Agenda - 06-29-2000-9f - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Develo ment Process Schedule and Action • First Action; Planning Board approved the Concept Plan on October 6,1999 by a unanimous vote with the following conditions that have been incorporated in the preliminary plan resolution of approval. Second Action: Planning Board recommended approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plan on May 4, 2000 with the following three revisions to the staff recommendation. 1. Recommended that the BOCC consider adopting a requirement to create a perpetual maintenance account to be funded by the applicant at a level that will be sufficient to pay for all annual operating costs, including projected capital equipment replacement costs, for the pumping station. 2 . Recommended that the dedication of the property along McGowen Creek satisfy the payment in- lieu-ofparkland dedication. 3 . Recommended that the walking trail between the Efland-Cheeks school site and McGawen Creek be limited to the 100' along the eastern side of the property. • Third Action: 1. The BOCC shall consider the application within a reasonable amount of time. (Orange County Subdivision Regulations Section III-D-3-d) . 2 . During deliberations and consideration of the application BOCC may defer consideration at any point to pursue additional analysis and review. (Orange County Subdivision Regulations Section III-D-3-d). If approved the applicant shall have one (1) year to prepare and file a Preliminary Plat application. If a Preliminary Plat has not been submitted within the specified time limit, the Concept Plan shall become null and void. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Fiscal Impact Analysis is provided as an attachment. Due to the anticipated low cost of this affordable housing project, the revenue stream is less than the public service expenditures. This could be considered a subsidy to support the affordable housing project. The County fiscal models does not include long range utility servicing costs since the county as a utility provider has not been fiilly examined. A report on this issue was provided by the County Engineer at the June 6, 2000 Board of County Commissioners meeting. The fiscal impact upon the Efland sewer system utility operation is somewhat complex especially in this instance where the county is financially supporting the project. However, the decision on how to accept a sewer system design and associated long-term maintenance costs is a distinct decision of the county as a utility provider. Issues of affirdable housing,projects and their funding formulas. whether through bonds or -grants, are separate decisions,_of the County_imnlementing its affordable housin olic In most cases, the developer pays for the total cost of the public sewer system and dedicates the offsite (i.e. not on individual lot) system to the county for maintenance. The cost of the two alternative system designs as noted in the attached letter from Scott Radway of Kimley Horn Engineers is not a direct