Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
a <br />with restricting the size of the "building envelope" to two acres for each future home site, but <br />they did not understand they were agreeing to restrict the size of the new house lots <br />(subdivided parcels) to two acres. The smaller house lots would significantly hamper the <br />Lloyd's estate planning with their children and grandchildren. The Lloyds pointed out that the <br />language in the conservation easement was not consistent with earlier conversations and <br />understandings that they had with the County and OWASA staff. ERCD staff concurs. <br />During this review of the conservation easement, ERCD also discovered there was a mistake <br />made in the map of the property that was recorded. as part of the conservation easement. <br />The Exhibit B map was supposed to identify the "Farmstead Area" separate from other <br />existing residential envelopes. The Farmstead Area is discussed separately from and has <br />different requirements than the other existing residential envelopes in the deed of <br />conservation easement. <br />ERCD has negotiated a potential settlement of these issues that would result in an <br />amendment to the Conservation Easement. The Lloyds are willing to give up one of the two <br />reserved home sites and to locate the one not given up on the property in exchange for being <br />allowed to divide the property into four large parcels -one for each of the house sites and <br />one for the "Farmstead Area." The Lloyds have identified the desired future house site and <br />the configuration of the four desired parcels. Anew Exhibit B map of the property showing <br />current and proposed future uses is attached. <br />ERCD has evaluated the proposed amendment relative to purposes of the conservation <br />easement and the protection of the property's "conservation values." <br />Advantages: a) Eliminating one of the two future house sites, thus reducing <br />the potential adverse impacts from residential development. <br />b) The location of the one future house site would be identified <br />upfront rather than in the future. (ERCD agrees with Lloyds' <br />chosen location for the future house.) <br />c) An existing parcel containing two existing houses would be divided <br />into two parcels (each with one house). <br />d) The revised Exhibit B map identifies the "Farmstead Area," which is <br />necessary to guide future development consistent with the easement. <br />Disadvantages: a) The "working lands" portion of the Property (agriculture/forestry use) <br />would be divided among four large parcels rather than two parcels <br />as provided by the previously approved conservation easement. <br />That is likely to result in ERCD having to consult with up to four <br />landowners (rather than two) in carrying out its monitoring and <br />stewardship duties. <br />ERCD thinks the advantages of the proposed amendment clearly outweigh the <br />disadvantages, strengthening the protection of the property afforded by the conservation <br />easement. <br />