Agenda - 05-15-2001-9c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

18 1 should be delineated so that the residents understand that they are buying houses in a transitional area right next 2 to an economic development area. 3 4 Schofield pointed out that the County Engineer's letter said that he was advised by the Orange County Planning 5 Department that the property is in the transition area. Benedict said that this was incorrect and that the 6 information was, given before he arrived as Planning Director. 7 8 Schofield said that he thinks that'the responsibility was on the developer to identify whether or not their area is 9 in a transitional area. 10 11 Holtkamp said that staff has done the right thing to determine the inconsistencies in the right stage. She said 12 that we should be fair to the citizens that live out there to do all things reasonably necessary in the interests of 13 promoting the overall comprehensive plan and not the specific interests of Efland LLC. 14 15 McAdams asked to hear from the developer. 16 17 Strayhorn asked if this was the first master plan for the Efland area. Benedict said that studies were done, but 18 there was never an adapted plan. 19 20 Schofield said that the bottom line was that this project was in conflict with numerous policies and the only way 21 for the developer to proceed was to go directly to the Commissioners to ask for sewer extension. 22 23 Discussion ensued about the transition area. 24 25 Benedict said that the line for the transition area was not on the project map at the concept plan stage. 26 27 Applicant Comments 28 29 Gordon Brown, attorney for Efland LLC, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He spoke about the process of the 30 project. He said that in September, on four days notice, the Planning-Board made a radical recommendation 31 that 50 acres of this subdivision be plucked out and used as a park site. This created great confusion., As a 32 result of this; the item was postponed to October where, on the night of the Planning Board meeting, the 50 33 acres turned into a relocation of the recreational area up in the northeast corner. He said that the Planning Board 34 approved the concept plan and tried to leave it up to the developer and the staff to work out the specifications. 35 He said that the subtext of those meetings was that the County was interested in using this property for a school 36 site or a portion of the property for a school site. This did not materialize and the County did not show any 37 interest in the property as a school site. In early November, the preliminary plat application took place and the 38 project was on the January P and the February 7t' agenda. It was postponed both times. He said that this 39 process seems to thrive on last minute surprises. He said that he does not know what has gone awry and why 40 there have been so many false starts. He said that the rights of the developers are not being observed. 41 42 Brown said that in 1999 and again in 2000, he checked in with the County and received the letter from Paul 43 Thames stating that the property was in the transition area. He said that David Morris made a personal visit to 44 the Orange County Planning Department and reviewed the map with Marvin Collins and determined that this 45 property was within the transition area. He said that it was highly irregular for a process to go on for almost 46 three years without knowing that all of the property was not in the transition area. 47 48 Brown made reference to the certification process and the part of the development ordinance entitled, 49 "Reservation of Space for Utilities" on page 139 of the agenda abstract. He said that this document did not 50 require certification of anything. He said that the only requirement, according to the ordinance, was that the 51 County Engineer was to approve the extension. He said that there was no existing ordinance or regulation that 52 requires a certification. Benedict pointed Mr. Brown to paragraph A of the Water /Sewer Policy. He said that in