HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-30-1999 - 4cti)~~
From: <Andresen02®aol.com>
To: ocmail.ocmail(jlink)
Date: 3/24/99 9:57pm
subject: memo on concurrency
Thanks John for the suggestions.
to whomever you wish.
Here is the memo back again.
Please send it
March 2.2, 1999
Update to Mayor and Town Council
Re: Schools and Land Use Task Force
From: Council Member Julie McClintock
The Schools and Land Use Task Force met on March 10. This group has met for
nearly 2 years. About 9 months ago the group suggested that Orange County,
Chapel Hi11, Carrboro and Hillsborough attorneys-study whether concurrence
principles could be applied to school facilities through ordinances adopted by
Orange County governments. The principle of concurrence is that planning
approvals are paced to the adequate provision of public facilities to support
them.
A verbal report was delivered at the March 10 meeting by Geof Gledhill, Orange
County attorney, who gave a summary. of a model that could work. No enabling
legislation is required, he said. He said the first step is .f or all. parties
to enter into an agreement or agreements: (1) to develop a facilities plan
for school needs for a certain period of time, say 10 years; and (2) for each
planning jurisdiction to adopt an ordinance which would prohibit the
permitting of a development project over a certain size unless it had a
certificate from the appropriate School Board, certifying that adequate school
facilities are or will be available when the demand is generatAd by the
buildout of the development. The second step is to develop the. school
facilities plan. The third step is for the planning governments to adopt the.
ordinances. The ordinances and agreements would ensure that the pace of
development approvals would not exceed the capability of Orange County
government to provide classroom space for children.
The Task Force acknowledged that the County would still need to find the means
to pay for new schools and the school boards would still need to build new
schools. If these ordinances were adopted by all jurisdictions, then they
would create an incentive for developers to "sweeten the deal" by donating
land and other amenities for schools. Task force members further agreed with
the suggestion that it is essential to develop criteria for land appropriate
for siting of schools, e.g. a high'~usable site, available public facilities, a
site large enough for joint facilities, and located near enough to the area to
be served. Alternatively, the idea of receiving money in lieu of land was
considered.
Craig Benedict, Orange County Planner, described how this system might work.
School boards would determine school needs through a requirement that each
developer meet with the school system to discuss what are the student
generation rates and the associated school needs of the proposed project based
on market research work or a series of standards. Those needs would be
compared with the facilities plan. If the needs were within the facilities
plan, the school board would issue a certificate which tells the planning
jurisdiction that adequate facilities are or will be available for the
completed project. If the school facilities needs are or will not be
available, no certificate would be issued and the development could not go
forward without some change either in the development or in the facilities
plan which would cause the certificate to be issued.
In summary, the development and adoption of the facilities plan, the inter-
local agreements and the ordinances would serve to prevent the overcrowding of
schools and would provide a much needed link between the provision of school
services to new development. Schools would never be permitted to be over
capacity more that a certain percent. If development exceeds capacity., then
the development could not proceed. The Task Force will be sending to the
participating governments a concept plan at the end of April. I recommend it
be put on our April 26 agenda.