Minutes - 19960528 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

LEE RAFALOW agreed with comments made about the sliding fee based on bedrooms and other suggestions for alternatives to the Impact fee. He feels that this is a subsidy for the developers who will pass this tax on to the citizen. NICK DIDOW, member of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board, said that it seems to him that there is a short-term crisis and a long-term problem. An appropriate level of Impact fee is simply one way to diversify the funding sources given the tools and options available now. PETER MARGOLIS noted that overcrowding is currently the most pressing threat to educating the children. Raising the Impact fee will help. He said that it has been proven that smaller class sizes in early grades improve students performance in basic reading and math scores. This report indicated that people are willing to pay more to live where the schools are better. GARY SALEEBY, President of the Chapel Hill Board of Realtors, spoke against this method of providing for a high quality school system. He does not feel that it has been proven that purchasers of new homes have brought new children into the school system. There are a lot of cross county moves. He urged that the County Commissioners pursue another alternative to fund a quality school system. He supports local legislation for an additional sales tax for schools. KEITH COOK, member of the Orange County Board of Education, spoke in support of the proposed increase in the fee for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School District. The need is here right now. Impact fees do take the pressure off of people who live here. He feels that those in Orange County who are first-time home buyers and are trying to get ahead should be exempt from paying this fee. RON WEBBER, builder and developer in Chapel Hill, said that it is very clear that there is a division between the builders and developers and those who favor this increase. He feels that this is a lot of money. He understands that the options are limited but he feels there must be a better answer. He feels it is not fair. He ask that the County Commissioners find some better answers. Chair Carey closed the public hearing and indicated that action will be taken on this item at their regular meeting scheduled for next Monday, June 3, 1996. Commissioner Willhoit asked that staff look at the issue about whether a higher fee could be justified on the basis of higher than three bedrooms. 2. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (a) CP-2-96 Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan Since March 16, 1995, a 22 member Planning Group of neighborhood representatives plus elected and appointed officials and seven alternates worked on a Stoney Creek Land Use Plan that achieves two goals: (1) Preserves landowners' rights to get fair value for their property, and (2) protects the area's rural character. Planner Gene Bell presented the information as stated in the agenda. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Gene Bell said that in the Flexible Development proposal, developments that preserve more than 44% open space are entitled to bonus units. The proposal is that for developments that preserve from 33 to 50%, half of the bonus units they would be entitled to could be used in the Stoney Creek area and half somewhere else. He showed some of the different densities on the map. There are currently no receiving areas in the Stoney Creek Area. However, there are other transition areas in the County where this 25% could be applied. Karen Barrows asked if this would require a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program and Gene Bell said that it could be done based on the Flexible Development proposal. Sherri Rosemond asked about informational meetings with the developers and Gene Bell indicated that plans are in place to hold such meetings. He noted that the Planning Group will also continue to meet to deal with issues that may come up within the neighborhood and also with developers. In answer to a question from Joan Jobsis about receiving areas for density bonuses, Gene Bell said that the Flexible Development proposal defines areas that could accept density bonuses as transition areas as identified in the County's Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Other receiving