BC 2009 12 07 Work Session - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

December 7, 2009 (Work Session) Page 1711 will not be for several years to come until a majority of the existing lots are used up. He commented on the lack of available financing for developers. He noted only small projects, infill projects and continuance of phases of existing projects that have already signed Consent Agreements will be built, which is the condition of his current project. He advised builders need help now and that the APFO has been a contentious matter. In regards to the pending lawsuit, he said, hypothetically, if the County wins the lawsuit, it would still be beneficial to the building community if the timing of the fee could be paid closer to the time of building a house. He further advised builders put in more lots than building houses in a given period of time. Chairman White advised another aspect to consider for the APFO is whether the County, developer and builder are all on the same page from the very beginning. He advised the process needs to be more streamlined and there needs to be a better understanding from both the County's and the developers' perspectives in regards to the process. Mr. Niblock stressed the issues are: the legality of the fee, the amount of the fee and when the fee is paid. He noted, from any developer's perspective, it would be fair to pay at building permitting. Chairman White advised a process needs to be put in place whereas all of the issues (i.e., planning, permitting, platting, etc.) can be dealt with all at once. Mr. Niblock stated the issues that Chairman White mentioned are all good issues; however, he noted what he is requesting is the big issue which is when the fee has to be paid. He said when the fee has to be paid is 100 percent of the difficulty that people are currently experiencing in the building industry. He spoke about the good job that County staff does and that the process is not too onerous; however, he reiterated that the difficulty is financing the fees. He stated the only homes selling in the market are first-time starter homes where people are using the government tax credits; most of the homes are built on 50- to 55-feet wide lots which equates to about 3 lots an acre; the fee is worth more than the property that is being developed; and the reason for this situation is because of the economy. Vice Chairman Mynatt stated the comments that Chairman White made indicated that the Board may need to either discuss the situation at the retreat or perhaps have a committee to discuss the issue; the committee could consist of two Board members, two representatives from the Board of Education, two representatives from the building community and appropriate staff to look at all of the issues. She also stated redistricting in the county is another issue. Chairman White stated a committee is needed where the matter can be thoroughly discussed; the committee should consist of at least one Commissioner, two building industry representatives, County staff, Cabarrus County Schools and Kannapolis City Schools needs to be invited to help clarify the situation. Mr. Niblock interjected that he has paid a fee for 51 lots and only used 15 lots. He pointed out that he has many lots tied up where he is building more expensive homes that he has already paid the fee on; now he has to pay the fee on other lots; and he knows that it is going to be about three years before he uses up all of the other fees. He stated it would be helpful to him and probably a simpler process if it was a rule that you cannot build more than the lots that fees have already been paid for; all of the aforementioned lots are in the same neighborhood; and if he would be allowed to do this, it would help him resolve his immediate problem. He reiterated he paid for 51 APFO (Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance) fees for the one phase and only used 15; and he questioned whether he could just transfer the lots within the same neighborhood. Commissioner Carruth recollected a precedence that was done for another project (Pine Creek) regarding transferring lots in the same development. Chairman White requested the County Attorney investigate the precedence for transferring lots and whether the precedence would apply to the Waterford on the Rocky River Subdivision. He asked that the information be provided so it can be discussed at the December 21, 2009 meeting. He noted a group needs to convene to address the issues; and that he would like input from Mr. Niblock and other building industry representatives to get ideas on how to address the issues as a whole.