BOA agenda 041618 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

622 623 Neese - Brown: And the name of the individuals or family or registery? 624 625 Unidentified Male: The three last headstones that existed were J. Luke Bivens, died 1856; Joanna Bivens, 626 1847; and William Bivens, 1845. If there's any relatives for these people still around, I'd be very surprised. 627 That's the details, at least what Orange County has on the website. 628 629 Chairwoman Cabe: Does the staff have any response to the requested revision with regard to the 630 easement? I have some concerns but I'll wait to hear your response. 631 632 Michael Harvey: It goes without saying that we have recommended language calling for perpetual 633 easement, perpetual access. Ms. Brown and I had two to three discussions about her concerns and her 634 client's concerns about how that could be construed as being inconsistent with the statutes primarily with 635 Ms. Brown's nightmare scenario that if the cemetery is ever abandoned consistent with the applicable state 636 law, by state law there would still be this perpetual access easement. And the modification to that perpetual 637 access easement technically constitutes a modification to the Special Use Permit, compelling the American 638 Legion to come back before the Orange County Board of Adjustment to modify the SUP. In that vain, while 639 1 had expressed to Ms. Brown misgivings about the elimination of the easement, I understood the concern 640 and acquiesced. As I indicated at the beginning of this meeting, these revised conditions did not cause me 641 as much heartburn as they had originally since Ms. Brown and I had discussed them. 642 643 Chairwoman Cabe: I have concerns about including a perpetual easement because I worry that if they are 644 unidentified graves, how do we identify the individuals who will have this easement. And if we make it 645 broader than the relatives of the individuals in this cemetery, is that not in essence a taking of property. 646 Would that not sort of be a condemnation action, if the county is requiring giving up property rights and it's 647 not for a specific ....we know three people in the cemetery but we do not know who the others are, so how 648 do we identify the recipients of the easement? I know that's compound. Forgive me. 649 650 James Bryan: That's ok because I do not know the answer. I don't think it would be a taking. I think it would 651 be a provision same as any other easement is a provision. 652 653 Chairwoman Cabe: But access easements are required by the UDO and /or by state law but an easement 654 to an abandoned cemetery is not required by any of our statutes. Is that correct? 655 656 James Byran: I presume that if you place a condition for an easement it's pursuant to one of the standards 657 of evaluation. You're saying to protect the public welfare, this is necessary. You might, I'm just presuming, 658 you don't want people to park on 54 and randomly walk across this parcel to find this gravesite. That might 659 cause traffic concerns. So you want an easement so people know where to enter for the gravesite. So that 660 way, there is a basis for it. If there is it not a basis for it as a standard of evaluation, then there should not 661 be a condition placed on it. 662 663 Neese - Brown: If I could speak to that. Because the UDO does not require that we have an easement plus 664 the legislature has determined the means by which anybody who owns property privately addresses a 665 cemetery on their private property, it seems to me that the requirement, the suggestion that there is a 666 reason to have a perpetual easement in excess of what we are required to statutorily is troublesome. It also 667 seems to me that unless you require everyone who has a cemetery on private property to provide a 668 perpetual easement, then you maybe have unequal treatment of applicants. The condition as it originally 669 written, it appeared to be an easement that was directed toward a particular population and it was a 22