Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Mr. !tw Polatty <br /> Page ) <br /> May Sri, 1982 <br /> Of governments (or water and sewer authority) to provide for its water supply <br /> alrea,Iy requires an authorization certificate to he issued by the <br /> Envirn,umental.,Management Commission. In no other condemnation procedure that <br /> we can think of lie a certificate of authorization issued by an agency of state <br /> government required in order for a local unit of government to proceed with <br /> eminent domain..' Giving the Commissioner of Agriculture the right to reject <br /> such n project if it interfered with farmland preservation objectives would <br /> result: in two more approval procedures in addition to the proceedings that are <br /> tYPically required in a condemnation action. <br /> The proposal does not specifically indicate just what units of government <br /> would be made subject to the proposed special eminent domain procedures. <br /> Sect1«n 2.3(e) 'suggests that an "agency governing board" may, by a 3/4 vote, <br /> overr;ge the Commissioner's veto. This language suggests that the ordinance <br /> is caN...erned only with local public condemners. Ferrell believes that no <br /> ProP0,44al to restrict the use of eminent domain would be enacted that did not <br /> excluhke the State and public service corporations (i.e., electric power, <br /> telep:".`eone, gas,Ipipeline, and railroads). The language proposed to amend the <br /> emina:,kt domain law (under proposed Section 40.11(a)) needs to make more <br /> speci;;tc reference to the types of eminent domain actions to which the Orange <br /> County- proposal! applies. The term "authority" needs to be precisely defined. <br /> Some q;:ross-reference needs to be made to the Environmental Management <br /> Comm$*4 Sion authorization procedure under G.S. 162A-7. Aleo, the proper <br /> .ref-t,ence to the primary source of the state eminent domain law is Chapter 49A <br /> of th.-•, General 'Statutes, not Chapter 40. <br /> =+iwrence comments that the veto by the Commissioner of Agriculture might <br /> not e decisive in most instances because the condemnor could and probably <br /> wou24 override 'the veto. If that is the likely result, an alternative may be <br /> to s�ghly allow the Commissioner or his representatives to comment on the <br /> cocce�+*nation_proposa-1 before any final action is taken by the unit. <br /> peLY= nment Rights Agreements <br /> -Article 2jof the proposed draft ordinance speaks of "development rights <br /> agents" but nowhere else is there any indication of just what such <br /> aS=7e rents would involve. The term "development rights" is not currently <br /> rec eized under North Carolina law. However, much of what is to be <br /> act -a -lished under the Orange County proposal may be carried out by means of <br /> ccr.-,vation agreements," provided for in G.S. 121-34 et seq. Specific <br /> reference probably needs to be made to those statutes, which collectively are <br /> Le=� :ed to asithe "Historic Preservation and Conservation Agreements Act." <br /> Theme agreements, which may be used to preserve farmland, run with the land <br /> any ",.eat be recorded. <br /> additional legislation may not be needed to use conservation agreements <br /> l manner suggested by the Orange County Program. However, some reference <br /> to c: tie use of these agreements in any legislative package submitted to the <br /> le,Le ature may be useful in order to indicate the full scope of the proposed <br /> 3 <br />