Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

chpac-staff - [Chpac-staff] Developers and the Contextual Plan

chpac-staff AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Chpac-staff mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Janet Kagan" <jkagan AT nc.rr.com>
  • To: <chpac-staff AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Chpac-staff] Developers and the Contextual Plan
  • Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:58:06 -0400

CHPAC
 
In light of our discussions about public art in private development, and the potential obligation of any rezoning (new development or redevelopment) to contribute to enhancing the community through public art, please find below an article in Sunday's Herald Sun.  It appears that Mayor Foy and Chapel Hill developer and UNC Trustee Roger Perry agree on this important dimension.  
 
Janet
 
 
 
Developing new funds for buses
 April 29, 2006

By ROB SHAPARD, The Herald-Sun
CHAPEL HILL -- Developers already expect certain infrastructure costs as 
part of the price of doing business in a new project, from roads and 
sidewalks to water and sewer lines.

But the Town Council also wants the chance to consider requiring 
developers to put money into the public transit system, i.e. the buses, 
when they're seeking approval for new projects.

Making it clear the town has the authority to make such a requirement is 
one of the items the council hopes state legislators will pursue next 
month. Orange County's legislators asked at a recent breakfast meeting 
whether the council was sure it needed the state's OK to require a transit 
contribution, and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos said he thought the town 
would need legislation.

If a law ultimately was passed, the council still would have to craft a 
local ordinance and go through the public hearing process before enacting 
a requirement.

"The basic idea is that a town as built out as Chapel Hill is going to see 
more infill development, redevelopment," Mayor Kevin Foy said. "That kind 
of development doesn't need the same kind of infrastructure as the 
development of open land.

"But what it does need is some kind of transportation mitigation," he 
said. "For us, that means an investment in the public transit system."

Foy compared the proposal to the requirement the town already has for new 
recreation amenities. Someone building a new subdivision or other 
development in many cases has to provide facilities for recreation or make 
a payment to the town, which then can put the money toward new parks or 
other facilities.

Foy said that if the town eventually were to enact a transit requirement, 
the money could go to things like buying new buses or operational expenses 
for the transit system.

"In one sense, it's a matter of fairness," he said. "Why should someone 
developing in one part of town have to pay for infrastructure, and another 
not have to pay for any kind of transportation impact, when they're going 
to have a transportation impact?"

At this point, the council's request for state legislation does not 
distinguish between developments of raw land and projects that would 
transform existing buildings into something different.

Chapel Hill-based developer Roger Perry has one of the latter types of 
projects in the works -- a redevelopment of the Best Western University 
Inn property along Raleigh Road/N.C. 54. His company will be at Town Hall 
in a few days with an application for University Village, which would tear 
down the motel and build new residences, shops, office space and a hotel.

Perry said Friday he hadn't heard about the council's interest in adding 
some kind of transit requirement to its development process. But he didn't 
have any objections.

"I have no problem with [the town] having the authority to do that," Perry 
said. "To me, it is not good that you have to get legislative acts to do 
specific revenue measures in a municipality. I think municipalities should 
have the right to do that on their own."

When Perry's firm developed Meadowmont, it had to pay for a wide range of 
improvements, such as about $4 million worth of work on N.C. 54.

"There's no question there is a cost from new development on all kinds of 
infrastructure, whether it's roads, utilities, transportation," he said. 
"The issue is getting a fair balance of what's equitable.

"What you need is the collective wisdom of the developer, the staff, the 
elected officials," he said. "Quite frankly, I think that's worked pretty 
doggone well in Chapel Hill. There are times when it's been pushed too 
hard, maybe times when it wasn't pushed hard enough, but in general I 
think it's been a pretty good equilibrium."

http://www.heraldsun.com/orange/10-729824.html.


  • [Chpac-staff] Developers and the Contextual Plan, Janet Kagan, 05/01/2006

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page