Washington County delays decision on Elmwood Farms APFO mitigation after school-capacity concerns

Developers seeking to finish Elmwood Farms’ Section 5D asked the Washington County Board of County Commissioners for discretionary approval to use an alternate Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) mitigation contribution to address school-capacity impacts, but commissioners did not approve the request and asked staff to return with mitigation options.

The developers’ representative, William C. Watts, who identified himself as representing the project owners, told the board that Section 5D contains 19 lots and that market changes since the subdivision’s original 2005 approvals make the smaller lots proposed now more saleable. “This is the same land area that was originally platted and approved in 02/2005,” Watts said. He said the parcels are essentially ready and that without APFO relief the lots cannot be sold or developed.

County planning staff, however, told commissioners that Fountain Rock Elementary School is already over 120% of its state-rated capacity and that adding students from Section 5D would push the school’s enrollment projection higher. “With the addition of students from this section of the development, capacity will increase to 128.1%,” a county planning memo noted and staff relayed to the board.

Why it matters: The APFO allows developers who owned or had preliminary plats in place before a cutoff date to use an alternate, per-lot mitigation payment instead of submitting a full mitigation plan. The developers said they relied on earlier approvals and that the alternate contribution — roughly $3,300 per lot as cited during the meeting — is the standard in prior sections. Staff said the current request exceeds what was approved in 2005 (the developers now seek 19 additional lots beyond the original preliminary-plat numbers) and therefore no longer qualifies for the simple alternate payment. Staff recommended that the developer present a mitigation plan that goes beyond the per-lot payment.

Developers, capacity and costs: John Del Valle, who identified himself as the project owner, said the 19 lots would generate local revenue and that the developer has already invested in off-site infrastructure, including a water line and road improvements. Del Valle told the board the development has spent roughly $309,000 in fees and off-site work to date and estimated about $1.8 million would be required to complete the remaining lots, including about $180,000 to widen Kendall Road. He said prior sections of the development paid alternate mitigation contributions and that failing to allow the final section to proceed would prevent saleability of the lots.

Staff response and options: County planning staff reiterated that because the project now exceeds the lots approved in the 2005 preliminary plat, the developer must present a mitigation plan that adequately addresses school impacts. Staff described possible mitigation approaches the developer could propose: additional funds above the per-lot payment, an agreement to delay building permits until the new school is open, school-site dedication (not feasible here, staff said), or other proffers. "Anytime a development exceeds 120% of the state rated capacity, the developer is required to present to you a mitigation plan," county planning staff said.

Commissioners’ direction: Commissioners asked for additional information and options rather than an immediate vote. Commissioner Klein and Commissioner Harvey both voiced concern about the school-capacity impacts and requested that staff prepare specific mitigation options to present to the commission, and the board agreed to bring the item back at a future meeting so the developer and staff can negotiate and present proffered mitigation measures.

Outcome and next steps: The board did not approve the developer’s request at this meeting. Instead commissioners directed staff to work with the developer to develop potential mitigation options (additional payments, permit timing restrictions, or other proffers) and to return to the board for a future decision.

Ending: The board instructed staff to coordinate with the developer and schedule the item for a future meeting after potential mitigation strategies are developed and documented.