Browse
Search
Minutes 02-18-2016
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Minutes - Approved
>
2010's
>
2016
>
Minutes 02-18-2016
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/23/2016 8:27:01 AM
Creation date
3/23/2016 8:21:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/18/2016
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Minutes
Document Relationships
Agenda - 02-18-2016 - Agenda
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2016\Agenda - 02-18-2016 - Quarterly Public Hearing
Agenda - 02-18-2016 - C1 Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment - Mailed Notifications
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2016\Agenda - 02-18-2016 - Quarterly Public Hearing
Agenda - 02-18-2016 - C2 - Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2016\Agenda - 02-18-2016 - Quarterly Public Hearing
Agenda - 02-18-2016 - E1 - Review of Minimum Lot Size and Density Allowances for Subdivisions
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2016\Agenda - 02-18-2016 - Quarterly Public Hearing
ORD-2016-006 Ordinance Amending the Unified Development to modify mailed notifications
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-2019\2016
ORD-2016-007 Ordinance Amending the Unified Development to adopt new regulations for the permitting of temporary health care structures
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-2019\2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
12 <br /> Agreement will have to be amended, requiring approval of all participating entities (i.e. <br /> Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro) after a joint public hearing. <br /> • While this may promote development of `affordable housing' these issues represent only <br /> 1 small component of housing costs. This issue transcends Planning and will not be <br /> resolved solely through altering existing land use regulations. <br /> Recommendation <br /> The Manager recommends that the Board receive the information and provide <br /> comments/direction on potential subdivision amendment(s). <br /> Chair McKee said he appreciated the presentation, but he is not sure that the changes <br /> being discussed will affect the affordability of the lots. He said he understands that affordable <br /> housing will not be developed in the northern part of the County as it is away from water and <br /> sewer. <br /> Michael Harvey said this is just one aspect of a global issue that warrants discussion. <br /> He said if there is significant reduction in lots sizes with the implementation of innovative, off-site <br /> septic with increased density allowances and with incentives for developers, there may be an <br /> improvement with respect to the cost of the lot. He said the value of land in a protected area <br /> versus an unprotected area versus the rural buffer will all be different. <br /> Commissioner Pelissier said this has been a great presentation and it was done in <br /> response to her petition. She said the original intent of her petition was not so much affordable <br /> housing but rather preservation of rural character. She said the hope of an affordable housing <br /> byproduct was secondary. <br /> Commissioner Pelissier asked if there are any successful examples of the options <br /> outlined this evening from other locations. <br /> Craig Benedict said several examples have been received that included a variety of the <br /> options. <br /> Commissioner Pelissier asked if there is anything that could be developed to <br /> differentiate the size of a development. <br /> Michael Harvey said there is some viability with this idea. He said further discussion is <br /> needed regarding incentivizing developers. <br /> Commissioner Pelissier said in her tenure on the BOCC, every major subdivision has <br /> been high-end housing. She asked if mixed housing could be incentivized to allow for greater <br /> diversity of price points. She asked if this idea is even realistic. <br /> Michael Harvey said there is probably no incentive that can be offered unless the County <br /> is purchasing the property. He said the value of land is the value of land. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs asked if permanent protected open space is valued by Orange <br /> County, could the BOCC direct the appraiser to appraise at a reduced value for permanently <br /> protected open space in a subdivision. <br /> Commissioner Price said conservation easements could perhaps reduce costs. She <br /> said the Community Home Trust has several homes that are mixed into the high-end <br /> subdivisions. She said she does not promote the idea but noted it points to an example. <br /> Commissioner Dorosin referred to Commissioner Jacobs' point about incentivizing. He <br /> said it is important to determine what the County wants to incentivize. He said he would like to <br /> address the question of affordable housing. He said if the main concern is environmental <br /> preservation then it is not practically possible to have affordable housing in these areas. He <br /> said it may be worth exploring how development in the environmentally sensitive areas can <br /> subsidize the building of affordable housing elsewhere. He said it may be an impact fee or a <br /> cost in exchange for the incentives. He said he is very excited about the concept of off-site <br /> septic. <br /> Craig Benedict said there is currently a multi-department effort on affordable housing. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.