Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
r! <br /> .Lb ( <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> TO: GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, COUNTY ATTORNEY <br /> FROM: MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR <br /> DATE: DECEMBER 31, 1987 <br /> SUBJECT: RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS/CONSERVATION EASEMENTS <br /> COPIES: ALBERT KITTRELL, INTERIM COUNTY MANAGER <br /> BARRY JACOBS, PLANNING BOARD CHAIR <br /> MARY ANNE BLACK, RECREATION & PARKS DIRECTOR <br /> At the December 21, 1987 meeting of the Planning Beard, <br /> questions arose regarding the above mentioned subject (s) . <br /> Specifically, the questions resulted from the Planning <br /> Board' s consideration of two separate items - the Master <br /> Recreation and Parks Plan, and the Subdivision of Lot 9 of <br /> Phase I, Lake Woods. While we are meeting today to discuss <br /> the issue of conservation, easements, I thought it best to put <br /> the basic questions in writing for your consideration. <br /> Subdivision of Lot 9 - Phase I of Lake Woods <br /> 1. Can the County require a developer/owner to put certain <br /> stipulations in restrictive covenants at the time of <br /> preliminary plat approval? As an example, can the County <br /> require the a restriction establishing a certain minimum <br /> lot size (greater than, required by ordinance) or <br /> preventing further subdivision of the lots? <br /> What is the role of the County in the enforcement of <br /> - restrictive covenants? I told the Board that such <br /> covenants constituted an agreement between private <br /> parties, and it was neither desirable nor necessary that <br /> the County become involved in the enforcement of such <br /> covenants. <br /> .:•. Is there any County liability by actino . in contradiction <br /> - - - to recorded covenants, particularly if the covenants <br /> served as the basis for the initial approval -of a <br /> project? _ <br /> -These questions arose because some Planning Board members <br /> thought that the preliminary plat for Lake Woods had been <br /> approved with a stipulation that restrictive covenants be <br /> recorded limiting the lot size and further subdivision, of the <br /> -lots. A check of the minutes revealed that no such conditions <br /> had been attached to the approval. Furthermore, the proposed <br /> subdivision of Lot 9 into two lots, each two or more acres in <br /> size, was consistent with the recorded covenants. <br />