Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Commissioner Halkiotis said that he sees this situation as a rural-urban <br />misunderstanding. He said that Orange County had never condemned property. He said that the <br />Recreation and Parks Advisory Board stamped this the same way they have for years and the <br />Planning Board discussed this issue and ended up with a 4-4 vote. In order to maintain a corridor <br />of any kind, there must be staff to patrol and a program to maintain the area. He said that this <br />was not a subdivision like the bigger ones that are being proposed in the Efland area. He is not <br />supportive of this recommendation. He feels that additional discussion needs to take place. <br />Commissioner Brown asked Geoffrey Gledhill to explain the process that has taken <br />place on this item. Geoffrey Gledhill said that when a landowner elects to subdivide their land, <br />the legislature of North Carolina and the state and federal courts have recognized that the <br />government, in approving subdivision of the land, and in order to protect the public health, safety <br />and welfare, can exact certain things from the landowner in order to protect the public health, <br />safety and welfare. Some of the things that can be exacted are land for public roads, land for <br />public recreation, and land for public schools. He said that if there was no subdivision of this <br />property going on, there would be no basis for exacting public rights of way and public recreation <br />areas. He explained that the other document was faxed to the Efland's because the <br />recommendation that was made to require this land to be reserved for wildlife open space at this <br />time caused a different set of documents to be sent to be put into the agenda than were originally <br />put into the agenda. This is why Craig Benedict asked the Efland's to destroy the other <br />document. It was not the intent to cover up anything. He made reference to the section that <br />Chris Efland read from the document, "Land Suitability," and said that in the very next paragraph, <br />which was cut off, it talks about the kind of land needed for passive recreation. <br />Commissioner Brown asked for a clarification on the property that would be dedicated. <br />Craig Benedict explained that this property would be more of a reservation and nothing would be <br />done until there was other property to connect to this property. There would be no public use of <br />the property until there is enough to provide for the low-impact public use of the property. <br />Chris Efland made reference to the Planning Board meeting and said that Planner <br />Jane Garrett indicated that once the County got the key pieces of land through land dedication <br />the County would condemn the rest of the land and take it to connect the trail system. <br />Mike Efland spoke about property owned by his uncle, Bobby Efland, questioning why <br />he was only permitted to put eight homes on 25 acres of land. He said that they have been told <br />that the sewer system that is currently from Efland-Cheeks to Hillsborough would not handle any <br />more connections. He said that the current proposal that he has been given about Ashwick <br />Subdivision (his land borders this subdivision), says that there will be 56 homes with a tap fee of <br />$4,000. He said that he would be opposing this subdivision. <br />Chair Carey restricted further comments from Mike Efland. <br />Commissioner Jacobs applauded the stewardship of the people in the rural areas. <br />The County government wants to work to help preserve land. He said that this was not about <br />active recreation, but about leaving the land the way it was. He said that the law does not allow <br />government to discriminate between a large landowner and a small landowner. He said that there <br />needed to be a discussion on what people want in the Efland area. There are people who want <br />Efland to remain rural and others who want to build homes in the area. He said that the Board <br />was not talking about taking something from somebody and making it a public access point, but <br />treating everyone the same and having some kind of long-term planning for the Efland area. He <br />feels there has been confusion and a lack of clarity. <br />Chair Carey said that he fully recognizes that the County has the authority to require a <br />dedication of property and that the County would withstand a challenge to this authority. He also <br />recognizes that it is a hollow and shallow promise to the landowners in this County that this <br />requirement is going to be for low-impact, wildlife corridors now, but may be an active recreation <br />space at some point in the future. He believes that if the County requires it of one landowner, it <br />should be required of all landowners. He agrees that more discussion is required. However, he <br />feels that the landowner should be given a choice of payment-in-lieu or dedication. He also feels <br />that the County's payment-in-lieu fees are not high enough for the landowner to make a decision <br />