[Durham INC] FW: [INCexecutivecommittee] Fwd: TC1200012

[Tom Miller]

Pat is right on this.  I don't think anyone would object to rounding the
final fraction after calculating densities based upon the variable
multipliers.  This could be rounded up as long as all the units had the
minimum square footage for lot size when this is a factor.

 

I have some serious misgivings about giving credit for hwy rights of way.

 

Thanks for staying on this, Ms. B.

 

T

 

From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org] On
Behalf Of Rebecca Board
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 11:45 AM
To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] FW: [INCexecutivecommittee] Fwd: TC1200012

 

I've also reviewed this proposed text change to the UDO and agree with Pat.
I could possibly be convinced about the road frontages and density increases
with a development plan, but the argument they are making for removing
fractions in the density allowances just makes no logical sense.   It does
nothing to eliminate the final fractional number computed for allowed units
which they claim as their issue.  To me it appears to be just a very thinly
disguised excuse to increase density.   If the developer really only cared
about fractional units like they claim, they would be asking for more
generous rounding rules after the fractional density is multiplied by the
fractional acreage.   That would at most increase the density of a project
by one unit.

Rebecca

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20131210/0d0fe7d7/attachment.html>