Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM <br />Draft (10.1.2007) <br />Figure 2-6. Land Value vs. Parcel Size for Recent Development <br />120 <br />100 <br />so <br />so <br />a <br />40 <br />20 <br />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 I-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 afee-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 />the issue of equitably setting the fee, since it will no longer be determined by the fair <br />market. <br />Orange County, North Cazolina <br />