BC 2008 03 13 Recessed
BC 2008 03 13 Recessed
2/12/2009 12:07:08 PM
11/27/2017 1:03:20 PM
Meeting Minutes - Date
Board of Commissioners
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
March 13, 2008 (Recessed Meeting) Page 747 <br />The Board of Commissioners for the County of Cabarrus met in recessed <br />session in the Multipurpose Room at the Cabarrus County Governmental Center <br />in Concord, North Carolina on Thursday, March 13, 2008, at 3:30 p.m. <br />Present - Chairman: H. Jay White, Sr. <br />Vice Chairman: Joni D. Juba <br />Commissioners: Robert W. Carruth <br />Grace M. Mynatt <br />Absent - Commissioner: Coy C. Privette <br />Also present were John Day, County Manager; Richard M. Koch, County <br />Attorney; Mike Downs, Deputy County Manager; Pam Dubois, Deputy County <br />Manager; Kay Honeycutt, Clerk to the Board and Lori Hinson, Deputy Clerk to <br />the Board. <br />Commissioner Carruth was not present at the beginning of the meeting <br />and Commissioner Privette had a doctor's appointment. <br />Call to Order <br />Chairman White called the meeting to order at 3:36 p.m. <br />Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) Work Session <br />Chairman White introduced Attorney Mark White with White & Smith, LLC, <br />who drafted the County's new Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO). <br />Mr. White presented the following five options for applicants when there is <br />no capacity in the school system at the 5-year level and beyond: <br />1. File an appeal or variance request with the Board of Adjustment. <br />2. Create an allocation system based on percentage or number of lots <br />per year so that there is still some use of the land permitted, but <br />still imposes a limit to what can be built and when. The allocation <br />system could be linked to a timing element that would begin in the <br />second or third year; or there could be a combination of the two and <br />the developer could have the choice to phase, mitigate or wait. <br />3. Negotiate a Development Agreement to be approved by the Board of <br />Commissioners that maintains the spirit and intent of the APFO. <br />9. Deferment - specify when the development can begin (ex. three <br />years). <br />5. Mitigation through payment of cash or construction of needed <br />facilities at the five year level. <br />He recommended the allocation system or the development agreement approach <br />as being the County's best options and stated his availability to respond to <br />questions. <br />There was a general discussion and the following concerns were <br />addressed: the possibility of litigation for not treating developers <br />consistently; grandfather projects already started; factoring the down-turn <br />in home building and realty sales into the equation; reconvening the <br />stakeholder's committee for input on the proposed changes; the agreement with <br />Concord not to allow annexations or utility extensions for an eight-month <br />period which expires in May or June of 2006; the Royal Oaks project; the <br />legal basis for not extending a consent agreement; etc. <br />Chairman White asked Mark White if there was a preference of options <br />for no capacity at the fifth year. Mark White stated it really is a county <br />choice but the best practice would be a combination of unit allocation every <br />year with the option to enter into a Development Agreement with the County. <br />He said this approach provides certainty and allows flexibility. <br />Commissioner Carruth arrived at 4:08 p.m. and was present for the <br />remainder of the meeting. ~ Due do a previously scheduled appointment, <br />Commissioner Mynatt left at 9:10 p.m. and was not present for the remainder <br />of the meeting. <br />Mr. White responded to further questions and a general discussion <br />ensued. Issues addressed included the following: the allocation system <br />starting immediately; what methodology is used in arriving at a number for <br />phasing; student generation rates for townhomes; using frameworks for <br />guidance; the development of a model Development Agreement and Development <br />Agreement Ordinance; the practical differences between a Consent Agreement <br />and a Development Agreement; minor subdivisions; asking municipalities to <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.