Agenda - 03-10-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 r By contrast, the average construction costs Iisted on permits issued during the last quarter of 1986 for elsewhere in the county were $44,000 per unit. Only 25% of the permits issued in Chapel Hill Township during that period listed construction costs of $40,000 or less. Over 45% of the new homes elsewhere in the county fit that category . Frequency distributions are attached to this report. The average home permitted in Chapel Hill Township is also larger than the remainder of the county . For the last quarter of 1986 the average size of a new house in Chapel Hill Township was 2600 square feet versus 1750 square feet in the remainder of the county . CRITICISMS OF DATA AND MODELS The regression equations for unimproved rural buffer lots are incomplete, sacrificing some accuracy for the sake of simplicity . The models only take into account that independent variable most easily determined, lot size. Other less quantifiable or easily determined variables will have their own effect on raw land costs. One independent variable that should be included in a more complete model is distance from a given point or land use, such as downtown Chapel Hill or the nearest shopping center. Increased distance from schools, shopping, and employment will probably suppress both the y intercept (constant) and the x •coefficient ( incremental cost per acre) . If this assumption were false, one would expect the equations for the Cane Creek WQCA and University Lake WQCA to be identical . In fact, both the constant and per acre cost are lower in the Cane Creek WQCA. The inability to use time of sale is, of course, another limiting factor . The comparison of the WQCA to other areas of the Rural Buffer prior to the buffer creation, however, allows for comparison of similar areas with different allowable densities and is adequate for indicating trends. The possible effect of a demand component has already been discussed. Other variables that could affect raw land price include speculative intent, potential for further subdivision, and access to the property. The major weakness of the construction costs data is that the costs are estimates supplied by the developers or contractors and may not accurately reflect final costs. Average sales price information available from Triangle J Council of Governments, though, are reasonably similar to county generated figures. Some may argue that the use of construction costs for a time period after the new minimum lot size went into effect is misleading, because larger lots warrant bigger and more expensive homes . While larger lots may warrant more expensive construction, the cry that once affordable housing will be no more is simply not true. Creation of the Rural Buffer did not eliminate housing affordable for middle income families nor will its elimination result in a spate of construction of