Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
9 <br /> Some concerns staff sees with this option include criticism that such <br /> programs would offer a `loophole' allowing developers to avoid building <br /> affordable housing units within a proposed project. This could be <br /> perceived as `segregating' low to medium income families out of specific <br /> neighborhoods. <br /> Another concern is how the County would devise the fee for such a <br /> program. If the fee is too low, insufficient funds would exist to allow for the <br /> development of affordable housing units. If the fee is too high, the County <br /> may see a lack of interest in residential development thereby exacerbating <br /> existing housing availability. This would also add additional costs to the <br /> existing permit/development review processes, which has been the <br /> subject of concern amongst those in the development community. <br /> As with the development of a mandatory inclusionary zoning program, <br /> staff believes the development of a payment-in-lieu system would require <br /> the adoption of enabling legislation at the State level granting the County <br /> authority to initiate same. <br /> Staff would suggest any additional review of options 2 and 3 should <br /> include an analysis from the County Attorney's office to ascertain the <br /> appropriate path forward as well as identifying the legal obstacles to <br /> same. <br /> 4. Modify existing land use policies addressing potential impediments to the current <br /> voluntary affordable housing program, including: <br /> a. UDO text amendment excluding parcels proposed for affordable housing, <br /> proposed consistent with Section 6.18 of the UDO, from being included as <br /> part of the `lot count' associated with the determination of permit review <br /> (Section 7.2.3 of the UDO). <br /> For example, a developer proposes a 20 lot subdivision and requests a 10 <br /> lot density bonus for the provision of affordable housing. Under current <br /> rules this would be treated as a proposed 30 lot subdivision and require <br /> the applicant to apply for a SUP. A text amendment could be written to <br /> exempt affordable housing units from this calculation and, potentially, <br /> eliminate concerns over the costs associated with processing the <br /> development request. <br /> b. UDO text amendment modifying Section 6.18 of the UDO indicating <br /> developers interested in proposing affordable housing donate the land <br /> directly to the County for joint development. <br /> Under this option, the County would assume responsibility for the <br /> development and management of the actual land area designated for <br /> affordable housing and partner with the developer to share in the cost of <br /> developing joint infrastructure (i.e. roads, stormwater facilities, recreational <br /> facilities, etc.). <br /> This could lessen the overall impact on the cost of the project to the <br /> developer and increase opportunities for the development of affordable <br /> housing. <br />