Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident asks board to allow impact-fees at occupancy for two Tanya Lane lots
Summary
Al Bailey asked the Planning Board to let him pay about $20,000 in impact fees at certificate-of-occupancy time for two Tanya Lane lots so his daughter can afford to live in town; town staff and counsel reviewed state law and town ordinance and concluded fees are due before occupancy but discussed clarifying ordinance language.
Al Bailey, a property owner, asked the Brentwood Planning Board to allow payment of impact fees for two lots on Tanya Lane at the time of certificate of occupancy rather than at the planning/recording stage so his daughter could afford to live in town.
“The state law says that impact fees... are before the certificate of occupancy,” a staff member read from materials included in the board packet, and town counsel noted the town’s ordinance mirrors the state law. Bailey said paying fees at occupancy would help his daughter remain in Brentwood and that the combined fee for both lots was “almost $20,000.”
The board and staff discussed language in the local ordinance that currently uses the word “ordinarily,” which several members said creates ambiguity. One member said the local ordinance “follows exactly what the state law says” and that state law requires payment before certificate of occupancy; another suggested removing “ordinarily” so the ordinance reads “shall.”
Board members and staff agreed there was no immediate action required for Bailey’s case based on the present legislation and that, after review, Mr. Bailey should be “in good shape.” Several members noted concerns about precedent and the town’s ability to require security (for example, letters of credit) for larger developments where staged occupancy might be proposed.
The board asked staff to remove a “draft” label from the town’s impact-fee document on the website if that draft represented the adopted policy, and several members suggested bringing proposed ordinance language changes back for consideration before the fall to mirror state statute more clearly.
No formal vote was taken on a policy change at the meeting. Staff and counsel agreed to draft or propose clearer ordinance language to the board for future action.
