Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Phasing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Phasing and infrastructure: commissioners warn against allowing growth before facilities exist
Summary
Using past development examples, commissioners urged a phasing objective in the plan so that large projects proceed only when water, sewer, roads and other facilities are in place; they warned developers should not define 'density' for the county.
Commissioners signaled concern that village overlays and large proposed developments could reach end‑state buildouts that outpace infrastructure. One commissioner urged a firm phasing objective: growth should not proceed unless necessary facilities (roads, sewer, water, treatment capacity) are in place.
The commission referenced Cedar Crest and other applications as illustrations of where the 'end state' proposed by developers produced community resistance because the timing and sequencing of infrastructure were unclear. Staff agreed to look at phasing language in other plans (for example Oakley's phasing objective) and to draft language to ensure development is time‑sequenced and tied to required facilities.
