Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION PROGRAM <br />Final (8.7.20091 <br />Figure 2 -4. Land Value vs. Parcel Size for Recent Development <br />120 <br />100 <br />80 <br />w <br />60 <br />a <br />40 <br />20 <br />0 <br />Land Value per Acre vs. Parcel Size <br />Recent Development <br />r <br />■• • Near Urban <br />■ Rural <br />y = 275277) -" <br />- Trendline (Rural) RZ = 0.7212 <br />■ <br />-Trendline (Near Urban) <br />y = 293102x'1'1574 <br />RZ = 0.791 <br />■ <br />• <br />• <br />N • • <br />0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 <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 1 -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 a fee -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 alternative would be <br />ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA <br />