Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
2 <br /> 1 Commissioner Price said before these two bills were filed, the NCACC had mentioned that impact fees <br /> 2 were under fire across the state. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Representative Insko said Bill 436 has one co- sponsor and Bill 406 has no additional sponsors. <br /> 5 <br /> 6 Representative Meyer said he is on the finance committee and will hear it if these bills go there. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Representative Insko said this bill is just in in the House and not yet in the Senate. <br /> 9 <br /> 10 John Roberts said the NCLM (North Carolina League of Municipalities) is opposed to both bills. <br /> 11 <br /> 12 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Legislature knew that both Chatham and Orange Counties have <br /> 13 authority to enact these impact fees. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 Senator Foushee arrived at 8:48ain. <br /> 16 <br /> 17 John Roberts said many entities that have been charging fees without authority are now repealing their <br /> 18 ordinances. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Commissioner Rich said impact fees go to toward school construction costs and she said they can send <br /> 21 the Delegation some solid numbers to help fight against these bills. <br /> 22 <br /> 23 Commissioner Rich said there is a letter to the editors that was written after their COG meeting (she <br /> 24 distributed this it) and she asked the Delegation does the BOCC fight this in the media. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 Representative Insko said the School Boards and Superintendents also need to be vocal. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 Representative Insko said is the current developer that is challenging the impact fees in Orange County <br /> 29 an anomaly. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 John Roberts said this developer has already been scheduled to be considered to be grandfathered in on <br /> 32 the impact fees and they are aware of this situation. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Bonnie Hammersley said the appeals process is for a developer to bring an appeal forward to the <br /> 35 Planning director and planning staff with consultation with the County Attorney's office. After review, <br /> 36 the appeals will be brought forward to the BOCC. The staff is currently prepared to provide a <br /> 37 recommendation in reference to grandfathering in of the Grove Park project in Chapel Hill. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 John Roberts said developers had met with planning staff but stopped communicating with the planning <br /> 40 department after initial meetings and that is why there is a delay. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Commissioner Jacobs said they are committed to exemptions with senior housing and can do the same <br /> 43 for student housing. <br /> 44 <br /> 45 Representative Meyer said he understood that this developer is a family owned business and wanted to <br /> 46 do self-financing of their project and thus the impact fee would directly affect their personal financing. <br /> 47 <br /> 48 Commissioner Rich referred to the proposed draft letter to the Editor of the local newspaper(that she <br /> 49 had distributed earlier) and asked for feedback from the Delegation. <br />