ORD-2006-008 - ORANGE COUNTY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS

Browse Search

eXAV UO <-d�� AS I D. ORANGE COUNTY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS (BOCC Public Hearing) 1. Amendments to Orange County Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance Amend Section 2 — Definitions, for consistency with the State Building Code and to provide definitions and examples for the following terms: single family detached, all other residential types, and new residential dwelling unit. Amend Section 4 — Public School Impact Fee Exceptions, to add an impact fee exception when a dwelling unit is moved to a new lot. Craig Benedict said that this is a public hearing on the Orange County Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance. The original ordinance was put into effect in the early 90's and has been modified occasionally. The changes tonight have to do with definitions and the exceptions. He made reference to page three of the ordinance and the areas in red, which is the suggested new language for definitions. The exception section is on page six of the abstract. He explained the two items in red on page six. Chair Jacobs said that no member of the public has signed up to speak to this item. Allan Rosen said that he would like for the County Commissioners to pay particular attention to those situations of an efficiency apartment on an R1 or single - family lot and that it also not require a 100% impact fee in specific situations (mother -in -law apartments or other extended family members). Craig Benedict said that when the original impact fee study was done, there was not a clear differentiation of all the different categories. He said that the efficiency apartment would be clustered as another residential unit, which would be $1,420 per unit in Orange County and $1,979 in Chapel Hill /Carrboro. If there can be credible information about different types of units and different definitions, they can more clearly assess the impacts of how many children come forward from these types of apartments. Chair Jacobs made reference to the moving of the lots and said that it is missing one permutation - if someone moves a building from a lot and they have already paid an impact fee and they move it to a new spot, he sees no logic in extinguishing the development rights on the lot they left in order to preclude them from having to pay an impact fee again. He said that if a new structure is built on the lot they left, it seems logical that the new structure would have an impact fee associated with it. He does not understand why this is not the most logical possibility. Geof Gledhill said that the reason that the recommendation is the other way is that impact fees are land use regulations that run with the land and not with the buildings. A new house on a lot that had a house on it before would not trigger an impact fee. Chair Jacobs asked for something in writing analyzing this. He thinks that this is unnecessarily restrictive. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page six, item `d', and said that it does not make clear that the person doing this has any say in whether the development rights are extinguished or not. She suggested rewording it so that the development rights are not accidentally extinguished. Geof Gledhill agreed with the suggestion and said that one of the premises of the whole analysis is that the reason why the house is available is because of some change in the property and there will be something else going on. He will try and make this clearer and provide an analysis for Chair Jacobs. Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to the comments by Allan Rosen and asked what prompted the staff to come back with the efficiency apartment piece. Craig Benedict said that there have been requests more recently from Carrboro that allow for these apartments to