Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
r.,. <br /> Iiills.borough, North Caroling <br /> February 28, 1989 <br /> Dear Editor: <br /> Duke wa_s a big loser at Monday nights' Orange County CODlirliSSi013- <br /> e.rs meeting. A number of adjoining land owners turned out and <br /> objected to using an of their own lands to buffer Duke's prr_lperties. <br /> Faced with two dozen angry folks, Duke administrator Max Wallace <br /> catagorically denied that the T:niversity supported the idea. Be said <br /> that- Duke wanted no protection, even for those parcels recently desig <br /> nated by the Trustees as "Class One lands, property dedicat ed. to <br /> preservation and research for the next fifty years. <br /> This comes after two months of work by Mr. 'Wallace and County <br /> planners, devising zoning catagorie,s that would allow the 'University <br /> flexibility in mana,gin,g its properties while marking some of them as <br /> clearly special and deserving of preferential treatment by the commu <br /> nity as a whole, Throug,hout this process the Duke administration has <br /> tried to "have its cake and eat it, too" as regards the status of "Class <br /> Two lands, Such a strategy is bound to fail, of coarse, but it may be <br /> understoo.d as a predictable bureauc.ratic response to conflicting direc- <br /> tives. There has been no clear consensus within the Tjniversity about, <br /> the efforts that should be made to preserve the Class Two parcels; <br /> some of which are under considerable pressure from development now <br /> and obviously will become more difficult to defend in the future. •The <br /> committment to Class One properties owever, has not seemed to waiver <br /> heretofore, <br /> As recent lY as last week, Mr. Wallace made a -presentation to <br /> the Public,-Private. Partnership on these issues and spoke favorably <br /> . about the creation of separate zoning catagories for Class One and <br /> Class Two lands.. I personally thought that the proposals brought for :! <br /> ward for discussion at Monday's tet-in g had been too much written by I. <br /> Duke, written so as to impose a burden on the community out of pr.°- <br /> portion to the commitment made by the University. Land which can be <br /> developed for "office buildings" and "s.ingle-family residences with <br /> attached efficiency apartments" is not very different from other land in <br /> the county, in mY view, Certainly adjoining landowners should not be <br /> asked any particular <br /> sacrifice on its account. I was therefore quite <br /> amazed when Mr. Wallace publicly disavowed the proposals. <br />