Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
17 <br />Section IV- B -7 -b -6 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations states, "Before <br />approving a payment -in -lieu of dedication, the Board of Commissioners shall find that <br />no recreation and/or open space sites have been designated on the adopted <br />Comprehensive Plan for the property in question. " This property has been designated <br />as such within the Comprehensive Plan. Because the directive of the Subdivision <br />Regulations requires dedication when it is designated as same, the recommendations <br />of both the Planning Department and RPAC must be forwarded to the Planning Board <br />for consideration. The Planning Board, in turn; must make a recommendation to the <br />Board of County Commissioners. <br />The proposed McGowan Creek pedestrian trail is envisioned along both sides of the <br />creek from Richmond Road to the new County -owned McGowan Creek Preserve. <br />Thus far, three other subdivisions (Major Subdivisions), have apportioned or will <br />apportion land along the creek for the proposed walking trail. They are Richmond Hills, <br />McGowan Creek, and Ashwick. McGowan Creek and Ashwick are still in the <br />preliminary stages of the review process, however, the developers have agreed in <br />principle. <br />RECOMMENDATION; Staff Recommendation <br />Approval of the subdivision application with Parkland Dedication, being a 10-ft. wide trail along the 21 84 <br />width of the proposed new Lot 13. <br />1 Gooding -Ray asked for an explanation of the payment -in -lieu versus parkland dedication. <br />2 <br />3 Benedict said that the Commissioners asked that all areas noted on the Land Use Plan map within the <br />4 County that shows resource conservation areas be known to everyone who does subdivisions. For any <br />5 subdivided parcel in the Resource Conservation Area noted on the Land Use Plan, dedication is the <br />6 appropriate method to satisfy the parks and Recreation impact. The County has also recently approved <br />7 the Lands Legacy Program, which addresses the big picture. <br />8 <br />9 Strayhorn made reference to the 10 -foot easement and said that he was concerned. He said that it <br />10 sounded like it gave the applicant some problems. He said that the County would not be getting any <br />11 benefit from the dedication. <br />12 <br />13 Mike Efland, the owner of this piece of property, said that he was desperately affected by this <br />14 recommendation. He said that he might be building on this property in the future and he did not want the <br />15 public around his house, He said that he would not be giving the 10 -foot easement for dedication. He <br />16 does not even agree with paying the $422.00. He is going to find a way to beat this. -He said that this was <br />17 a subdividing of a piece of property within his family and it was not a subdivision. <br />18 <br />19 Barrows was confused about Strayhorn's concerns. <br />20 . <br />21 Strayhorn said that the 10 -foot easement was a taking of rights without any compensation. <br />22 <br />23 Mike Efland said that the Planning Department gave him the option to pay the $422.00 or to give the <br />24 piece of property. Davis responded that the ordinance does not give the staff a choice. He said that <br />25 ERCD recommended for the dedication of the 10 -foot easement and the Recreation and Parks Advisory <br />26 Council recommended the payment -in -lieu. This is why it is coming to the Planning Board for a <br />27 recommendation. <br />28 <br />29 Strayhorn clarified that he was opposed to requiring landowners to give an easement to the general public. <br />30 <br />