AG 2004 10 04 RECESSED - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commerce Department Memo To; Board of Commissioners FnHIIII Jonathan B. Marshall, Commerœ Director CC: John D. Day, County Manager Date: 10/1/2004 Re: Adequate Public Facilities Review and Fees The extension of the Adequate Facilities Review to all municipalities in Cabarrus County, and the increase in the minimum amount of donation to address inadequacies have raised some que$tions of applicability and timing. The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss the dates and timing for how and where the adequate facilities review will be applied and at what minimum donation level. In addition, some consideration needs to be given to the best time to require payment of any fees approved as part of a developlTlent consent agreement. The Board of Commissioners amended the Resolution creating a policy for adequate facilities review in August to extend the adequacy provisions to Concord andKannapoli~. This extension was based on Section 5 of House Bill 224 which was ratified on June 30,2004. Section 5 states, among other things, that the County "...may enforœ...any provision of the school adequacy review... ø in those municipalities and the resolution affirmed the County's intent to do so. Because the word "may" was used in the legislation, the effective date of the extension of the review to the cities should be the effective date of the resolution which was August 16,2004. We have always made the interpretation that a development has been formally submitted for review once all forms, submissions and fees have been submitted. Therefore, we will apply the school adequacy review to all developments with a formal submission date after August 16,2004. There are some developments in both cities that may have met the statutory requirements for a vested right Each of those developments will need to be reviewed and a written interpretation made as to the applicability of the school adequacy Ì"eview.. Because the provisions of the Cabarrus County Subdivision Regulations are being applied for that adequacy review, the County Planing & Zoning Commission will consider appeals of those interpretations. There is a similar issue for the jurisdictions of the County, Hanisburg, Midland and Mt. Pleasant. The school adequacy review was already applied in each of these jurisdictions and they were subject to the original resolution conceming minimum value of methods to address adequacy. That minimum value was raised on September 20,2004 by amendment of the resolution. The same principle for formal submission would apply to determine the COJTect level of adequacy fee. Those developments with formal submission prior to the September 20,2004 date would be subject to the minimum amount in the original resolution and those submitted after that date would need to meet. the amended levels of the September 20th resolution. The final issue concerns when these fees are collected. The first consent agreements that were approved to address facility inadequacy required payment of any fees, or donation of property or services, to occur before a final subdivision plat could be recorded. Subsequent decisions modified that 8 Page 1 1