Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
896 <br />On December 2, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners considered a conservation easement <br />for the conservation area of University Manor Phase I. There was considerable discussion concerning <br />responsibilities and liabilities associated with the easement. The easement was approved in concept, but <br />was to be returned to the Board of Commissioners, in final form, after revisions were made in response to <br />3oard comments made at its December 2 meeting. Planner Mary Willis outlined the revisions that were <br />made to the conservation easement. <br />Commissioner Halkiotis restated his concern that someone will get hurt on the property <br />comprising this conservation easement and the County will be held responsible. <br />Geoffrey Gledhill said that the County owns parcels of land which are part of the rural buffer <br />greenway system and that the extent of the ownership is far less with a conservation easement than an <br />actual ownership of the property. He feels that owning the conservation easement will not trigger liability <br />against the County. <br />Commissioner Gordon said that if this is desirable open space then she feels the County should <br />accept the easement. If it is not desirable open space, then they need to tum it down and redo the resolution <br />of approval. <br />Commissioner Carey said that he feels it more of a precedent to go back and change the <br />resolution rather than to accept this with the risk factor involved. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve <br />the conservation easement as presented in the agenda adding an amendment which would eliminate the <br />ability to use the development rights associated with this property anywhere else and an agreement with the <br />developer to clean up the debris in this area. <br />VOTE: AYES, 4; NOS, 1 (Commissioner Halkiotis) <br />D. MZ LEGISLATIVE ISSUES <br />With reference to the agenda abstract and the four items listed thereon, the Board decided to not <br />support item #4 dealing with exemption from payment of impact fees for certain types of housing for the <br />?Iderly and deleted this item from the list. They decided to support the other three items as listed below: <br />(1) authorization to impose an impact tax, rather than the current impact fee, for <br />educational facilities <br />(2) authorization to levy a real estate transfer tax <br />(3) inclusion of sexual preference as a protected class in the County's human rights <br />ordinance enabling legislation <br />In addition to these issues, the. Board decided to discuss with their legislators (1) accountability of <br />funds distributed by the State for Smart Start, (2) entertainment tax or ticket tax, (3) proof of residency, age <br />and citizenship for the purpose of registering to vote and (4) ABC request to restructure the state excise <br />taxes as it is related to beer, wine and spirituous liquor. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to delete <br />item #4 as presented in the agenda abstract and noted above, and to support the other three items listed <br />above and in the abstract and to discuss the four additional items as listed. <br />VOTE: AYES, 4; NOS, 1 (Commissioner Carey) <br />Chair Crowther said that he will try to schedule a breakfast meeting with their local legislators for <br />the second week in January, probably Tuesday, January 7 at 7:30 or 8:00 a.m. <br />E, SCHOOLS D LAND 1 C <br />John Link noted that Commissioner Gordon presented this item at the December 7 Board of <br />County Commissioners retreat. The proposal would be to establish committees for each school district that <br />would advise the Board of Commissioners concerning growth and land use issues relating to schools. He <br />asked that the Board refer this proposal to staff to study how this council would relate to the other goals. <br />Commissioner Gordon said that her thought in terms of the interrelation effort with other goals and <br />the development of the time line is that the group would be charged with developing a coordinated plan for <br />approving developments in the County that may have impacts on school capacity and school sites and that<.,: <br />the group would come up with a plan that would come back to the County Commissioners for approval. The