Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft report - Property Values Committee 1995ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 ynlr r/ IT MEMORANDUM Ue i 1 6 1995 7r � i.'=w i 1 Lv� ,,,�j �s 9 • i::! � � j E 1Jr fear TO: Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group Members and Alternates FROM: Gene Bell, Planner III 6D f SUBJ: October 19 Meeting of Planning Group DATE: October 16, 1995 Enclosed are the agenda materials for this Thursday's meeting of the Planning Group. The main order -of- business will be receiving reports from the Vision and Value Subcommittees appointed at our September 14 meeting. The Vision Subcommittee met twice following our last meeting and the Value Subcommitte met three times to prepare the enclosed reports. I have stamped DRAFT on both reports to recognize that neither group met a final time to consider the reports in their current form. I did my best to accurately reflect the comments of group members in the final drafts of the reports, but recognize that transcription errors or omissions could have occurred. An alternative Vision statement (which is described on the cover sheet) is also included for your review. Finally, County Attorney review of the Value Subcommittee report was requested, but a response had not been received at agenda mailing time. If I receive one before October 19, I'll hand - deliver copies to the meeting. If you are unable to attend the meeting on October 19, please call me at extension 2589 at the appropriate number: 967 -9251 (Chapel Hill), 732 -8181 (Hillsborough), and 688 -7331 (Durham); or I can be reached by FAX at 644 -3002. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 V r O r AGENDA Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group - Meeting 9 Thursday, October 19, 1995 7:30 PM TIME AGENDA ITEM 7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCEMENTS - Verla Insko, Facilitator 7:34 2. MINUTES - Review and approval of minutes from September 14, 1995 Meeting 7:35 3. REPORT OF THE VISION SUBCOMMITTEE AND GROUP DISCUSSION - Gene Bell-and Vision Subcommittee Members 8:35 4. REPORT OF THE VALUE SUBCOMMITTEE AND GROUP DISCUSSION - Gene Bell and Value Subcommittee Members 9:35 S. CHARGE TO THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN SUBCOMMITTEE ON PREPARATION OF A "STRAW PLAN" FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NOVEMBER PLANNING GROUP MEETING - Verla Insko 9:55 6. AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING 10:00 7. ADJOURNMENT M M REPORT OF THE STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLAN PROPERTY VALUE/RIGHTS SUBCOMMITTEE Subcommittee Members James Bumphus Bob Hall Meg McKean Lee Rafalow Elio Soldi Bob Strayhorn Meeting Dates September 28, 1995 October 5, 1995 October 12,1995 M M V REPORT OF THE STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLAN PROPERTY VALUE/RIGHTS SUBCOMMITTEE Several areas of concern related to property rights, property values, and flexibility of development were identified and referred to a subcommittee by the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan Group. We've discussed these topics and make the following observations. Property Rights and Property Values Private landowners have the right to develop their property as understood under the U.S. Constitution and within the limits of community or public standards described by current zoning and other ordinances. In addition to rights, a landowner has responsibilities. There must be a balance between what a landowner can do and what the larger community can expect. Zoning, public health, and other rules regulating development help express this balance and encourage responsible stewardship of the land. The property's financial value is determined on the open market, when a buyer and a seller voluntarily agree on a sale price. Value is influenced by many factors, including supply and demand, zoning, development possibilities, natural features, neighborhood character and community quality -of -life. Perceived versus Actual Rights Zoning and public health rules define the maximum number of housing units that can be built per acre. The R -1 zoning in most of the Stoney Creek Basin region limits density to one housing unit per 40,000 square feet (about one acre).if the land supports a septic tank, drainage system, and well. Because so much of the region has soil that can't support septic drainage systems, the actual density achievable under current law is usually less than one unit per one acre. Landowners may perceive that they have a "right" to build one unit per one acre, but, because of soil conditions, the reality is that current ordinances and health regulations generally give them a right to build fewer units. If much land is in the flood plain or steep slopes or other restricted areas, the density by right could be even lower. A "yield plan" shows how many units a particular piece of land actually will support under current regulations. Property rights include protection from an arbitrary decrease of density (downzoning); but they do not include the automatic right to achieve a greater density than permitted by current regulations through the use of government enhancements, such as rezoning or new water and sewer service. Changes of density, up or down, are policy decisions, not rights. Flexibility of Development Landowners traditionally cherish the ability to develop their land as they see fit. Today, most landowners recognize the need for community standards -- or regulation -- of development, because the actions of one neighbor can have a large impact on others. The list of permitted land uses in an area may provide more flexibility than a community wants, or may restrict other uses that seem desirable. For example, in the Stoney Creek Basin, the areas zoned R -1 permit construction of a large country club or government office building, and, with a special -use permit, an airport, sewage treatment plant, or land fill. But the ability to build an open - space, cluster -style development is limited. So is the ability to utilize the incentives and design guidelines in some of the large - lot options recommended by the Rural Character Study Committee. Stoney Creek Basin landowners should be able to choose from a variety of development options that are consistent with good land stewardship, community health standards, and Rural Character design guidelines. Offering landowners constructive alternatives to meet these objectives is better than forcing them into a very narrow range of options. Proposal The subcommittee recommends: (1) preserving the density cap permitted under current zoning and public health standards ( "density neutral based on a yield plan for the land "); (2) providing an array of flexible development options that will encourage landowners to preserve open space and rural character such as those in the Rural Character Study and Randall Arendt's open space development plans; (3) considering some of the creative tools available to direct dense development into urban growth areas rather than beyond and to create incentives for landowners and developers to preserve some undeveloped open land in the majority of the Stoney Creek Basin which is beyond current urban growth boundaries. Tools that can be considered within Orange county's jurisdiction include density bonuses and penalties, speedy approval processes, adjustments to requirements for private roads, adjustments to rules about sharing and placement of septic fields, tax breaks, and purchase of development rights. Tools that would require changes in state law include transferrable development rights; (4) educating the entire community about land uses and densities that are currently permitted; about how new tools of land use policy work; and about the advantages and disadvantages of different development options.