P-0435 - Long Term Housing Affordability Policy

Browse Search

• 8 1 Commissioner Jacobs questioned the nature of the stream buffer and how it connected to open 2 space and adjoining properties. He asked about one of the circles in the drawing and if it was a pond. He 3 also had some questions about having a pond on several properties and how it would be maintained. He 4 asked about the note indicating that dwellings are prohibited on a portion of lot #15. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that each subdivision plan that is submitted to the County is submitted both as a conventional plan (no open space requirement) and a flexible plan (at least 33% open space is required). In this case both a conventional plan and a flexible plan were submitted and the staff 8 and Planning Board approved both of the plans. The developer chose the conventional plan with no open 9 space. He said that any environmental areas, such as the stream buffer, could be incorporated in the lot. l0 He showed on a map the lots and said that the lot sizes were down to .9 acres. Since this project is 11 subdivided by a water quality critical area to the east, the only development that could occur is on the 12 western side of the line on lot 15. The developer has used the amount of density that could be created 13 within the critical area, so lot 15 lies within the protected watershed. He said that the pond would be filled in 14 and would not be part of this development plan. A future road will go through the pond area. In regards to 15 the stream branch, the staff still has the opportunity, as development continues deeper into the Upper Eno 16 critical area, to suggest open space planning for flexible development to preserve the stream buffer. Also, 17 incorporated in this conventional plan, there is a stub out of a public road to future undeveloped properties 18 to the south. 19 Chair Carey asked about the difference in the number of lots and Craig Benedict said that there 20 would be 15 lots in the flexible plan and 15 lots in the conventional plan. 21 Commissioner Brown made reference to the fiscal impact analysis and asked about the net loss 22 between expenditures for County public services and the revenues that would come from this subdivision. 23 Craig Benedict said that the fiscal impact analysis needed to be updated. It has not been 24 updated to include the current rates. 25 Commissioner Jacobs said that he has a problem with accepting the payment in lieu instead of 26 the stream buffer. 27 Craig Benedict said that at this location it did not seem that the staff was ready to suggest 28 dedication of one acre versus payment in lieu in this case. He said that the staff is continuing to look at the 29 best way to handle preservation of these areas. 30 Commissioner Gordon agrees with Commissioner Jacobs' concerns. 31 A motion was made by Chair Carey to approve a preliminary plan for the proposed Bricewood Acres subdivision, located on a 27.04-acre tract near the intersection of Governor Scott and Mill Creek roads in Cedar Grove Township. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 35 Commissioner Jacobs would like some more detailed information about how this fits in to 36 adjoining waterways and properties. He would like the staff to talk to Mr. Phelps and Mr. Yuhasz about 37 whether there might be another approach to protecting the stream buffer. 38 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Brown to send the 39 preliminary plan for Bricewood Acres back for additional information. 40 VOTE: AYES, 3; NO, 1 (Chair Carey) 41 42 f. RFP Award -Printing of the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Guide 43 The Board considered awarding a bid to Hickory Printing of Raleigh in the amount of $28,386 44 for the printing of 40,000 Orange County visitor guides. 45 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the brochures went to the welcome centers on the interstates. 46 He suggested that these brochures go to the welcome centers outside of the County. 47 A copy of this brochure will be distributed to the members of the Board. 48 Commissioner Gordon clarified that the County pays for all of the expenses of the brochure. 49 A copy of this brochure will be brought back to the meeting on April 11tH 50 51 9. ITEMS FOR DECISION -REGULAR AGENDA 52 a. Long term Housing Affordability Policy 53 The Board considered approving along-term housing affordability policy. - 54 Housing and Community Development Director Tara Fikes said that this policy has been 55 developed to present to the Board strategies that would promote the Commissioners' interest in retaining 56 properties that have been assisted with public funds in the County's affordable housing inventory. She 57 started on page two with the impact fee reimbursement program. She gave examples of the strategies for ensuring long-term affordability, including the impact fee reimbursement program, the land trust model, and the new and existing first-time homebuyer program. She made reference to equity sharing and said that if