Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
8 <br /> applicant to cover the cost(s) of land purchase, development (i.e. application <br /> review/processing, roadway permitting/development, stormwater <br /> permitting/development, landscaping, erosion control permitting/development, <br /> septic permitting/development, provision of recreational amenities, parking, etc.), <br /> and a profit on the project. <br /> Seeking a density bonus for the provision of affordable housing will result in an <br /> increase in the number of proposed lots thereby requiring the project to be <br /> reviewed through the SUP process. This translates to the applicant having to <br /> comply with additional regulatory requirements and provide the appropriate level <br /> of expert testimony `proving' compliance with applicable development standards <br /> consistent with the requirements of the UDO in order for the project to be <br /> approved, all of which increases costs. <br /> Staff has worked with several developers over the years who have argued the <br /> cost-benefit analysis of receiving a density bonus for additional parcels for the <br /> purpose of providing affordable housing does not cover the additional permit <br /> review and development costs they will have to incur. <br /> OPTION(S): As this discussion moves forward, the BOCC could direct various staff to <br /> study the following options, with respect to increasing the development of affordable <br /> housing, in more detail: <br /> 1. Allocate a specific percentage of the annual tax levy to support development of <br /> affordable housing units within the county. This could cover land acquisition, <br /> application submittal/processing, and development of required infrastructure (i.e. <br /> roads, stormwater facilities, etc.) and the actual units. <br /> 2. Develop a mandatory inclusionary zoning program requiring developers to <br /> designate a certain percentage of development projects to serve affordable <br /> housing needs. <br /> STAFF COMMENT: Recent case law does not lend support to the notion <br /> units of local government can require development of affordable housing. <br /> As detailed within the previously referenced School of Government article, <br /> the courts have not found local governments have authority under existing <br /> State law to establish/require a specific price point for new <br /> parcels/housing. <br /> The development of such a program would require the adoption of <br /> enabling legislation at the State level granting the County authority to <br /> implement the program. <br /> 3. Develop a payment-in-lieu program requiring developers to pay a fee for the <br /> development of affordable housing units. <br /> STAFF COMMENT: There are examples, Seattle Washington and <br /> Somerville Massachusetts, where local governments require a developer <br /> to submit a payment-in-lieu fee to satisfy development of affordable <br /> housing in lieu of actual on-site production. These fees are generally paid <br /> into a specific housing fund and used, often along with other local funding <br /> sources, to finance affordable housing developed off site. <br />