Laserfiche WebLink
September 21, 2009 (Regular Meeting) <br />In calendar year 2010, <br />apartment unit permits <br />In calendar year 2011, <br />apartment unit permits <br />In calendar year 2012, <br />apartment unit permits <br />In calendar year 2013, <br />apartment unit permits <br />In calendar year 2019, <br />apartment unit permits <br />no more <br />issued; <br />no more <br />issued; <br />no more <br />issued; <br />no more <br />issued; <br />no more <br />issued. <br />Page 1633 <br />than 11 multi-family <br />than 11 multi-family <br />than 11 multi-family <br />than 11 multi-family <br />than 59 multi-family <br />2. Mitigation of the pro-rata share of the cost of the planned <br />capacity, which equals $4,153.00 per multi-family residential <br />apartment unit, payable prior to the issuance of building <br />permitting. <br />Or <br />1. That the Board adopt the phasing schedule and mitigation <br />payment timing proposed by the applicant. <br />The applicant is requesting to purchase all 106 building <br />permits at once and as early as December 2009. <br />The applicant is requesting to pay the pro-rata share of <br />the cost of the planned capacity, which equals $4,153.00 <br />per multi-family residential apartment unit, for all 106 <br />units in a lump sum payment of $490, 218.00 prior to the <br />issuance of the first building permit. <br />Or <br />1. That the Board propose a different phasing schedule for <br />development. <br />Ms. Watts also informed the Board that the numbers have been revised <br />for the Reservation of Capacity using the 10th-day enrollment figures from <br />September 8, 2009, and that the elementary and middle schools have not <br />reached capacity. Currently, a mobile home park is situated there. As of <br />September 8, 2009, only 771 students were enrolled at Cox Mill High School. <br />She reminded the Board that at the work session, Ms. Cathy Connors, <br />representative for Solstice Partners, LLC, spoke of the need to purchase all <br />106 building permits at once as early as December 29t" and proposed to make a <br />lump sum payment for all 106 units prior to the issuance of the first <br />building permit. She noted a letter outlining these requests was included in <br />the agenda and stated the availability of Ms. Connors to respond to <br />questions. <br />Commissioner Carruth stated the Board may issue the building permits <br />but questioned whether the occupancy permits should be released based on the <br />phasing schedule. Ms. Watts responded that would be an option to consider <br />and that issue was discussed with Ms. Connors. She reiterated that the <br />request is to get all of the building permits at one time and according to <br />Ms. Connors' letter, all of the certificates of occupancy must be issued by <br />December 31, 2011 in order to receive the Federal housing tax credits. <br />Commissioner Carruth commented on the relocation of 56 students/former <br />residents of the existing mobile home park to other schools in the <br />community. He noted there may be a net loss of 26 students, theoretically, <br />but some of them may move back to the apartment complex. Ms. Watts responded <br />the property is currently called the Farrington West Mobile Home Park and <br />these 56 students attend the respective schools: Winecoff, Northwest <br />Cabarrus Middle, and Northwest Cabarrus High School. She stated the mobile <br />homes are being sold, some of the students may remain in the county, some may <br />not and others may move to other local housing. At present, she said there <br />is no way to know. <br />Ms. Watts responded several questions from the Board related to whether <br />or not previously approved developments were included in the Reservation of <br />Capacity numbers. It was noted that many approved developments have not been <br />built out. <br />Vice Chairman Mynatt voiced concerns about the many idle and bankrupt <br />developments. She noted she is aware that the opportunity to develop goes <br />with the land, but stated it seems unfair to charge a fee to a current <br />applicant while accounting for another developer that may not show up for <br />another five or ten years. <br />