Agenda - 02-27-1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

.....manowsmunems George W. Brumley 2812 New Hope Church Rd. Chapel Hill, NC 27515 February 27, 1989. Orange County Commissioners Re: Duke Forest - PID-II; Buffer Requirements This letter is to be read into the minutes of the Public Hearing scheduled for tonight, February 27, 1989. This letter need not be read aloud during the meeting, but I wish for it to be part of the public record. As a landowner with property adjacent to the Eno Division of Duke Forest, I wish to register my strong opposition to the proposed 100 foot buffer to be required of all, adjacent landowners. It is my firm belief that any buffer required should be on the Duke Forest side of the property line or at minimum should be shared equally. secondly, the size of the proposed buffer is absurd. I do not believe that there is a buffer of such tremendous size anywhere in the County. Most importantly, this is a taking of property without compensation. By requiring a 100 foot buffer that cannot be disturbed, the County effectively reduces the usable land, that I own. I understand that this buffer only becomes effective when and if I decide to subdivide my property. In all cases the proposed buffer reduces the value of my or of any other landowner's property simply because that property is adjacent to Duke Forest. This strikes me as arbitrary and capricious. Lastly, I wish to register my strong disagreement with County policy for its willingness to transgress private property rights through downzoning and defacto condemnation. While I, more than most Orange County residents, would prefer that Duke continue to use the Forest in the same manner as they have in the past, it is their-property. They should have the right to do with it as they see fit, within current zoning regulations. They own it - fee simple. I believe that Duke has consistently acted as a responsible and civic minded citizen. I find it hard to believe that they would discard years of goodwill by irresponsibly developing or disposing of their property. I do not believe that the County should engage in the diminution of the value of any persons property without compensation and just cause. I believe that the current proposal lacks both. 71646, 43 George W. Brumley cc: Keith Brodie Max Wallace