Laserfiche WebLink
65 <br /> <br />less than $50,000.00. Finally, Mr. Lentz stated the HOME Program and <br />Community Development Housing Rehabilitation Program help to maintain and <br />keep existing houses in the affordable housing market. <br /> <br /> Mr. Marshall also addressed the housing affordability issuel He stated <br />mobile homes are a main source of affordable housing in.the County and that <br />the UDO would not affect the placement of mobile homes on individual parcels <br />in the county. Further, Mr. Marshall advised there .is a large stock of <br />affordable housing in the county, with new units valued at less than <br />$75,000.00 continuing to be built and existing units rehabilitated. He stated <br />the UDO would not increase the cost of a house in the rural area of Cabarrus <br />County, but requirements such as sidewalks and road standards would increase <br />the cost of a home in the more dense areas. Finally, he stated that housing <br />affordability is a larger issue that needs to be addressed in greater detail. <br /> <br /> Staff responded to a number of questions regarding the proposed UDO. <br />Specific issues discussed by the Board and staff included the following: (1) <br />Rental units and apartments as a source of affordable housing; (2) Importance <br />of home ownership and the need to make sure that home ownership does not go <br />out of reach for the ~normal" person in Cabarrus County; (3) Purpose of the <br />UDO, including the placement of all land development ordinances under a <br />single cover and the unification of zoning and other land use ordinances <br />between jurisdictions; (4) Conveyance of property to family members and/or <br />other persons; (5) Need to have a balance between the lower price homes to <br />provide affordable housing and encouragement of high end housing <br />opportunities to help pay for schools; (6) Other costs associated with homes <br />such as cost of land and utilities; (7) Review process for future amendments <br />to the UDO; and (8) Differing standards between the cities and the County. <br /> <br /> Chairman Fennel opened the meeting for comments and questions by those <br />persons in attendance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ken Payne, homebuilder, stated in his opinion the proposed UDO <br />would increase the cost of houses being built in the county. <br /> <br /> Mr. James Scarborough, attorney, addressed the following concerns: (1) <br />connectivity issue and associated costs; (2) elimination of cul de sacs; (3) <br />increased costs associated with required sidewalks, open space, etc.; and (4) <br />preliminary plat requirements by the City of Concord. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gary Troutman of Troutman Builders commented on increased costs <br />that would result from UDO regulations and stated local builders could not <br />afford those costs. He stated in his opinion the County should have revised <br />existing regulations rather than drafting the new ordinance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mike Quickel, President of the Cabarrus County Building Industry <br />Association, presented a letter for the record stating the building industry <br />does not support the UDO. He also presented a Position Paper from the Real <br />Estate and Building Industry Coalition (REBIC) outlining opposition to the <br />UDO and the adequate public facilities requirements. According to Mr. <br />Quickel, the UDO will increase the cost of housing which will be passed along <br />to the consumer, thus making it difficult for local residents to find <br />affordable housing in Cabarrus County. The letter as submitted by Mr. <br />Quickel was as follows: <br /> <br />April 10, 2001 <br /> <br />Cabarrus County Board of Commissioners <br />P.O. Box 707 <br />Concord, NC 28026-0707. <br /> <br />Re: Unified Development Ordinance <br /> <br />Gentlemen: <br /> The Cabarrus County Building Industry Association urges you to vote <br />against adoption of the Unified Development Ordinance. Instead of achieving <br />the original purpose of simply making the zoning ordinances consistent <br />throughout the County, the proposed UDO represents a comprehensive revision <br />of our entire set of land use ordinances. Our current ordinances are being <br />replaced by ordinances based on a planning and zoning philosophy which should <br />be carefully examined. <br /> <br /> The proposed UDO is based on the doctrines of a group of urban planners <br />known as "new urbanlsts". Attached is a copy of an article by Stephen Hayward <br />entitled, "Legends of the Sprawl" in which Mr. Hayward examines the <br />philosophy behind "new urbanism". According to Mr. Hayward, this liberal <br /> <br /> <br />