Agenda - 12-10-2002-9a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3~ existing single and multifamily housing as demand from working families, students, university staff and others continues to grow. Recommendation: Exempt housing that meets strict affordability standazds and exempt the affordable components of other developments from the requirement to secure Certificates of Adequate School Capacity (CAPS). 4. Under the draft MOU and Model Ordinance, the County will be given the ultimate authority to regulate growth and development in the municipalities. It would be unfortunate for well-planned projects, approved by municipalities, to be prohibited from proceeding because of poor funding, poor planning or political decisions made the County level. Recommendation: Strengthen the language in Section 7 of the MOU so that the County must plan for and fund adequate school construction. 5. The Model Ordinance indicates that in the event that multifamily units aze destroyed, voluntarily demolished or condemned that the property owner may rebuild, but only on that site (the ability to reconstruct is attached to the land and not the property owner). The Model Ordinance does not address the availability of CAPS if the property is not reconstructed or if its reconstruction is delayed by years. For example, if a housing complex was destroyed or demolished, could the capacity created by the destruction of such a complex be portable allowing the property owner to take it to a new site and build without having to apply for and secure CAPS? Would the increase in capacity available from a multifamily unit being taken offline become available to the next project in the queue if the owner made no plans to rebuild? Recommendation: Clarify the procedures for assessing capacity and issuing CAPS in the event that housing units aze destroyed, demolished or condemned. It is cleaz that in the event of such a loss, the capacity would remain with the property, but not cleaz for how long. The possibility of portable capacity in such a case should be investigated further. 6. The Chamber is concerned about how the queue for CAPs will be handled when capacity is not available. Recommendation: Establish regulations for governing the queue of delayed projects including: 1. Construction time limits on a project should begin after CAPS have been issued. 2. If the queue includes projects needing 100 CAPS, 75 CAPS, and 5 CAPs waiting in that order, and only 5 CAPS are judged to be available, should provisions be made for the project with 5 CAPs to be allowed to proceed forwazd, rather than all projects remaining in the queue. 7. If SAPFO is adopted at a time when no capacity is available, a moratorium on new housing construction will result. Recommendation: If adopted, SAPFO should not take effect until such a time when school capacity is projected to be available for at least two consecutive years. 8. Before adopting the draft MOU or Model Ordinance, the ten-year capacity projections and ten-year funding projections should be made public and reviewed by all of the adopting bodies and the public.