Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
35 <br /> 1 <br /> 2 Wayne Hadler agreed to this amended language. <br /> 3 John Roberts said the second paragraph is needed so that this is not seen as an <br /> 4 individual benefit to one developer. <br /> 5 <br /> 6 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos to <br /> 7 approve the amended resolution in Attachment 3 (deleting two paragraphs, and replacing them <br /> 8 with two new paragraphs above). <br /> 9 <br /> 10 Chair Dorosin clarified that the motion contains that the ZCP must be submitted by May <br /> 11 15, 2017, and issued by December 31, 2017. <br /> 12 John Roberts said the language says it has to be submitted by May 15, 2017, and a <br /> 13 building permit application must be submitted by January 31, 2019, and does not address what <br /> 14 Chair Dorosin just asked. <br /> 15 Chair Dorosin said the motion contains no language about the ZCP being issued by <br /> 16 December 31, 2017. He asked if this additional language, about the issuance, should be <br /> 17 added. <br /> 18 John Roberts said this was the alternative requested by the Petitioner, and it makes it <br /> 19 easier for any petitioner who meets the May 15, 2017 application deadline, because they are <br /> 20 not sitting around waiting for Chapel Hill, Carrboro, or County approval. He said petitioners will <br /> 21 still have to meet the later deadlines of building permit application, so it takes out a step, but is <br /> 22 unlikely to expand greatly the number of developers that qualify. <br /> 23 Commissioner Rich said it may be wise for the Board to consider impact fees when <br /> 24 housing is exclusively for students, and she asked if John Roberts and staff would look at this. <br /> 25 John Roberts said, in an earlier meeting with developers, he explained that the Board of <br /> 26 County Commissioners cannot treat student housing as it does senior housing, but the <br /> 27 authorizing legislation for impact fees does authorize the Board to look at fairness and equity in <br /> 28 setting the impact fees. <br /> 29 Commissioner Jacobs suggested taking the gist of the resolution, putting it in the form <br /> 30 of a public hearing announcement, and publishing it in the local newspapers. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 33 <br /> 34 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to <br /> 35 direct staff to look at options when a project comes forward with student housing, and what the <br /> 36 Board's response to that would be. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 39 <br /> 40 Commissioner Marcoplos said to send a notice to the Homeowners Associations, and to <br /> 41 Representative Sara Stephens. <br /> 42 <br /> 43 REVISED RESOLUTION: <br /> 44 <br /> 45 RESOLUTION REGARDING GRANDFATHERING OF PROJECTS FOR SCHOOL IMPACT <br /> 46 FEE COLLECTION PURPOSES <br /> 47 WHEREAS, on November 15, 2016 the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted <br /> 48 amendments to Chapter 30, Article II — Educational Facilities Impact Fee of the Orange County <br /> 49 Code of Ordinances, and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners hereby <br />