3/19/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

minimum acceptable levels -of -service. Consequently, adoption of this amendment and application of the flexible concurrency provisions could adversely affect quality of life in the county. As structured, the more flexible state concurrency law reflects a philosophy that inadequate levels -of -service (in terms of traffic, this means_ more congestion) are acceptable for a short period of time (essentially up to three years) as long as improvements needed to meet service level standards are committed and will be constructed within three years of project certificate of occupancy. By adopting more flexible standards, the county would be accepting a tradeoff. As a result, the county could allow development projects to be approved and constructed even though adequate roadway capacity to serve those projects does not exist, with the tradeoff being that the public would experience congestion on affected roadways. Besides the level-of-service/congestion issue associated with the proposed capital improvements element amendment, there is another important issue which must be considered. That issue relates to the county's liability in case programmed improvements are delayed or eliminated. As indicated in the proposed amendment wording, the county must commit to timeframes for beginning and completing roadway improvements identified in the capital improvements program if the capacity to be produced by those improvements is to be considered available in approving new development projects which otherwise would not meet concurrency requirements. Another condition for applying the capacity from future road improvements to new development projects is that the county must commit to submitting a comprehensive plan amendment if any of the programmed improvement projects needed to accommodate the impacts of new development projects are delayed, deferred, or eliminated. This last condition imposes potential liability on the county if for some reason, either financial, legal, technical, or other, the county cannot start or complete a project on time. Because that condition requires a comprehensive plan amendment in the case of project delay, deferral or elimination, the state then would be involved in the process. In its review of an amendment to delay, defer or eliminate an improvement project needed to serve development projects that have already been approved and may already have been constructed, the state could potentially require the county to rescind development orders, withhold certificates of occupancy, construct alternative roadway improvements, or take otaiar ac Z--ioraa . "I rI .Z t ices coiAnty will approve development orders based upon its commitment to make roadway improvements, the county must be prepared to meet its commitments or incur unknown consequences. Although the state's concurrency law has been changed to allow -more flexibility in implementing concurrency, the county is not obligated to adopt these provisions. By retaining its current requirements, however, the county will probably soon be in a position where it must deny development project applications because of roadway level -of -service problems. Adopting the proposed amendment will allow the county to approve such projects, but at a cost. The cost will be more, but temporary, traffic congestion on some roads, and added financial risk to the county if programmed projects are not started or completed on time. 77 �q �?.g I PAGE U1 7 March 19, 1996 BOOK 9