County planning commissioners are targeting two subdivision
ordinances that may create unfairness through what they call a
”
double-dipping
”
standard.
County planning commissioners are targeting two subdivision ordinances that may create unfairness through what they call a “double-dipping” standard.
And the issue, a concern of commissioners during the past five years, will come to a head Wednesday when the commission will review whether the county benefits twice on the back of one applicant.
“I think dedicating part of your property to the county for a new road should be enough,” said Vice Chairman Murrill Conley, who is strongly opposed to such standards. “If there is something in the ordinance that should be changed I think that should be it.”
An example of the county’s possible double-dipping arose as a result of an application in February to divide an existing 34.3-acre parcel on the south side of Santa Ana Valley Road.
According to the county ordinances, the property owner is required to dedicate to the county half of an 84-foot road right-of-way along Santa Ana Valley Road. The applicant must also make roadway improvements for that frontage road.
Staff analysis of the two subdivision ordinances – Sections 17-53 and 17-65 – stated it was a standard used by other cities and counties to ensure roads are developed and improved over time to meet current and future needs.
Staff has also determined that given the county has no authority to impose a tax for road improvements without a vote of the people, roads would remain in disrepair until a road tax was approved. This would shift the burden from the applicant to the taxpayers.
The analysis stated that the current ordinances were reasonable and went toward meeting state and county mandates that the county provide safe and efficient traffic circulation.
Staff, however, did note that if the planning commission wished to amend the ordinances that specific direction be given for revisions to both the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance.
At the request of Commissioner Dennis Madigan, the commission will also review the county’s policy of what the role and the procedures are required of a planning commission.
The procedure handbook was adopted in 1981 and readopted in 1991.
