the developer to accomplish such <br />paving as may be required,'it is incumbent upon the <br />developer to implement them. The major advantages of <br />this alternative are: unpaved roads are improved; <br />responsibility is assigned to one individual; <br />responsibility for making improvement is related to a <br />request for project approval; and it achieves the <br />County's objective of requiring that the cost of <br />improvements to be born by those creating the need. The <br />principal disadvantage relating to this alternative <br />involves the fairness/equity issue. Because the <br />developer may be required to pave roadways abutting land <br />owned by others who are not required to share in the cost <br />of paving, this alternative may result in the developer <br />paying a higher share of the paving cost than is <br />warranted by the developer's frontage. <br />31 BDOA 62 'AGE r 17 <br />