10/23/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M M M Director Keating felt it is important to note that probably the most restrictive way concurrency can be implemented is requiring that the necessary facilities actually be in place before a Development Order is issued, and probably the most lib- eral way is to put a capital improvement in the Capital Improve - men ts~Program. Commissioner Scurlock noted that apparently the State has somewhat changed their position and allowed a less strict interpretation; instead of requiring that the improvement actually be in place, they allow the county to put something in its 3 or 5 year plan. This, however, means that the county is on the hook for that improvement, and he felt there may be reason for us to be more restrictive than the state. Chairman Eggert noted that she had a question about parks, but was assured that they are adequate for the next few years. Commissioner Scurlock referred to the Concurrency Require- ments Table, and in particularaTraffic, which he believed is a critical concern. He pointed out that in the top category (Comp Plan Amendments - Rezonings - Conceptual Project Approvals), it shows that no action is required for Traffic until the capacity is not available. He personally did not see why we should not require action similar to water/sewer and at least ask them to enter into a developer's agreement to provide for capacity. He felt we have less handle on transportation than any of these things. County Attorney did not feel there is a real need for any agreement at that stage because we actually don't want them to.,do anything, and Chairman Eggert pointed out that we don't have to approve a rezoning; we have a policy choice. Director Keating advised that staff looked at a good many other concurrency ordinances, and based on that, came up with this. He stressed that the applicant has to meet other concur- rency tests before he can get his building permit. OCT 3 1990 53 ({o0a