Agenda - 01-24-2013 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

10 1 2 3 4 5 4. Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance Amendments - To review government- 6 initiated amendments to the Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance in order to 7 exempt from the required impact fee the relocation of an existing stick built, modular, or 8 mobile home used for residential purposes onto a previously undeveloped parcel in 9 certain circumstances. 10 11 12 Staff Attorney Sahana Ayer introduced this item. In 2011 the BOCC directed the Attorney's 13 office to investigate the feasibility of modifying the existing school impact fee ordinance to 14 provide an exemption for residences relocated onto previously undeveloped property from 15 having to pay an impact fee. After completing a review of existing language, and based on 16 direction from the BOCC, the Attorney's office recommends adding language to the impact fee 17 ordinance allowing for the waiving of school impact fees for a relocated residential structure in 18 instances where: 19 - The property where the structure is moved from is either: 20 o Rezoned to a non-residential zoning designation where the development of a 21 residential land use is prohibited or 22 o The property is made voluntarily undevelopable for any use by other means 23 including, but not limited to: recordation of a conservation easement, dedication 24 of the property as permanent open space, etc. 25 - The properties where the structure is moved from and to are located within the same 26 school district 27 - Movement of the structure is in compliance with the standards of the Orange County 28 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) 29 30 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he is troubled with this. He thought that the purpose was to 31 provide that if someone moves a house from one lot to another lot that the impact fee would 32 NOT be imposed. This says that the impact fee would not be imposed if the lot which is vacated 33 is rendered unbuildable. He does not think that this was the intent. He does not think that this 34 meets the County Commissioners' request. 35 Discussion ensued on the impact fee from a relocated house. 36 Michael Harvey said that the impact fee is a land use, land based ordinance. The ordinance 37 is based on the notion of land use activity and it is not based on a structure. 38 Planning Director Craig Benedict said that the impact stays with the existing lot. The 39 request from the County Commissioners is to say that the impact goes with the house. The 40 question is what happens with the vacated lot. He thinks that the solution is that the new house 41 that comes onto the vacated lot would have to pay an impact fee. 42 Chair Pelissier said that she thinks this was the intent when this came forward the first time. 43 Commissioner Gordon said that the Board needs to understand the intricacies of this 44 ordinance. 45 Commissioner McKee said that this forces a previously developed piece of property to be 46 undevelopable. He has a problem with this. 47 Commissioner Jacobs said that this was initiated by someone who wanted to deconstruct a 48 house and move it somewhere else on the road. He appreciates that the Attorney's office is 49 trying to fix this issue within the laws. He thinks that logically it does not compute that he cannot 50 move a building from one place to another and have to pay another impact fee and distinguish 51 the development rights.