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 shallnd 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 />RECOM3MNDATION: Staff Recommendation <br />Approval of the subdivision application with Parkland Dedication, being a 10 -ft. wide trail aloud the 218 -ft <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 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />1S <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />Benedict said that the Commissioners asked that all areas noted on the Land Use Plan map within the <br />County that shows resource conservation areas be known to everyone who does subdivisions. For any <br />subdivided parcel in the Resource Conservation Area -noted on the Land Use Plan, dedication is the <br />appropriate method to satisfy the Parks and Recreation impact. The County has also recently approved <br />the Lands Legacy Program, which addresses the big picture. <br />Strayhom made reference to the 10 -foot easement and said that he was concerned. He said that it <br />sounded like it gave the applicant some problems. He said that the County would not be getting any <br />benefit from the dedication. <br />Mike Efland, the owner of this piece of property, said that he was desperately affected by this <br />recommendation.. He said that he might be building on this property in the future . and he did not want the <br />public around his house. He said that he would not be giving the 10 -foot easement for dedication. He <br />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 />a subdividing of a piece of property within his family and it was not a subdivision. <br />Barrows was confused about Strayhorn's concerns. <br />Strayhom said that the 10 -foot easement was a taking of rights without any compensation. <br />Mike Efland said that the Planning Department gave him the option to pay the $422.00 or to give the <br />piece of property. Davis responded that the ordinance does not give the staff a choice. He said that <br />ERCD recommended for the dedication of the 10 -foot easement and the Recreation and Parks Advisory <br />Council recommended the payment -in -lieu. This is why it is coming to the Planning Board for a <br />recommendation. <br />Strayhom clarified that he was opposed to requiring landowners to give an easement to the general public. <br />