Agenda - 10-03-2000-5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 1, the applicant felt that 80 feet was unreasonable. The applicant thought that payment -in -lieu was the best option for them, if at all. The staff reduced the dedication to the bare minimum, which is 1/57 of an acre per lot for non - floodplain lands or 1/20 of an acre per lot if it is within floodplain lands. Public Comment Chris and Mike Efland thanked the County Commissioners for hearing them. Chris Efland said that in the beginning of this process they were told that this would be a walking trail. They went to the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council, who voted against a walking trail. She made reference to a letter that was written from the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council to the County Commissioners. They then went to the Planning Department. She said that one of the big issues that Craig Benedict did not mention was that it was a concern of the Planning Board that it was a requirement in order for them to divide the property that they had to give to the County this property instead of the County compensating them for the property. Mike Efland said that the wildlife corridor was never mentioned at the beginning of the process. Chris Efland made reference to a document entitled "land suitability" that says the County does not want the land if it is in a flood plain, and the County wants the recreation areas to be located on relatively flat land, meaning 0 -7 Y2% slopes. This land in question is 11 % slope and is in a flood plain. She said that the land did not qualify on the County's own terms. She said that she was faxed the 22 -page document by accident. She was only supposed to receive seven pages, was asked to destroy the other 15 pages, and did not. She said that it was their fifth - amendment right to own the land and for the County not to take it. She asked that the County Commissioners vote in their favor, allowing them to pay a payment -in -lieu instead of forcing them to give up a portion of their land. She said that this land has been in the family for five generations. Mike Efland asked why it was so important that the County get this property. Chris Efland asked that if the Board votes against them, that the Board provide in writing the reasons for that action, sent from the Board and not the Planning Department. Mike Efland said that he felt it was extortion for the County to require the land dedication, when the subdivision meets all of the zoning requirements. Chris Efland asked about the appeal process. Geoffrey Gledhill said that they could choose to not subdivide their land or take the County to court. Dot Efland read a prepared statement. In summary, she said that most all of the Efland's that live in Efland were landowners and were good stewards of the land. She said that they were asking only to subdivide the land and not to build a subdivision. She said that she had not known any land that had public access that was not a breeding ground for crime and violence. She made reference to an article that says that according to the Fifth Amendment, people can not take land from an owner without ample compensation. She asked the Commissioners to vote in their favor for this land to be divided in a simple, straightforward manner. Linda Efland Richardson read a prepared statement. In summary, she said that the Efland's treasured the history and natural state of the land. She said that the only time the natural state of the creek was altered was when the County came in and put in sewer lines. She said that it would be disastrous to permit public use of this stream land as a safe haven for illegal activities. William Efland said that the Planning Board bothers him. He asked who hired the members of the Planning Board. He said that the rules for subdividing land seem to change often. He said that he visited the Planning Department and the process for dividing a small piece of property seems cumbersome. Robert Nichols agreed with everything that has been said on this issue. He owns land on McGowen Creek and he has it leased to some people for deer hunting. He has heard the statement "wildlife corridor' and said that the entire County was a wildlife corridor. He is opposed to the public having access to this property. Ben Lloyd asked about the dedications and who pays for the land and who determines the price. Chair Carey said that the amount was determined by the Zoning Ordinance. Ben Lloyd asked if the intent of this wildlife corridor was to join this property with the Duke Property that was 3(