9/29/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

under the guise of public safety when what you are really trying to do is save it for road R/Ws; you have to pay for that part, and that issue is closed. Discussion on various alternatives continued at length, and _ Attorney Vitunac noted that staff's answer to paying prematurely when we are not ready to build the road but we want to save the R/W is the proposed document. Commissioner Bird commented that the price set was $3,000 with a Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment. He felt rather than just locking ourselves into the CPI, it might make sense to have an additional provision and make it subject either to the CPI adjustment or another appraisal, whichever is less to the county, because things can happen in the neighborhood that could have an unusual effect on the property value and be entirely unrelated to the CPI. The attorneys and Board members generally agreed that was a good idea. Chairman Scurlock inquired which departments have staffed this basic document as he believed this is a very complex issue and there is the potential for setting a great deal of precedent. Attorney Vitunac advised that Attorney Barkett has handled this and conferred with Planning Director Keating and Public Works Director Davis. Attorney Barkett noted that we have been trying to address this for two years and only recently the court decisions came down; this document is an interim measure until we get our ordinances in compliance with current law. Director Keating informed the Board that the Planning staff drafted a revision to the section of the Site Plan ordinance referring to R/W several weeks ago and because of this issue, went over it with the Public Works Director and Attorney's office for several days considering the implications of the recent court cases. They now are putting all the data together and redrafting it, and trying to see, with the impact fee credits, with the `SEP 1987 21` Book 6� F��cE571