Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
056 <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> TO: GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, COUNTY ATTORNEY <br /> FROM: MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR <br /> DATE: DECEMBER Z1, 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 Board, <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 writinc 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 /> 2. 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 actinc . 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 Bard members <br /> . thought that the preliminary plat for Lake Woods had been <br /> -pprovied with a stipulation, that restrictive covenants be <br /> recorded limitinn 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 />