CFE minutes 041315 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 Richardson said the rebate could result in a potential total maximum reduction in revenue from permit fees of about $600,000; however that level of activity is highly unlikely. He said there have been only two applicants to date. Richardson said Town staff will try to verify performance measures, likely through periodic field inspections. Freedman and Richardson responded to questions from CFE members:  O’Connor asked if there were incentives for sustainable design of the outside portions of the buildings, such as green roofs, xeriscaping, onsite water retention. Richardson said yes, there are standards for the outside as well.  Neal asked if Chapel Hill had looked at examples of like programs in other jurisdictions, such as Catawba County. Richardson said they consulted NC State’s DESIRE database for suitable examples and found that Charlotte’s program was most effective. The others reported low levels of effectiveness.  Sassaman asked if the Town used other incentives in addition to the permit fee rebate. Richardson said the State has authorized the rebate incentive. For buildings and development outside of the Ephesus Church / Fordham district the Town uses other standards and requirements for approving special use permits.  Sassaman asked if the Town applies these standards to its public buildings. Richardson said the Town has, by ordinance, a LEED Silver minimum for all buildings. For example, the Chapel Hill Library was built to LEED Silver standard.  Neal asked if these standards applied to single-family residential development, and might the Town consider expanding the incentives to other parts of the town. Richardson said it is only intended for commercial and multifamily residential, and said the council has not discussed imposing these standards elsewhere.  Hintz asked how much less the cost of utilities might be for buildings in the Ephesus Church / Fordham district than in other parts of the town. Richardson said it would depend on the building type; the staff has run some calculations. Richardson said the Town of Chapel Hill will reassess the pilot program at the end of the first year and the staff will work with the town council on making adjustments if needed. Neal noted the CFE has recommended to the BOCC and the Planning Board that Orange County consider adopting similar incentives for sustainable development, but thus far nothing has resulted from those discussions. The CFE thanked Richardson and Freedman for their presentation. VI. Proposed Amendment to Impervious Surface Rules – Michael Harvey (Current Planning Supervisor, Orange County Planning & Inspections Dept.) provided an overview of proposed amendments to Orange County’s rules that limit the amount of impervious surfaces for new development. Harvey said he was directed to initiate a process to amend the ordinance to include additional opportunities for residents to modify established impervious surface limits. Harvey said under the current rules there are two processes for allowing changes to impervious surface thresholds: 1) approval of a variance request (only one approved in the past 10 years), or 2) transferring the allowable impervious surface area from an adjacent property by way of a conservation easement.