Agenda - 03-06-1996 - X-B - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

19 Bob Hall 5706. 01d Stony Way Orange County Durham, NC 27705 489-1931 : December 14, 1995 Dear Planning Board Member, I serve on the Orange County Economic Development Commission and the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan, and have followed many of the hearings on development and rural character. Here are a few thoughts on the Flexible Development Proposal you are reviewing again on December 18 . I support the overall goal of promoting Open-Space Flexible Developments. I support requiring conventional subdivision developments to submit an Open-Space concept plan. I would encourage you to develop higher design standards than currently in place for conventional subdivision, such as paved streets with bike lanes, sidewalks, and wider construction setbacks or tree-lined buffers from major roads . AFFORDABLE HOMES>> I support the concept of awarding limited density bonuses -- but only for building affordable housing, using the state's median family income as the standard to calculate "affordable" rather than the Triangle's inflated salary scale. This area's median income means an "affordable house" in Orange County can cost up to $97, 000. While I support the Flexible Development concept, I think we must be cautious about expanding the menu of options for building in the rural part of the county. We could provide so many options or incentives that we wind up making it easier and more profitable to build in rural Orange county, and wind up sucking development away from the urban and transition areas -- which is exactly the opposite of the goal expressed in the county's Land Use Element. We won't really know what we' ll get for what we're giving until. we try it, and I definitely agree that we should review the consequences of these changes after several plans come forward. But let me offer a couple of horror stories that I think are avoidable if the plan is adjusted now. DENSITY BONUSES>> Under the plan as written, I could easily add 100 lots with $300, 000 homes to my Flexible developments by simply paying a small amount for conservation easements on 100 acres of wetlands or stream floodplain or steep slopes scattered across the county's northern edge. That's not much a benefit for the added density going into rural areas. That's the way the Density Bonus and Purchase of Development Rights section now reads -- add 1 unit per 1 acre of "primary conservation area protected. " I think it should change. Density bonuses are a financial reward to developers -- real wealth created from public policy -- and they should be used to get the kind of homes the county needs. Consider