Browse
Search
Agenda 09-07-1993 - VIII-C
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1993
>
Agenda - 09-07-1993
>
Agenda 09-07-1993 - VIII-C
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/6/2017 3:17:55 PM
Creation date
2/6/2017 2:31:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/7/1993
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
VIII-C
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
16 <br /> LAW OFFICES <br /> COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE ALONZO BROWN COLEMAN,JR. <br /> A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION <br /> GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL <br /> 129 E.TRYON STREET DOUGLAS HARGRAVE <br /> P.O.DRAWER 1529 3M K.STEFFAN <br /> HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278 JANET B.DUTTON <br /> (919)732.2196 <br /> FAX(919)732.7997 _ <br /> • <br /> August 9 , 1993 <br /> - Mr. Marvin Collins <br /> Planning Director ._ <br /> Orange County Planning Department � _:. � 4 <br /> Post Office Box 8181 =: <br /> Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 <br /> RE: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Impervious <br /> Surface Ratios/Protected Watersheds - _ . <br /> Dear Marvin: <br /> I have reviewed your July 28, 1993 letter regarding the <br /> Planning Board's concern about Orange County holding "onto [a - - <br /> -' conservation) easement even though the purpose for its creation <br /> was no longer valid. " I do not share the Planning Board's <br /> concern about Orange County's motivation in obtaining <br /> conservation easements. I, therefore, will recommend against any <br /> amendment language which does not require the easement to be one <br /> in perpetuity. As a practical matter, the purpose of the - <br /> - easement ever becoming "invalid" is not great. Further, as a - -_=- <br /> -- practical matter, if for some reason impervious surface :" - <br /> =1 requirements in protected watersheds are ever.. slackened to the <br /> point where the easement is no longer necessary-for that: purpose, <br /> - Orange County would be in a position to and would have no reason_- <br /> __ not to release the property from the easement._. In this regard,: =: _ <br /> - it is important to remember that the purpose for the proposed -_ <br /> amendment and the conservation easement is to allow private land <br /> owners the right to develop land more intensely than the <br /> Watershed Protection Regulations otherwise provide. . <br /> As a strictly "legal" matter, - conveyance of property for an <br /> indefinite period of time, for example, until an ordinance is <br /> changed, creates an uncertainty in the ."estate" granted -that <br /> risks _the validity of the conveyance itself That is -the reason _ <br /> ---why the conservation easement enabling legislation requires that <br /> an easement be in perpetuity or for "stipulated" periods of time. <br /> • <br /> Very truly yours, <br /> -offre , - . Gledhill <br /> GEG/lsg <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.