Laserfiche WebLink
FF" - <br />JAN 10 1J6y <br />ROOK 75 PAGE 552 <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Scurlock that if Mrs. Clark <br />can submit any evidence showing she was actively working on <br />constructing that dwelling recently, that the traffic impact fee <br />be established at the old rate as opposed to the new rate; if <br />not, she then would have to pay the same as anyone else. <br />Director Rymer was not real confident that Mrs. Clark can <br />furnish that evidence since she has not done so in the last two <br />years. In defense of Mrs. Clark, however, Director Rymer pointed <br />out that Mrs. Clark came to her with this problem prior to <br />January 1st, and if the decision had been made then in regard to <br />renewing the building permit, she would have been allowed to <br />renew it at the old Traffic Impact fee rate. She felt possibly <br />they should have encouraged her to pay the fee while she was <br />waiting for this appeal, but she emphasized that they definitely <br />were working on this prior to January 1st. <br />Attorney Vitunac felt the Board has the prerogative to <br />consider the vesting. <br />Based on the Attorney's opinion, Commissioner Scurlock <br />stated that he would withdraw his earlier Motion. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Bird, to set the Traffic Impact Fee at the <br />old level for Mrs. Clark. <br />Mrs. Clark asked about the water and sewer impact fees, and <br />it was explained that she must pay the water and sewer impact <br />fees in any event when she is hooked up. <br />Building Director Rymer pointed out that if Mrs. Clark can <br />somehow prove her permit is active, she will not have to renew <br />the building permit and will not have to pay the traffic impact <br />fees at all, but she will have to pay the other fees. <br />20 <br />