Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br />Leon Meyers: Is there any insight in the minutes regarding the meaning of unitary ownership as Nathan just asked? 2 <br /> 3 <br />Mr. Kuhn: If I may, it doesn't say – 4 <br /> 5 <br />Leon Meyers: Mr. Kuhn just a minute. Let me get Taylor’s opinion here if I could, and Taylor if you care to speak to 6 <br />that? 7 <br /> 8 <br />Cy Stober: I've got the minutes pulled up if I may speak to this? 9 <br /> 10 <br />Leon Meyers: Please. 11 <br /> 12 <br />Cy Stober: EC Brooks asked how the restrictions placed on this property will be recorded so that a title lawyer 13 <br />won't pass. This is on, I'm sorry, Page 74 of the minutes from May 29th, 1990. EC Brooks asked how the restrictions 14 <br />placed on this property will be recorded so that a title lawyer won't pass the title to someone who would think they could 15 <br />buy this open land. Kirk indicated that this park, including the open space, recreation and park area, must stay in 16 <br />unitary ownership. Those restrictions would be placed on a special use permit. It could be changed only if it becomes 17 <br />10- or 20-year transition. That's a future land use classification in the comprehensive plan, and then an application 18 <br />would need to be filed for a different plan development at a higher density rezoning. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Leon Meyers: Reading those minutes, do you understand that the commissioners' purpose in approving this concept 21 <br />of unitary ownership was to preserve the open space, or was there something more that you read in the minutes? 22 <br /> 23 <br />Cy Stober: No sir. I think your conclusion is correct, that I share and that it was intended to be one piece with the 24 <br />mobile home park and to be jointly held or unitarily held as its stated here. I have nothing else. 25 <br /> 26 <br />Leon Meyers Thank you. Mr. Kuhn, I cut you off. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Ben Kuhn: No problem. I would just point out also that the terms of the special use permit or the amendment in 29 <br />1990, it basically says that - I think these are operative terms - the terms herein contained are binding on the present 30 <br />owners, their successors in title and interest until such time as the project herein described, or the conditions herein, 31 <br />are changed by government action, so that's what we're here for, government action. But I think it's actually interesting 32 <br />when you read those terms in the special use permit itself, that it says, the terms herein contained are binding on the 33 <br />present owners, their successors in title and interest. So, if you read that and then you read Condition No. 16, which 34 <br />says the project must remain in unitary ownership and no lots can be sold to individuals, it's a little contradictory there, 35 <br />because one presumes that the conditions would be binding on successors in interest which are Capkov. They bought 36 <br />it, they didn't know about it, they found out about it and then brought this to the fore to both Hillsborough and the county 37 <br />to try to deal with it head on, transparent. We're here to try to work on this issue, because we think that this project and 38 <br />their plans and what they're trying to do is going to be beneficial and consistent with the comprehensive plan and 39 <br />everything else. And so that's why we're bringing it forward. The unitary ownership condition is a little wonky to say the 40 <br />least. It is also a restriction on the ability of a person's right to convey and transfer their property, and that's a 41 <br />governmental regulation doing that. And restraints on alienation are disfavored in the law. They violate the public 42 <br />policies established in the North Carolina Marketable Title Act in Chapter 47B. From those standpoints, it's a pretty 43 <br />severe condition to put on someone. And the way it's written, it kind of at one point presumes that these conditions 44 <br />would be binding on successors in title and interest and then it says that unitary ownership. But then it almost qualifies 45 <br />that and says no lots can be sold to individuals. Well, we're not buying lots. They're not individuals. Capkov is not an 46 <br />individual, so one could argue that really doesn't apply, and, even if it did, question whether it's enforceable or not. But 47 <br />No. 2, we're here to just dispense with it, because it gets in the way of productive, progressive development of property 48 <br />that's been identified in the comprehensive plan as a growth area. 49 <br /> 50 <br />20