Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout031125 November 25, 2003 Hagerstown, Maryland A workshop meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland, was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by President Gregory I. Snook with the following members present: Commissioners James F. Kercheval, John C. Munson, and Doris J. Nipps. WORKSHOP – PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE (APFO) – ARTICLE V – SCHOOLS Gary Rohrer, Director of Public Works, outlined several items for discussion regarding the proposed revisions to the APFO Schools Article. The proposal would charge builders/developers per dwelling unit for subdivisions in areas where schools are over capacity. (Commissioner Wivell arrived at the meeting at 9:08 a.m.) Addressing Inadequacy The Commissioners discussed the costs of renovation and the cost of new construction and developing an equitable solution to address inadequacy in the school system. Dennis McGee, Director of Facilities Management for the Board of Education, informed the Commissioners that each year the State Board of Education calculates the average cost of new school construction and renovation in the State. After discussion, the Commissioners agreed to utilize the State factor for new construction using a Washington County multiplier of .9 per unit for the cost of construction in inadequate school districts. Appeal Issues Richard Douglas, County Attorney, offered alternative language on the appeal process for the Commissioners’ consideration. The proposal would revise the process and appeals would be made directly to the Circuit Court rather than to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Steve Goodrich, Interim Planning Director, outlined how this process would work. The Commissioners asked if the financial hardship exemption could be excluded as a reason for appeals from the Schools Article. Mr. Douglas recommended against it but agreed to research the matter. After discussion, the Commissioners agreed to leave the appeals process as is but to evaluate the issue during the six-month APFO review with the Planning Department to determine if there any problems with the process. Building Permit Cap Mr. Rohrer stated that there had been some discussion about placing a cap on the number of permits for a developer. Rodney Shoop, County Administrator, read a recommendation from the Home Builders Association that a certain number of units be approved at the preliminary plat approval stage and the builder/developer would then enter into an agreement with the County to pay the cost for the approved number of units. The builder/developer would then have a certain time period to build those units or forfeit the payment. The Commissioners discussed several options and timeframes. It was the consensus to use a three- year period for the process. Other Issues: - Existing Lots of Record – Mr. Rohrer distributed copies of a map showing subdivisions that have been approved or are “in the pipeline” in the Urban Growth Area. He stated that this also emphasized the impact that the municipalities would have if they do not adopt an APFO. Mr. Goodrich reminded them that the Ordinance is applied at the approval stage and would catch those lots of record at that time. After discussion, the Commissioners agreed not to include existing lots of record at this time. - The “Bubble Issue” - Mr. Rohrer stated that, although middle and high schools are not an issue now, the elementary students would be moving through the system and would affect the future capacity of middle and high schools. The Board of Education is asking the Commissioners to consider an “across-the-board” assessment to include middle and high schools. Mr. Rohrer stated that this could be challenged since these NOVEMBER 25, 2003 PAGE TWO schools are not inadequate at this time. He indicated that the Commissioners might want to approach the Delegation to request authority to impose impact fees for schools. - Four-Round Schools – The Commissioners agreed that it should be a decision of the Board of Education whether an elementary school should be a four-round school. It was the consensus to base the fee on 0.41 students if the development fails the adequacy test. - Designated Use of APFO Funds – The Commissioners agreed that APFO funds should be used for capacity issues and not systemic ones. They also agreed to retain language in the Ordinance granting them the authority to limit the number of building permits in any school district in case the situation arose that the developer could afford to make the designated payment for school capacity, but the County could not afford to pay its share at that time. Commissioner Snook also expressed concerns about schools where physical limitations would make it impossible to provide additional capacity at the school. Mr. Rohrer stated that the staff would review the ordinance and make the necessary changes. The Commissioners asked that it be placed on the agenda for their review on December 9. They also discussed reviewing the Roads Article of the APFO in January. Commissioner Snook asked the Planning Department staff to review the entire Ordinance to see if other areas should be updated. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 a.m.