Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
18 <br />1 Goodwin, agrees with Mr. Efland and said that the policy was misguided. <br />2 <br />3 Barrows made reference to the map on page 19 of the agenda packet and said that she agrees with <br />4 Strayhorn in that if the County wants this piece of land to connect the trail, the cleanest thing would be to <br />5 take the easement and pay Mr. Efland for it. <br />6 <br />7 Chair Allison verified that the Comprehensive Plan requires an easement along McGowan Creek. <br />8 <br />9 Mike Efland said that he also owns other pieces of property that border the stream and he will not give <br />10 easements for them. He warned of the fight to come. He said that everyone who owned property along <br />11 McGowan Creek was related to him and was opposed to giving the easement. <br />12 <br />13 Barrows said that Mr. Efland's point was valid. She is also sympathetic to the County's position if there <br />14 should be some interconnectivity for recreational purposes. She said that the kindest thing to recommend <br />15 would be to buy the property from Mr. Efland. <br />16 <br />17 MOTION: Katz moved to accept the recommendation of the Planning Staff to <br />18 approve the Wilson Efland subdivision application with the following <br />19 conditions: 1) Dedicate a 10 -foot wide contiguous parcel at the outside <br />20 edge of the McGowan Creek floodplain as indicated on the map; and 2) <br />21 Compensation will be given to the property owner for the piece of land <br />22 that is cut off by this easement. Seconded by Barrows. <br />23 <br />24 The Planning Board agreed that this was a privacy issue. The land cut off by the easement is useless <br />25 because it is in a floodplain. The property owner would still have rights to the property. <br />26 <br />27 Benedict said that the compensation is what the impact fee would be. He said that at first the staff asked <br />28 the property owners to dedicate the area from the easement line all the way to the middle of the creek so <br />29' there would be no hiatus area. This was cut down to the minimum of 10 feet He said that this would be <br />30 an emotional issue throughout the County. <br />31 <br />32 Chair Allison said that paying for the land would not solve the problem. The privacy issue would still be <br />33 there. <br />34 <br />M Goodwin said that it was more than privacy. There would be compacting of the soil and garbage; and <br />36 there would be serious infringement on the land. <br />37. <br />38 Katz said that no matter what is decided by the Planning Board, the outcome is still going to be the same - <br />39 the land will be taken for an easement by one means or another. Goodwin disagreed. <br />40 <br />41 The motion was clarified as follows: <br />42 clarified as <br />43 MOTION: Katz moved approval of the Planning staffs recommendation to approve <br />44 the Wilson Efland subdivision application with the following condition: <br />45 Dedicate a 10 -foot wide contiguous parcel at the outside edge of the <br />46 McGowan Creek floodplain as indicated on the attached map. Seconded <br />47 by Barrows. <br />48 <br />49 VOTE.. Ayes, 4; Noes, 4 (McAdams, Barrows, Strayhorn, Goodwin) <br />50 Due to the tie vote, this item will be forwarded to the Board of <br />51 Commissioners with the minutes and no recommendation. <br />52 <br />53 <br />