Browse
Search
Agenda - 09-09-2021 Virtual Work Session; Item 1 - Options to Expand Affordable Housing Incentives and Opportunities
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Agendas
>
Agendas
>
2021
>
Agenda - 09-09-2021 Virtual Work Session
>
Agenda - 09-09-2021 Virtual Work Session; Item 1 - Options to Expand Affordable Housing Incentives and Opportunities
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2021 7:27:32 PM
Creation date
9/2/2021 7:20:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/9/2021
Meeting Type
Work Session
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
1
Document Relationships
Agenda for September 9, 2021 Virtual Work Session
(Message)
Path:
\BOCC Archives\Agendas\Agendas\2021\Agenda - 09-09-2021 Virtual Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
4 <br /> Report on Affordable Housing Incentives <br /> February 20211 <br /> Zoning and land development incentives for affordable housing are necessarily tied to financial costs. <br /> These incentives often aim to lower the transactional costs by allowing greater density or flexibility to <br /> make the process quicker, more certain or cheaper. <br /> Staff from the Orange County Housing & Community development reached out to several developers <br /> (both non-profit and for-profit)to have them identify regulatory,financing and other barriers. Developers <br /> responded that it was a long, slow and expensive review process. <br /> The regulation of development inherently contributes to transactional costs and dampens the market's <br /> full potential to provide low cost housing. To incentivize guaranteed affordable housing(i.e. protected by <br /> covenants)local governments have some limited options such as fast track permitting. The more powerful <br /> incentives,such as density bonuses, require special legislation from the NC General Assembly. In 1991 the <br /> County received such special local authority (codified in UDO 6.18) but this incentive has never been <br /> utilized by a developer. <br /> The general belief is that developers, both for-profit and non-profit, have largely written-off Orange <br /> County as too difficult to work in. Aside from land costs, the development process was seen as <br /> unwelcoming due to a lengthy process with uncertain results. There are reasons warranting that feeling <br /> as the UDO itself is lengthy, dense and confusing. For instance, there are expedited, exempt, minor and <br /> major subdivision classifications with major subdivisions being further broken down into five <br /> subcategories with three different permitting processes. All of those distinctions have true differences, <br /> but perhaps for little purpose as there were 100 subdivisions in the last five years yet only four subdivided <br /> into more than five lots. Subdivisions which require approval by the governing board involve a long <br /> process with uncertain outcomes. In contrast, all subdivisions in Alamance County are handled <br /> administratively. <br /> Compounding the problem of an anti-development perception were outdated plans. The Comprehensive <br /> Plan was adopted in 2008 using,for example, housing price data from 1970-2000. While a '30 year plan,' <br /> the document itself called to be reviewed annually and then an update by 2015. There have been periodic <br /> amendments to the plan necessitated by rezonings and text amendments to the UDO, but no review in <br /> its entirety. Likewise, there are new demographics and notes from advisory boards, although these are <br /> not adopted by the governing board as a formal update to the plan. The amount of attention to the plan <br /> and resulting development may have reinforced the perception that the County was not interested in <br /> attracting development. A new comprehensive plan would likely be a prelude to a wholesale replacement <br /> to the UDO to drastically reduce the over 700 pages and create clear pathways to desired results. <br /> In the past two decades there have been considerable shifts in planning regulations allowing much greater <br /> legislative tools to replace cumbersome quasi judicial hearings. The General Assembly has provided for <br /> 1 This report was drafted by and reflects the opinions of James Bryan,Staff Attorney with recognition of <br /> tremendous contributions and assistance from the Housing&Community Development Department(Emila Sutton, <br /> Erika Brandt, Maria Dewees)and Planning& Inspections Department(Craig Benedict,Ashley Moncado,and Molly <br /> Boyle). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.