|
And I also would point out that many applications involve getting an approval with certain
<br /> conditions and then selling the property with those conditions, knowing that the conditions will
<br /> never be changed or added to, and that's a promise, the promise I can make to the buyer.
<br /> So in order to deal with this, not just to discuss it, but deal with this, we have to have such a
<br /> condition from us and take the County Council away from having to negotiate conditions also,
<br /> such as some that have received negative recommendations from us. So this is good land
<br /> planning, it's what most other progressive areas have, and it fills in the blank that our Planning
<br /> Department leaves being the meaningless provision that a project be completed by a specific date
<br /> and rely on to get year after year after year of extension without any price. I think we need to
<br /> make this a condition. This is something I have, a clause I have submitted.
<br /> VITOUSEK: (Inaudible—microphone on mute) Sorry, Director Kern, go ahead. I see you had
<br /> your little hand up there the whole time.
<br /> KERN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I'd just like to add a little bit to this discussion. This is
<br /> more of a discussion related to rezonings. As far as Special Permits and SMAS, the SMA side of
<br /> it, it's a little bit different. But related to Special Permits, when an application comes in for, let's
<br /> say, a time extension, it might be a shorter application form than the normal submittal; however,
<br /> that gets sent out to all the agencies, and all the conditions and all the impacts are looked at fresh
<br /> based on when this came in. So it's sounding like it's assumed that because they are only asking
<br /> for a time extension to an existing ordinance, that everything basically stays the same. And if the
<br /> conditions haven't changed, that would be true, but in certain cases, that's not the case; traffic
<br /> has changed, you need to do updated TIAR, and they do maybe updated archaeology, as well as
<br /> we see fair share increase with that as well.
<br /> So one of the interesting points I'd like to make with this is a property that was rezoned in the
<br /> past and has expired, let's say, it was rezoned from like Ag to Residential or to Commercial, the
<br /> property tax rates change, and they are being charged at that new designation, so they are paying
<br /> higher property tax based on that land use. And so at what point do we stop that as well, right?
<br /> Because we are collecting that revenue that we do need for our county based on that. And if we
<br /> stop that, that those taxes won't be paid, is one situation. Or if you require I'm trying to figure
<br /> out requiring more than we already do, I guess is what I'm trying to understand here, we do
<br /> review it, we do go over new conditions, we basically go through an entire process as if it were a
<br /> new change of zone, yet all these years we are collecting property taxes. It could get into—I
<br /> think there is some implications around that as well, I won't get into those. So that's kind of just
<br /> some thinking on my side as we talk about this subject. I'm happy to answer more questions on
<br /> that.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Yes, Director Kern, do you feel like the language that has been proposed by
<br /> Commissioner Van Pernis would make it more difficult or easier in the application, even
<br /> application of the Planning Department's procedures when it comes to the time extensions? You
<br /> think saying it evenly across the board, saying, okay, you run out of time, your ordinance is over,
<br /> now you need to reapply. From a planning perspective, is that more difficult or is that easier
<br /> when we are trying to apply things evenly?
<br /> 3
<br /> EXHIBIT C
<br />
|