BC 2008 03 13 Recessed - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

March 13, 2008 (Recessed Meeting) Page 747 The Board of Commissioners for the County of Cabarrus met in recessed session in the Multipurpose Room at the Cabarrus County Governmental Center in Concord, North Carolina on Thursday, March 13, 2008, at 3:30 p.m. Present - Chairman: H. Jay White, Sr. Vice Chairman: Joni D. Juba Commissioners: Robert W. Carruth Grace M. Mynatt Absent - Commissioner: Coy C. Privette Also present were John Day, County Manager; Richard M. Koch, County Attorney; Mike Downs, Deputy County Manager; Pam Dubois, Deputy County Manager; Kay Honeycutt, Clerk to the Board and Lori Hinson, Deputy Clerk to the Board. Commissioner Carruth was not present at the beginning of the meeting and Commissioner Privette had a doctor's appointment. Call to Order Chairman White called the meeting to order at 3:36 p.m. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) Work Session Chairman White introduced Attorney Mark White with White & Smith, LLC, who drafted the County's new Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO). Mr. White presented the following five options for applicants when there is no capacity in the school system at the 5-year level and beyond: 1. File an appeal or variance request with the Board of Adjustment. 2. Create an allocation system based on percentage or number of lots per year so that there is still some use of the land permitted, but still imposes a limit to what can be built and when. The allocation system could be linked to a timing element that would begin in the second or third year; or there could be a combination of the two and the developer could have the choice to phase, mitigate or wait. 3. Negotiate a Development Agreement to be approved by the Board of Commissioners that maintains the spirit and intent of the APFO. 9. Deferment - specify when the development can begin (ex. three years). 5. Mitigation through payment of cash or construction of needed facilities at the five year level. He recommended the allocation system or the development agreement approach as being the County's best options and stated his availability to respond to questions. There was a general discussion and the following concerns were addressed: the possibility of litigation for not treating developers consistently; grandfather projects already started; factoring the down-turn in home building and realty sales into the equation; reconvening the stakeholder's committee for input on the proposed changes; the agreement with Concord not to allow annexations or utility extensions for an eight-month period which expires in May or June of 2006; the Royal Oaks project; the legal basis for not extending a consent agreement; etc. Chairman White asked Mark White if there was a preference of options for no capacity at the fifth year. Mark White stated it really is a county choice but the best practice would be a combination of unit allocation every year with the option to enter into a Development Agreement with the County. He said this approach provides certainty and allows flexibility. Commissioner Carruth arrived at 4:08 p.m. and was present for the remainder of the meeting. ~ Due do a previously scheduled appointment, Commissioner Mynatt left at 9:10 p.m. and was not present for the remainder of the meeting. Mr. White responded to further questions and a general discussion ensued. Issues addressed included the following: the allocation system starting immediately; what methodology is used in arriving at a number for phasing; student generation rates for townhomes; using frameworks for guidance; the development of a model Development Agreement and Development Agreement Ordinance; the practical differences between a Consent Agreement and a Development Agreement; minor subdivisions; asking municipalities to