Agenda - 02-15-1999 - 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Feb -15 -99 05:46P Town of Carrboro 919 968 7737 P.06 3. STRATEGIES AND OBSTACLES t_cwAl govemrnenis have br:en struggling with the issue of how to restore the provision of a more balanced stock of housing with limited results: Non pmrd organizations have produced some afYordabic units wfih some government participation; orange County offers a very limited density bonus to developers for the pr'ovLion of some housing at lower prices which has yielded no.ctnits to dale. 11t►hile both Carrboro and Chapel Kill have exoressed lriterest in pursuing conven(lonal incluSionary housing policies, $ has been opined that NOW) Carolina statuto doe$ not allow local governments to directly impose controls on Rousing prices_ As a result, on several occasions Chapel Hill and Carrl<oro have included neauests for enabling legislation in annual legislative action packages. In all cases, these fegaests have been summarily rejected. It is generally believed that such Ieglsfation would be. stridently oppoorpd h)�.(he Homebuilders Mvwciation and olner development lobbying Interests. As a rpsulL, I began a tine of inquiry to detormine "other local govemments might be able to utilize another mechanism within currently allowed authority to achieve an effect similar to that produced by traditional Inclusionary toning ordinances. After .sortie researeh, it seemed that the best approach would be to attempt to use an Indexing system that was most closely-related to the unit cost of new dwelling units which Could be regulated under local govemment's authority to regulate land use. In the mai estate industry, a common tenchmark for dascnbipg unit housing Costs Is t0 descn'b-e the cost per square foot of dwelling units. tltitizino this benchmark in combin-ation vn"th Common. sense ot*ervation shows that larger home$ sell for greater prices than smalterdwellins. As such, It wom1d appear that a logical approach may be to ernptoy prMisely the same mechanism es Mount Lautei s erstwi.ile exoustonary zoning ordinances in reverse, 'fo wit, to pace a limit orb maximum allowable square footage per dwelling unit for a percentage of new units in each new pertnitted development. Such regulation should then be indexed to a reliable indicator of prevailing median salaries and mandated cap$ dos�gned to fit accepted descriptions of 'afl'otdable' housing, using the prevailing per-square foot unit cost. As a result, we have made inquiries of the Town Attorney regarding the Towns regal ability to use such a mechanism. In correspondence and testimony berore the Board, the attorney has opined that these regulatory measures would tall tinder the town's authority to regulate land use, and within that cont®xL the authorhy to regulate configuration and size of bulldings placed on deretoping properties, Given the information presented. I propose that we consider the following: