Browse
Search
NS Contract - Strategic Growth Rural Conservation Consultant Implementation Update Amendment
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Contracts and Agreements
>
General Contracts and Agreements
>
2000's
>
2007
>
NS Contract - Strategic Growth Rural Conservation Consultant Implementation Update Amendment
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2011 12:35:19 PM
Creation date
4/15/2009 4:57:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/11/2007
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Contract
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM <br />Draff (i t7.1.2007~ <br />Figure 2-6. Land Value vs. Parcel Size for Recent Development <br />Land Value per acre <br />Developer Interest in TDR in Orange County. While the data are helpful in indicating <br />. trends in recent development, the economic analysis would not be complete without a <br />discussion with developers currently working in Orange County. The conversation with <br />the developers was intended to gauge their response to the proposed SGRC program, <br />characterize the current housing market and viability of higher density development, <br />and assess their willingness to pay for additional density credits. <br />In general, the developers were supportive of the idea of a SGRC-type program, and <br />said that it made sense to them. Especially in the I-85 corridor (Mebane, Hillsborough <br />and east of Hillsborough), they do see a market for higher density housing. Their biggest <br />concern was the additional cost, in terms of time and money, involved in the SGRC <br />transaction. Working directly with sending area landowners would involve an <br />additional negotiation for the developers, which they indicated was a primary source <br />of delays and uncertainty. The developers suggested several alternative scenarios that <br />could reduce the transactional costs to them, and thus incentivize participation in the <br />SGRC Program. First, the county could take a more active role in serving as a broker to <br />match developers and landowners, perhaps acquiring a binding agreement to sell <br />development rights within a certain price range from landowners prior to negotiation <br />with developers. Second, there could be third-party brokers, such as land trusts, <br />nonprofit conservation organizations, or companies specializing in wetlands mitigation, <br />that the developers could hire to conduct the transaction with the sending area <br />landowner. A third option would be to pay.the county afee-in-lieu of conservation <br />credits, which the county could in turn use to fund its own land preservation program. <br />This alternative would have the advantage of allowing the county to select parcels <br />most worthy of preservation. An additional complication with this altemative would be <br />the issue of equitably setting the fee, since it will no longer be determined by the fair <br />market. <br />Orange County, North Carolina <br />o so,ooo ~oo,ooo ~so,ooo 200,000 2so,o~ soo,ooo sso,ooo aoo,ooo aso,ooo soo,aoo <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.