Laserfiche WebLink
2. 6.4.8 The development agreement appears to require a developer to guarantee completion of <br /> future phases. What is this all about? <br /> <br />· Remove the section dealing with phasing and development agreements. This is dealt with in <br /> 6.4.15. <br /> <br />3. 6.4.10.2 Same as point #1 above. <br /> <br />This policy is proposed for several reasons. First, it permits sufficient amount of time <br />digitize a recorded plat. Second, by allowing digitization to take place our computerized <br />addressing system can be used making the addressing process more efficient. Third, by <br />allowing the first two items to occur each building permit will be tied t~ the actual parcel ID <br />number instead of the subdivision's parent PIN number making it easier to track the <br />location of each permit and for more logical record keeping between several County <br />departments. <br /> <br />4. 6.4.15.12 Performance securities should be able to be partially released. <br /> <br />County staff agrees that this is a good approach. Other jurisdictions feel that partial <br />releases are not appropriate. This is a policy decision that should be made by the Board of <br />Commissioners. <br /> <br />6.4.16.2 When would a maintenance guarantee ever be used by the County? How are streets <br />going onto the state system be handled? <br /> <br />Although the County does not maintain utilities, it has cooperative arrangements for utility <br />service in the unincorporated areas. In these cases, bonds would still be required and held <br />by the service provider. For streets, the County will hold a maintenance bond until the <br />street is accepted for maintenance by NCDOT. <br /> <br />6.4.17, 17.2, 17.3 Is there any difference between a subdivision variance and a subdivision <br />exception? As an exception is it a simple majority and a variance an 80% role? What is the <br />distinction? <br /> <br />· The only term used in this section is exception. An exception to subdivision regulations does <br /> not require the same scrutiny as a zoning variance. <br /> <br />6.5.3.6 Retention and detention areas should count Obviously, for developments along streams <br />they are akeady protected as to where the basins can be located. Similarly, the basins are going to be <br />in the lowest areas which may very well be in a 10-year storm. The benefit being that open space <br />remains. Why not allow the claming of all of it but just not for the active requirement? <br /> <br />· Not sure how this section would not permit the use of these basins for open space as long as <br /> they meet th-6 criteria. <br /> <br />6.5.3.7.4 Setting the cost of active recreation improvements as a function of pre-development tax <br />value seems very strange. <br /> <br />· This standard was developed through the input of the Homebuilders Association and its <br /> members who attended various workshops and technical meetings. <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br /> <br />