Laserfiche WebLink
Memorandum <br />April 9, 2003 <br />Page -3- <br /> <br />The basic framework has been outlined for review of new development that is under County <br />jurisdiction, but would be connected to Concord utilities. One of the goals of this framework is <br />that the process not be any more complicated for the customer. The steps of that process are as <br />follows: <br /> <br />· Meeting with the property owner/developer to go through the process. We have <br /> already had one of these meetings, and both County and City staff were <br /> included. <br />· Review by the City of Concord for possibility of voluntary annexation. <br />· Review of preliminary design by County Planning staff and City Engineering <br /> staff. Each staff will review for those standards that they will enforce. <br />· The development, assuming that they do not go through voluntary annexation <br /> first, will be reviewed by the County Planning and Zoning Commission and by <br /> the Board of Commissioners if necessary. <br /> <br />A major concern that arises out of this process is that if voluntary annexation is chosen and the <br />development review is solely by the City of Concord there will be no adequate fadlities review for <br />schools. <br /> <br />There are options to ensure that all development receives a school adequacy review. Some of <br />these were previously identified in the work session material given to the Board of <br />Commissioners, but the primary method would be to have the Board of Education perform this <br />review. It would require that the City and County ordinances be changed so that the all <br />residential development must have a certificate of school adequacy from the Board of Education <br />before the appointed and/or elected boards may review the development design. The City of <br />Concord had indicated previously that they are willing to enforce school adequacy if we can find a <br />method to do so, and we would pursue this with Kannapolis also. The Harrisburg and Mt. <br />Pleasant UDO's already include the adequacy review for school facilities, but the method for that <br />review would need to be altered. <br /> <br />! hope that this has addressed the status of the draR UDO, as well as, issues related to it. !f you <br />have additional questions please do not hesitate to contact me. <br /> <br /> <br />