DV-19-00001 Marian Meadows Development Agreement Master File

Home Browse Search

role in determining the proportionate share of mitigation that the Developer would provide to mitigate the impacts to the District. This matter was ultimately resolved through a Settlement Agreement, entered into by the District and the Developer on November 20, 2019 (the. "Settlement Agreement") (see attached). Through the Settlement Agreement the parties agreed to engage in negotiations to determine acceptable and proportionate mitigation measures related to any impacts of the Project on the District. The Settlement Agreement also required the parties to negotiate in good faith using best efforts to share and obtain relevant information on the impacts of the Project to the District. Conditions from Ordinance 2018-006 The Ordinance included a condition that the Developer must enter into a development agreement with the County that would include a requirement for the Developer to provide proportionate mitigation for impacts of the Project on the District, requiring that the impacts be mitigated to the satisfaction of the County. This condition is specifically required by Conclusions of Law No. 1 and No. 30.3, and is echoed in Conclusion of Law No. 2: "The final PUD development plan shall not be approved until a development agreement has been approved in accordance with Condition #1." In addition, Conclusion of Law No. 30.3 requires that the Developer shall contact the District to develop the mitigation measures. Similarly, Finding of Fact No 11.4.4 reads: "The applicant [Developer] shall contact the School District [District] to enter into discussions to develop acceptable mitigation measures to accommodate the increased student population. Mitigation measures shall be included in the Development Agreement." Ste :sNecessar,, for School MitLation The District strongly protests the proposed $500 per unit mitigation as inadequate to address the negative impacts of the Project. Based on the District's calculations (using census data and standard generation factor calculations) substantially more mitigation is required for each additional unit created by the Project to address direct impacts of the Project. Simply put, the Developer's proposed mitigation would compromise the District's ability to educate the students of Easton. The Developer has not contacted the District regarding the proposed mitigation for the Project, and there has been no attempt by the Developer to enter into good faith negotiations on adequate mitigation as required by both the Ordinance and the Settlement Agreement. Multiple attempts by the District to begin negotiations subsequent to the Settlement Agreement were unsuccessful. In order for the Project to provide acceptable and proportionate mitigation to the School District as required, the Developer must, as a starting point, meet with the District to negotiate the matter. The inclusion of a $500 per unit mitigation fee without the District's input as a public agency directly impacted by the Project is a violation of the Ordinance and the Settlement Agreement. For the foregoing reasons, the District formally requests that the Application, as written, be denied. 145058741.2