Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Virginia Godfrey said that they received one business day's notice of this meeting. She clarified <br />some misconceptions presented in this report. One is that this has been predicated an safety concerns <br />of the existing property owners of Arthur Minnis Road. She said that this misconstrued something that <br />happened several months ago. They had safety concerns of the partial paving of the road -the transition <br />from an open, flat intersection to a shaded blind curve. They do not have safety concerns about the road <br />as it exists today. Secondly, she said that it was presented that a great majority of the existing property <br />owners have expressed an interest in paving the entire road based an granting right-of-way. Many of the <br />rights-of-way preexist the present property owners. She said that less than 40°~ of the property owners <br />want to see the road paved. As an agricultural based business on this road, she would like to receive <br />the same consideration that has been given to the developer. She would like to see the plans proposed <br />by NCDOT and she would like to be included in all of the meetings. She would like to know how she will <br />be adequately indemnified for replacing or relocating 3,200 feet of oak fencing at $35 a linear foot. She <br />asked who would replace her lost revenue from her horse pastures, which currently earn $1,000 a month <br />a piece. She asked who would replace the pasturage in her farm. She purchased the property that had <br />a preexisting right-of-way. She was misled by the seller and was told that no right-of-way existed. She <br />was told that the little lines an her plat were a utility right-of-way for electric poles. She asked how the <br />curves would be straightened out that are unsafe. She would like to know the speed limit on this road. <br />She asked the County Commissioners to vote no to the amendment 5a1 that is proposed. This will not <br />impact the developer's property. She asked that, in accordance with the letter that she received from <br />Craig Benedict an the 28t", the needed decision on putting Arthur Minnis Road back on the road paving <br />program be delayed until the public hearing in May and not be done tonight with one day's notice to the <br />affected property owners. She would like time to study the designs and far the legal counsel to study the <br />designs. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked about the size of her property and she said 65 acres. <br />Fred Zimmerman said that a group met last night to discuss these matters, and he was assigned <br />to speak for them. He lives at 1910 Arthur Minnis Road. He said that most of the residents of the gravel <br />road oppose the paving of the road. This fact is not apparent from the material presented. He said that <br />it is true that some residents do want the road paved. It is also true that NCDOT has collected a lot of <br />right-of-way dedications. He asked the County Commissioners to reject both of the proposals. He asked <br />that they not make it any easier an the developer than they already have to degrade their neighborhood <br />with this development. He also asked the County Commissioners not to go along with the scheme <br />outlined under which the County would function as a money launderer between the developer and <br />NCDOT. He asked for the following changes if the amendment is approved: 1) amend the resolution so <br />that the developer has to pave his entire frontage, including the 31 feet {condition #D7). 2} In a letter to <br />some of the property owners on January 3`d, the developer offered to establish a fund to cover costs of <br />any well failures that might result from this project. He also offered water use restrictions, a setback <br />buffer, and steps to improve drainage from his property. Then the developer said that he would only <br />agree to these things if the property owners cease "negative activities" and da not give him "anymore <br />trouble paving Arthur Minnis {i.e., it's paved by May 15t"}." They believe these concessions should have <br />been in the original resolutions put before the County Commissioners. He asked that these concessions <br />be inserted now. They do want the paving to be finished sooner than May 15t". The paving has already <br />begun and trees have been removed. It is now a mud hole and an eyesore. He said that the developer <br />should finish immediately what he started. In the developer's letter, he also said that he could reduce the <br />density of the development or pave the section of road. If the developer is not going to have to pave the <br />road, he should at least be required in exchange to reduce the density by a commensurate number of <br />lots. Regarding item 5a2, they were not told about this development until after the County <br />Commissioners had approved it. He believes that it was because the developer and Craig Benedict <br />knew the residents would object to the plan they had agreed on. The neighbors are disgusted and <br />angered to learn that the developer and staff wants to make the development a catalyst for achieving <br />something else they da not want -the paving of the entire 1.6 miles of road. He said that Craig Benedict <br />does not speak for any of them when he says residents want the road paved out of concern for safety. <br />Na one at his meeting believed that paving the road would make it safer. In fact, they assume that it will <br />became less safe because paving will bring far more vehicles that will be traveling much faster. He <br />quoted from an article called, "Traveling the Unpaved Way - A Case far the Preservation of Dirt Roads." <br />He said that unless these efforts stop, they will lead to condemnation proceedings against some of them, <br />