Agenda - 01-24-2013 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9 1 - Are the entities allowed a rebate on property taxes by the County for the land 2 granted for easement, or does the County still wish to secure revenue for the 3 grantor? 4 - What proposals are in place to assure security on the trail? 5 She said that it seems that the County Commissioners seem to promote what 6 they like over the rule of the people in general. She said that there are more concerns, 7 but the County Commissioners need to figure out a way to collaboratively share the 8 information with the population. 9 10 Bill Charles read a prepared statement: 11 "My name is Bill Charles and I wish to speak on the behalf of a group that has not 12 yet been here, all the Orange County property owners and citizens that may be directly 13 affected by the proposed Mountain to Sea Trail (MST). 14 The MST organization has proposed the trail to be somewhere in a mile wide 15 swath or corridor passing from the Haw River, North along Cane Creek, through the 16 OWASA lands, then North-East to the Eno River. (Primarily in Bingham Township). The 17 possibly affected parties are not just the property owners inside the corridor, but also 18 citizens with property boundaries contiguous to its East and West borders. The final 19 route may not be centered in the corridor, but may pass close to its fringes and affect 20 these outside properties. The total affected parties may well number in the hundreds. 21 We have heard many questions and seen much opposition to the MST from the 22 citizens opposed to the OWASA trail routing. What part of this opposition was caused by 23 lack of communication by OWASA, and the citizens who only became aware of the trail 24 plans by flags being placed along their properties? This lack of involvement has fueled 25 some rancor. 26 I ask that the same lack of communication not be applied to the much greater 27 sections of the trail proposed North and South of the reservoir. All of these Orange 28 County property owners deserve to be informed about the MST planning in their areas. 29 We believe that the board can take a leadership role and inform and involve citizens as 30 partners in the decisions that will possibly affect them. 31 So, in the interest of transparency and public interest, we, once again, ask that 32 the Mountains to Sea Trail be placed on an upcoming regular agenda for public 33 discussion. Given the problems with prior meetings, we ask that the topic be placed first 34 on the agenda. We hope to cover the following topics: 35 - First— how to create a process to directly and formally notify all property 36 holders who could potentially host the trail. These are property holders in the 37 one mile swath and the contiguous properties. These property holders must 38 be informed on issues such as: parking, trail development and maintenance, 39 liability risks to property owners, safety, security and fire response. Also, what 40 are the standard terms of permanent easements that might be placed on their 41 property. 42 - Second, where might the access points be located and how will they be 43 secured and managed? Every known park or trail access point in Orange 44 County is a secured public location that is actively managed. Bingham has no 45 managed access points. Even the few homes in the Thunder Mountain 46 community that support the trail have insisted that there be no access points 47 in their community. 48 - Third, what are the rules and expectations between the County and OWASA, 49 given OWASA's recent comments that the Bingham routes be set before a 50 trail is routed on land near the reservoir.