AG 2003 09 15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

August 25, 2003 · All new residential developments that require plan approval by the Cabarrus County Plaltning & Zoning Commission shall be reviewed for the adequacy of public services and facilities including school facilities. This review shall include existing school capacity as well as the additional capacity of schools under construction or for which ftmding of constr~ction has been approved. In addition, the review shall include the existing enrollment and esti~ted enrollment based on previously approved development. School adequacy shall be defined as that estimated enrollment not exceeding 110% of capacity as determined by the Kannapolis and Cabarrus School Systems. · Where school facilltles will not be adequate based on existing and projected enrollment, new development will be expected to address this inadequacy based on the cost incurred by Cabarr~s County for school capital facilities. The Board of Corm~issioners may consider direct or indirect contributions to the adequacy of schools in the form of cash contributions, dedication of land in a suitable area based on the Cabar~s County Schools 15 Year Plan, or infrastructure improvements that will directly benefit school sites. A con~lnation of these methods may also be considered. In no case shall the value of the contribution be less than 12.5% of the incurred capital cost of $8067 which is $1008. · New development within the corporate limits of any of the cities located in Cabarrus County should also be subject to the adequacy review. The Board of Commissioners requests that each of the cities require new development to enter into a consent agreement with Cabarrus County to address school adequacy as part of the municipality, s approval of that development. That consent agreement shall be subject to the same restrictions as listed above for development in the unincorporated area. Adopted this the 25~ day of Au~st, 2003 Cubarrus County Board of Commissioners /s/ Robert M. Freeman Robert M. Freeman, Chail~nan /s/ Frankie F. Bonds property around munlcipalities that has been identified for annexation within Mr. Marshall and Mr. Rodger Lentz, Planning Manager, reviewed issues associated with transitional zoning districts, including development standards and residential densities in those areas surrounding municipalities. They responded to a number of questions by the Board, including the proposed strengthening of tree preservation requirements. I~PON MOTION of Commissioner Carpenter, seconded by Commissioner Carruth and unanimously carried, the Board agreed for the cor~issioner liaison for each of the munlcipallties and County staff to meet with officials and staff of the respective municipalities to discuss the establishment of transitional zoning districts in each municipality's area of concern and to bring the issue back to the Board in October. Unified Develo~ent Ordinance Chairman Freeman questioned staff's work on the draft Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Mr. Marshall advised that staff does not spend a lot on time on the draft UDO for the County. Mr. Lentz did point out that County staff administers the UDO for the towns of Mt., Pleasant and Harrisburg.