10/10/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OCT 1C) JtZ BOOK 78 uu[ 108 an owner/builder. This is probably the first house he has built, and a lot of these things are new to him. Chairman Wheeler wished to know if someone is currently living on a R/W of Tess than 60' and they add on, are they required to give the 30' R/W. Chief Planner -Boling advised that they are not; our requirement deals with a single family building permit which would be for a new residence. Chairman Wheeler noted that looking at this particular situation, a single family resident was living there currently in a mobile home. He is only expanding or improving his living conditions; the use of the property hasn't changed; and it is not creating an additional burden on that road. Planner Boling felt one way the equity situation is addressed is that when you have an existing residence there, such as that trailer, you are not assessed a traffic impact fee. Commissioner Scurlock noted that you have to triggerthe mechanism where you have to come up to current standards with something. What we have chosen in this county is a new construc- tion permit, and he asked if staff feels comfortable with that triggering mechanism. Public Works Director David advised that there has been discussion about some equitable revenue sources to solve some of our R/W acquisition problems, and one had to do with taking our existing impact fee district program and superimposing on top of the districts, a special assessment district for road R/W acquisition, which would solve some immediate timing problems on situations such as these. Discussion continued as to various alternatives, such as having one impact fee for the whole county, but Director Davis noted that we were advised by our consultant that it was better. to have districts. Commissioner Scurlock clarified that what he is suggesting is that we take each zone, get a master plan, identify and 17