Minutes - 19760511 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

414 After further discussion, it was agreed to change Subsection A under Section II to read as follows: "Private ownership of lands whose land shall be restricted for the preservation of the river." The third paragraph under subsection B, Section II, known as the condemnation paragraph brought about considerable discussion. Mr. Barber urged the Board to take a firm stand and address the issue of condemnation of the Eno. He spoke against condemnation of lands as a means of preserving the Eno River and its environs. Mr. Whitted reminded the people that preservation of the Eno was the theme, and that if a park, was developed on the Eno, it would be from willing sellers and donors and his proposal would allow for other means of protection of the River through restrictive convenants. He stated further that condemnation would be used as a preservation tool and for the expansion of the park. Dr. Lang requested that a positive statement be used in this para- graph such as "condemnation should not be used for the purpose of ex- pansion of the Eno River Park. Landowners who wish to retain possession of their land have the option of adopting preservation methods to be outlined later in the report, and landowners who have adopted these methods, that you specifically require the State not to threaten .the landowners with condemnation who have adopted preservation means. However, landowners had the right to reject any of these, if he does so, he does not bring down any additional threats." Commissioner Gustaveson stated that there were two parts to this proposal as well as in the reports of the Eno River Task Force. (1) The State and the development of the Eno River State Park; and (2) the County and the development of a new set of supplementary regulatory majors in view of the preservation in the area. The need is to put the two documents together to emphasize a preservation plan. He stated further that this proposal would have to go before the State Planning people to see if they will cooperate and coordinate the plans. The Policy formulated here tonight and assuming that the State goes along with the method that landowners work out their own methods of a preservation plan. In this sense, it would be a mutual agreement with the State. Commissioner Whitted and the Board agreed to re-work the third paragraph of Subsection B to read "Adversary ( or unfriendly) condemnation should not be used for the purpose of expanding the Eno River Park. In cases where private owners do not wish to sell to the State, then strict adherence to local zoning and land use regulations become essential to maintain the preservation theme." Jeff Gledhill, County Attorney stated that the policy statement cowld not impair the State's power of condemnation which is granted by the legislature. Dr. Lang inserted that what the County adopted would be highly considered by the people in Raleigh. Commissioner Whined continued with the policy statement. The only other change in the Policy Statement occurs in the fourth paragraph of Subsection B. Section II, which states "every effort should be made to work out solutions through local planning staffs in cooperation with the Division of State Parks." Don Cox, a member of the Eno River Task Force spoke in favor of the Eno River State Park. Commissioner Walker stated that there were many items in the proposal that were confusing and Mr. Walker moved that the Board officially adopt the Lang Report. This motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Pinney stated that he agreed with much in the Lang Report, however, he felt that the Board should attempt to get a 5 - 0 vote on the proposal if possible. He stated further that he would like to reach an agreement that would be suitable to everyone. Commissioner Whitted moved that the concept of this proposal be adopted with the changes as so stated.