Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />52 <br />d� „ <br />of Housing and Community Development, and should be binding for at least 15 years. <br />noted that the Planning Board was against excluding the affordable housing provisions <br />the watershed restrictions. <br />QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD. <br />Commissioner Hartwell suggested that the wording for median income be the <br />throughout the document rather than being "regional median income" and "median <br />income ". He also asked about the opportunities and restrictions for land donate <br />the county. In particular, he asked if the county could donate that land to Habitat <br />Humanity. <br />Scearbo indicated that the intent of that section was to enable the county to t <br />donated land to Habitat for Humanity or similar groups. <br />She <br />rom <br />rea <br />to <br />for <br />er <br />Gledhill indicated that the conveying instrument would assure that the donated Iland <br />would be used as intended. He indicated that the Ordinance was not an effective wa to <br />assure the use of the land because the Ordinance could be changed by a future Board. <br />In response to a question from Commissioner Carey, Scearbo indicated that the i tent <br />was not to discourage an increase in income of potential renters. Once someone moves into <br />one of the units they would be allowed to stay there for as long as they chose regardless <br />of future income. She also indicated that limiting the evaluation of the home to a <br />specific amount so that the units remain affordable was a goal. However, the mechanism <br />to assure this has not yet been finalized. In order to reach this goal there are several <br />different options. Among those options are using the contract and /or the ordinance. <br />Gledhill pointed out that appreciation of value is not at issue here. The issue is <br />maintaining the resale price of the home. The resale price will be kept to the same <br />affordability standards that are established in the program in the beginning. <br />i <br />Commissioner Hartwell stated that Item 2.14.4.2.2 needs to be reworded so that it <br />states the same criteria for resale as is found in Item 7.14.4.1. <br />In response to a questions from Mike Lewis, Scearbo indicated that the 15 year 'limit <br />for this program had been chosen because the Low - income Tax Credit had, until recently, <br />used a 15 year term as had similar types of programs. <br />Bill Waddell asked about the affordability index which is referred to as a "rule of <br />thumb" of 2 1/2 times annual income as the affordable purchase price. Scearbo indicated <br />that HUD used that as a guideline. HUD has studied this region extensively and they have <br />a model that they use to determine what is affordable to a particular income group, such <br />as 80% of regional median income. In early January they ran the model for Orange County <br />to determine those income figures so that they could be used as a guide to determine the <br />affordable price. The 2 1/2 times is not a fixed amount. Many other factors are taken <br />into account. <br />In response to a concern voiced by Commissioner Hartwell, Link indicated that <br />7.14.4.2.2 states that "all sales and rental transactions shall be approved by HCD to <br />assure compliance with eligibility criteria." Gledhill indicated that homes stay In the <br />market unless they are sold in compliance with these criteria. <br />