HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93011_0473 (2)Lauer said another issue that had been discussed was driveway permits. He said the
county, at the present time, did not issue them. He said, "Ultimately, when the City is going to
be looking at annexation in a particular area, there needs to be some sort of staff review for curb
cuts on a state road. Currently all we have is site plan review."
County Planner Ron Smith said the stance on driveway permits was due to the county
primarily dealing with state roads. He said it was only the State Department of Transportation
that requested county approval of driveway permits. He said this was an unwritten county
policy, but the staff had to sign off on the permits. Smith said that if there were conditions that
needed to be tied to zoning, then the county made sure the State Department of Transportation
knew the conditions needing to be met.
Lauer suggested changing the language to "review" of driveway permits, rather
than "approval" of driveway permits. Ron Smith agreed.
It was also noted that the draft agreement referenced the International Building Code,
and this needed to be changed to the North Carolina Building Code.
Another discussion about the agreement concerned consistency with a comprehensive
plan. Lauer said one of the things the agreement needed to be more explicit about was to
include a provision that the county adopted the same future land use map, which is a guidance
tool for zoning. He said the city was comfortable with the idea about future amendments to the
map, if they were outside the city. He said these would be reviewed by the city, but they would
ultimately be a county decision. This provision needs to be added to the agreement.
Chairman Steve Johnson asked for discussion regarding sign permits.
Lauer said a paragraph stipulated the County Planning Director was in charge of issuing
sign permits; however, they were supposed to be in accordance with city zoning standards. He
said that as currently written, the agreement applied city zoning standards to the USA. After
some discussion, a consensus was reached to change this paragraph.
A consensus was reached to approve changing the term limits to 2, 3 and 4 years.
Chairman Steve Johnson asked the difference between the county and city's subdivision
ordinance.
Statesville Planning Director Currier said the city and county both had minor and major
subdivisions. He said that if they were minor, they were reviewed and approved by staff at the
TRC level. He said that if a major subdivision were being reviewed, it would be looked at by the
TRC, the planning board, and the city council. Currier said the city and county had similar
standard lot sizes, but the city had different cross sections on streets, curbs and sidewalks.
(Totally different from what was seen on state -regulated roads.)
The discussion then centered on allowing developers to extend water/sewer lines and to
make reimbursement payments over a certain period of years.
Lauer asked the pleasure of council/commissioners. He asked for direction on what was
now expected of him.
A suggestion was made to have a small area plan done with presentation to both boards
for approval.
An agreement amendment will be done pertaining to line extension recovery over a
period of time. The city will agree to pay for the difference in the costs for over sizing a
proposed line, if the city council members feel it is needed.
Lauer said he would incorporate the revisions into the agreement and provide a copy for
each governmental body to review.