AGENDA Policy, Rules and Human Services Committee |
|||||||||||
March 15, 2010 |
|||||||||||
|
Items for Discussion | |||||||
1. | Discussion regarding calling 811 before digging | ||||||
2. | Approved | Discussion on SHIP/CDBG Subordination Policy | |||||
The previously approved policy included a minimum time frame of six weeks for the processing of a request for subordination and the subsequent consideration by the BCC. We have found that the actual time frame is normally three to six weeks and have removed the misleading paragraph. | |||||||
3. | Approved | Consideration of Policy/Planning Tool 'Transfer of Development Rights' in Review of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle 10-1 | |||||
Planning staff proposes a new policy/planning tool called ‘Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)’ that can be useful under, if passed, Amendment 4, DCA’s Climate Change Policies, and/or Mobility Fees. | |||||||
4. | Approved | Discussion on exception to Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP) on rehab | |||||
On October 31, 2008 a contract was signed between the homeowner, Annie M. Griffis, and Michael Thomas Contracting, Inc for rehabilitation work on her residence. Among the bid specs listed was the inspection of the piers and action to stablize the foundation. This was accomplished and the job was closed on Feb 6, 2009. Before the one year warranty expired, the homeowner contacted the contractor regarding an issue with the floor in one of the rooms. He went to the house and advised that it was not a room that he had worked on and therefore was not covered by his one year warranty. The problem was then evaluated by an Inspector from the Building Department who advised that it was possible that the problem may have been a result of the work done by the contractor but he is unable to state that absolutely. Recommend that the BCC grant an exception to policy and allow the SHIP Program to mitigate the current problem as it may have been a result of previous work. This would be in the best interest of both the county and the homeowner. The exception to policy is required because the LHAP establishes a waiting period of five years between assistance requests for rehab. All other criteria in the LHAP would still apply. | |||||||
5. | Approved | Discussion Regarding Revisions to Conditional Uses Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units | |||||
The purpose of the proposed land development code amendment is twofold. The first is to include a notification area for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) which is consistent with other notification areas in the LDC. The second is to provide decision criteria for ADUs submitted as conditional use applications in standard zoning districts which is consistent with the decision criteria for ADUs submitted within a PUD or RePUD rezoning application. | |||||||