Agenda - 08-05-1996 - IX-B - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3 3 15 1 the household. This tax would be fair, easy to assess and easy to collect. Another suggestion is to broaden 2 the base to include an Impact Tax at the time the title to property is transferred. 3 4 LEE RAFALOW agreed with comments made about the sliding fee based on bedrooms and other 5 suggestions for alternatives to the Impact fee. He feels that this is a subsidy for the developers who will 6 pass this tax on to the citizen. 7 8 NICK DIDOW, member of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board, said that it seems to him that 9 there is a short-term crisis and a long-term problem. An appropriate level of Impact fee is simply one way to 0 diversify the funding sources given the tools and options available now. 1 2 PETER MARGOLIS noted that overcrowding is currently the most pressing threat to educating the 3 children. Raising the Impact fee will help. He said that it has been proven that smaller class sizes in early 4 grades improve students performance in basic reading and math scores. This report indicated that people 5 are willing to pay more to live where the schools are better. 6 7 GARY SELEEBE, President of the Chapel Hill Board of Realtors, spoke against this method of 8 providing for a high quality school system. He does not feel that it has been proven that purchasers of new 9 homes have brought new children into the school system. There are a lot of cross county moves. He urged 0 that the County Commissioners pursue another alternative to fund a quality school system. He supports 1 local legislation for an additional sales tax for schools. 2 3 KEITH COOK, member of the Orange County Board of Education, spoke in support of the proposed 4 increase for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School District. The need is here right now. Impact fees do take 5 the pressure off of people who live here. He feels that those in Orange County who are first-time home 6 buyers and trying to get ahead should be exempt from paying this fee. 7 8 RON WEBBER, builder and developer in Chapel Hill, said that it is very clear that there is a division 9 between the builders and developers and those who favor this increase. He feels that this is a lot of money. 0 He understands that the options are limited but he feels there must be a better answer. He feels it is not fair. 1 He ask that the County Commissioners find some better answers. 2" 3 Chair Carey closed the public hearing and indicated that action will be taken on this item at 4 their regular meeting scheduled for next Monday, June 3, 1996. 5 Commissioner Willhoit asked that staff look at the issue about whether a higher fee could be 6 justified on the basis of higher than three bedrooms. 7 8 9 2. Comprehensive Plan Amendments 0 (a) CP-2-96 Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan 1 Since March 16, 1995, a 22 member Planning Group of neighborhood representatives plus 2 elected and appointed officials and seven alternates has worked on a Stoney Creek Land Use Plan that 3 achieves two goals: (1) Preserves landowners' rights to get fair value for their property, and (2)protects the 4 area's rural character. Planner Gene Bell presented the information as stated in the agenda. 5 In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Gene Bell said that in the Flexible 6 Development proposal, developments that preserve in excess of 44% open space are entitled to bonus units. 7 The proposal is that for developments that preserve from 33 to 50%, half of the bonus units they would be 8 entitled to could be used in the Stoney Creek area. He showed some of the different densities on the map. 9 Gene Bell clarified that half of the density bonuses could be used in this area and half 0 somewhere else. There are currently no receiving areas in the Stoney Creek Area. However, there are other 1 transition areas in the County where this 25% could be applied. 2 Karen Barrow asked if this would require a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program 3 and Gene Bell said that it could be done based on the Flexible Development proposal.