Laserfiche WebLink
Memo <br /> <br />Tog <br /> <br />From= <br /> <br />CC: <br /> <br />Date; <br /> <br />Re: <br /> <br />Frank Clifton, County Manager <br /> <br />Jonathan Mamohall, Planning Services <br /> <br />Mike Byrd <br /> <br />02/12./98 <br /> <br />Highland Creek Memorandum of Agreement <br /> <br />There does not seem to be any benefit for the County in this agreement. They will purchase the <br />property, but expect reimbursement for that cost plus interest. The interest negates the minor benefit of <br />using their money for some period. The agreement does not address the issues of response time for <br />emergency services and law enforcement. <br /> <br />The County is in a difficult position on this first phase since the Subdivision ReRulations did not provide <br />anything more than the general health, safely and w~lfare provisions on which to deny that phase. The <br />new adequate public facilities provisions are applicable to future phases, however, which includes the <br />additional 840 lots. In addition, the desire of the developer to move the County line is a bargaining <br />point. <br /> <br />I wouk/suggest that the Board of Commissioners approve the flint phase of the development and allow <br />additional phases to be held to the public facility standards. If the developers wish to proceed from that <br />point, it would be incumbent upon them to address the school adequacy, law enforcement, and <br />emergency service issues. Bob Bradshaw may then raise the issue of prior approval (the 1990 <br />approval by the Board of Commissioners for 1500 homes) and vested rights, but the time lapse from <br />approval to submission of the development plans is in the County's favor on that argument. <br /> <br />· Page I <br /> <br /> <br />