HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-03-2000-5aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 3, 2000
Action Agenda
Item No, .5:e_
SUBJECT: Wilson Efland Minor Subdivision — Determination Regarding Payment in Lieu or Land
Dedication
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S):
1) Letter from Planning Department to Applicant
2) Property Map
3) Vicinity Map
4) Sections of Subdivision Regulations Pertaining to
Parkland Dedication and Payment -in -Lieu and Resource
Protection
5) 7/12/00 Planning Board Minutes
6) Resolution Authorizing Payment In Lieu
7) Resolution Requiring Park Land Dedication
8) Pros and Cons Memo from ERCD and Planning
9) 9/5/00 BOCC Draft Minutes
10)- Comprehensive Plan Maps (Under Separate Cover)
PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jane Garrett, Planner I
EXT 2581
Craig Benedict, Director
EXT 2592
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough
732 -8181
Chapel Hill
968.4501
Durham
688 -7331
Mebane
(336)227 -2031
PURPOSE: To make a determination regarding Payment in Lieu or a land dedication requirement for the
Wilson Efland minor subdivision pursuant to Orange County Subdivision Regulations Section IV- B -7 -b.
Pending a conclusion that the site is;
1. Not noted or not clearly designated on the comprehensive plan and therefore payment in lieu is
acceptable or
2. Sufficiently noted on the comprehensive plan and therefore land dedication is required and /or
preferable to the Board, and a determination of the exact form of dedication as part of minor subdivision
approval.
BACKGROUND:
At the September 5, 2000 regular meeting, the Board of County Commissioners first considered action
relative to the Wilson Efland minor subdivision and the question of payment in lieu versus land dedication.
Following discussion, a motion was made to accept the Administration's recommendation that the county
receive the land dedication as a wildlife and resource protection corridor with a provision that public access
within the corridor not be considered unless and until the dedicated property was connected with other
publicly owned recreation /open space property. The motion failed with a tie vote of 2 -2, and the Board
unanimously tabled the item.
E
As part of the Board's further consideration of this matter, several items should be noted.
First, Section IV -B -7 -b of the Subdivision Regulations requires, "Every person, firm or corporation who
subdivides land for residential and /or non - residential purposes shall be required to dedicate a portion of the
land for purposes of public recreation /open space, including the preservation of natural and cultural
resources, to serve the leisure needs of the residents of the immediate neighborhood within which the
subdivision is located ". It then further discusses the method for determining the amount and quality of land
that must be dedicated.
Secondly, the provisions detail that the subdivider may "with the approval of the Board of Commissioners,
make a payment in lieu of dedication or make a combination of land dedication and payment in lieu." It
continues that `Before approving a payment in lieu of dedication, the Board of Commissioners shall find that
no recreation and /or open s ace sites have been designated on the adopted Com rehensive Plan for the
property in question."
Therefore, the issues before the Board of Commissioners are:
1. Are there.any recreation and /or open space site designations in the county's adopted Comprehensive
Plan for the Wilson -Efland subdivision property?
2. If there are such designations, land dedication is the only course of action available and the only pending
item before the Board is determining the exact form of land dedication required. Payment in lieu would
not be an option under the Subdivision Regulations provisions noted above.
3. If there are not any designations under the adopted Comprehensive Plan, then the Board has the option
of a. requiring land dedication,
b. accepting payment in lieu, or
c. formulating a combination of both.
No designations within the adopted Comprehensive Plan allows the Board to consider either of the two
courses of action or a combination of both.
4. If the Board does require any dedication, it must determine the form of that dedication.
Additional Backaround Information
• Recreation Site dedications have been in effect since 1986 pursuant to Section IV -B -7 -b of the
Subdivision Regulations.
• Dedications of land for recreation or open space are not a new requirement, but have been seldom used
in practice over the last 8 years. Payment -in -Lieu has been widely used.
• 44 acres, ranging in size from .16 acre to 12.34 acres, have been acquired through subdivision land
dedications between 1987 and 1992.
• Bradford Ridge Subdivision (approved in Summer 1999) was the first in many. years to make a land
dedication because staff is now linking resource corridors (e.g. Cane Creek to Eno River) which are part
of the Comprehensive Plan and implementing land dedications, 5 acres in the Bradford Ridge case.
• Recreation site dedications are widely used around North Carolina and the rest of the U.S. and have
been found to be legal in their usage. Orange County's regulations are stronger in many cases because
of the Comprehensive Plan land use support adopted in 1981
• Recreation dedication will be more widely used in the present and future subdivision review because of
the heightened identification of resources and park needs and the opportunity to plan for the future.
• The applicant disputes parkland dedication and seeks payment in lieu, which would be $422.00 for the
Minor Subdivision application for the Wilson Efland Subdivision.
Location: The property is located on the north side of US Highway 70 West, Cheeks Township;
between Efland -Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004) and Brookhollow Road (SR 1324).
Existing and Proposed Conditions
Existing: One tract consisting of 8.73 acres, which fronts on US Highway 70 West with a portion
also having access to an existing private right-of-way.
Proposed: Two lots (5.41 acres and 1.796 acres); the 5.41 acre tract will have access provided
via the existing private right -of -way proposed at Orange County Class B standards
(and has access from Brookhollow Road -SR 1324), while the 1.796 acre tract will
have direct access onto US Highway 70 West. The remaining 1.52 acres will be
combined with existing parcels.
Development Process, Schedule, _and-Action
Final Plat:
1. The applicant submitted application for Minor Subdivision and Recombination
containing two lots and a combination of acreage with existing parcels on
April 13, 2000. Planning Staff reviewed the proposal on April 20, 2000 and determined
that the portion of this property along McGowan Creek is identified as a Resource
Protection Area in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan and also identified as part
of a potential Rustic Woodland Trail in the Joint Master, Recreation and Parks Work
Group report.
2. At its April 201h review meeting, the Orange County Planning Department in conjunction with the
Orange County Environment Resource and Conservation Department recommended dedication
of all the land within the 80 -ft. stream buffer for the trail. Thereafter, the recommendation was
reduced to the minimum amount specified in Section IV- 13-7 -b -2 of the Orange County
Subdivision Regulations. That amount being 1/20 of an acre, constituting a 10 -foot wide trail
along the 218 -ft. width of the proposed new Lot 13. The recommendation being that the
dedication be located just inside the 100 -yr. floodplain: -
3. Pursuant to Section IV- B -7 -b -1 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, the
Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council (RPAC) also reviews and
makes recommendations to -the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners on the
provision or dedication of recreation and /or open space. RPAC reviewed the proposal
on June 14, 2000. Its recommendation was to accept Payment -in -Lieu. This property
is located within the Cheeks Community Park area. The required payment is $422.00.
4. RPAC forwarded its recommendation to the Planning Board for consideration. The Planning.
Board, in turn, voted 4-4 and forwarded no recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners.
5. The proposed McGowan Creek pedestrian trail could be envisioned along both sides of the creek
from Richmond Road to the new County -owned McGowan Creek Preserve. Thus far, three other
subdivisions (Major Subdivisions), have apportioned or will apportion land along the creek for the
proposed walking trail. They are Richmond Hills, McGowan Creek, and Ashwick. McGowan
Creek and Ashwick are still in the preliminary stages of the review process, however, the
developers have agreed in principle to a land dedication. Efland- Cheeks Elementary School is
connected to the corridor and wildlife and botanical education could eventually be conducted.
Temporary access will be provided to these land dedications from other public properties such as
a public road for maintenance and monitoring until other public access connections can be made.
6. Section IV -13-2 (see attached) also notes various options for Resource Protection Area (RPA)
preservation.
4
RECOMMENDATION: Original Planning Staff and ERCD_Recommendation _
Approval of subdivision with the following condition:
Dedicate the entire width of the floodplain, which is approximately 80' wide.
Planning Staff (Pre - Planning Board -Recommendation)
Approval of the subdivision application with the following condition:
Dedicate a 10 -ft. wide contiguous parcel at the outside edge of the McGowan
Creek floodplain as indicated on the attached map.
Planning Board
Split vote: Ayes, 4; Noes,4 (McAdams, Barrows, Strayhorn, Goodwin)
Administration
The administration conclusion, after further review and analysis of the
Subdivision Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan, is that it is more likely
than not that the portion of the Wilson Efland property under consideration for
dedication is not expressly designated on the Comprehensive Plan as active
recreation /passive recreation and open space in the form of a linear park.
If the Board agrees with that conclusion, the Administration recommends that
the County accept payment in lieu of land dedication for the Wilson Efland
Subdivision.
If the Board disagrees with that conclusion, the Administration recommends
that the Board approve the Resolution describing the form of the dedication
that is in the agenda materials.
NOTE: IN EITHER DECISION OF THE BOARD, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE NEED TO
CLARIFY AND UPDATE PORTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
RELATING TO PARKS /OPEN SPACE/TRAILS IS WARRANTED. There is also a
reasonable degree of urgency since the development pace is accelerating and
the need to align commission goals, comprehensive plan objectives and
implementing subdivision /zoning regulations is critical.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Current Planning
(919) 245 -2575
(919) 644 -3002 (FAX)
www.co.orange.nc.us
306F.Revere Road
P O Box 8181
Hillsborough,
North Carolina, 27278
4(
d LUX 6V, 6UVV
Michael Efland
P.O. Box 36
Efland, NC 27243
Re: Wilson Efland Minor Subdivision Proposal
Cheeks Township — Tax Map 40, Lot 7 of Block A
Dear Mr. Efland:
The portion of this property along McGowan Creek'is identified as a Resource .Protection
Area in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan and also identified as part of a potential
Rustic Woodland Trail in the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group report.
A proposed McGowan Creek pedestrian trail is envisioned along both sides of the creek
from Richmond Road to the new County -owned McGowan Creek Preserve. Thus far,
three other subdivisions have apportioned or will apportion land along the creek for the
proposed walking trail (Richmond Hills, McGowan Creek, and Ashwick).
McGowan Creek and Ashwick are still in the preliminary stages of the review process,
however, the developers have agreed in principle.
The Orange County Planning Department in conjunction with the Orange County
Economic Resource and Conservation Department previously recommended dedication
of all the land within the 80 -ft, stream buffer for the trail.- After speaking with you, the
recommendation has been reduced to the minimum amount specified in
Section IV- B -7 -b -2 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. That amount being
1/20 of an acre for each newly created lot, constitutes a 10 -foot wide trail along the
218 -ft. width of the proposed new Lot 13." It is recommended that the dedication be
located just inside the 100 -yr. #loodplain.
The Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council (RPAC) shall also review
and make recommendation to the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners on the
Provision or dedication of recreation and /or open space pursuant to Section IV- B -7 -b -1
of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. RPAC reviewed the proposal on
June 14, 2000. Their recommendation is to accept payment -in -lieu. This property is
located within the Cheeks Community Park area. The required payment is $422.00 for
5
Section IV- B -7 -b -6 of the Orange County Subdivision states, "Before approving a
payment -in -lieu of dedication, the Board of Commissioners shall find that no recreation
and/or open space sites have been designated on the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the
property in question. " Although, the Planning Board does not. normally review Minor
Subdivisions, because the directive of the Subdivision Regulations require dedication
when property has been designated for recreation and/or open space, and this property
has been, the recommendations from both the Orange County Planning Department and
RPAC will be forwarded to the Planning Board for consideration on July 12, 2000 and
then to the Board of County Commissioners for review and approval in August 2000.
I have enclosed excerpts from the Orange County Subdivision Regulations pertaining to
the required dedication of land for public recreation/open space and the optional
.payment -in -lieu. Should you have comments or questions, please feel free to contact me
at 245 -2581.
Cordially,'
Jane A. Garrett
Planner
Enclosures
xc: Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor
Craig Benedict, PIanning Director
h Acmemo \wlsnefl an d \land \6- 20 -00 \j a�,
x
VICINITY: Mpn
NOT To SCALZ IP
L6
r'veY i
0 NF NAIL FgU{VD
Q NS NAIL SST
EPLA
31 v � A A*
b
bDMd ar y
EXHIBIT 1
-"F
r
5-826-.0'-0
22.45•
1
MP
:
�0
~~ —�
SE7BA�K
\
N/F
`
`F�_
8a, SAA7
JOAN F. Bf2QWN
9845 - °0 -5517
� \
•�
\ 'ba
�.
.�,
_
\-
P `—
FLOOO y4Z.
Gil D
E•.f. C'�,
WIRE FENCZ ALoNC
bDMd ar y
EXHIBIT 1
r=
S mss
x T 9
�Vj�CG�7L Cyy�0 .�d0 I .
3 r$Zmo�myy /,
43m�0 `''wn�W
� yOS 9 I��tlw'ti�l
'M aa�N
n C SO N- yT N P '
aox pO IS �r I
wm
wN y?' Edo 0r '� I
H m bm3 s�
ado �IN� I
app 3"0 * I a
M y 4roA 0
�1
I I
i I
I '
x I I cg
a I I
a I 1
I_
I a10 I°
R nm I
� a
Temporary maintenance and Temporary maintenance and
a
monitoring access easement r' i monitoring access easement
to dedicated property. i to dedicated property.
I
o
M
P4
•
_ •�•' r r Q :;,r l TIE LINE I
r WILSON EFLAND R AD T•TA' q ':;,r
I 50 10011 �_ z
w
O �
WIOVE M
O
EXISTING
N 7
p
1
m
rr.
+al
Ill
x I
r
BFOQM0=W FO
b
�p y g
°r I
st.
auI
oa
w
ST,
m
r-
n
H o
rZ�
o
I
a H,l s o
� '��N I
91 �"
I
n
x
z
�g
y 01
y
~
Op
T
O
I
I O�O� O•Ey cr I�
N
GOz
i
ae°
rolYr eem
�s- es.Yr -sr.e iss.serorK
r
m I
P
Y
I
.sav
I m�
m
i
4
g� nw I
o
I
�p
ao0i
I
41
4 ¢ m' Ip y
NYC
;Ks
I
Am m
~0°
n I
��
`'I
ELK
PwSp
e�m
I
I
yy'F
.a�y4 19'Trp(E. b
rl �mLan0 u5G BUF.���-
br
•
•
C
s
�
O �
WIOVE M
O
N 7
°
1
m
rr.
+al
ruxo ro.
�
r
BFOQM0=W FO
b
m
U �
st.
auI
oa
w
ST,
m
r-
n
n
rZ�
o
O
•
•
C
•
•
�
Vl
1
f2/1
+al
r
M
oa
n
n
rZ�
o
o
m
r
z
=
~
N
T
O
N
G
GOz
n
n
r
a
m
M
0
a
n
x
w
0
N
0
�E)((4t6tc. I
o�
M�
Ln a
sm
�m�rr
wm� �
a C
z C
A"a�T
;u
M
a r-'
F-
0
m Z
M m fTl
�
N
w� F-
LO O
�J
a
a
i
O m n C C
aQ
r
M CO
O )
a�
_ of ., _,r� -9 ,y7.
�:
�� .�4.
. ��
�.:�E�;
WIL6.0WEFLAN"D
zt
17S." InAl
1 I• 11AU a4x
I � wTle- y
I 1 _
P7R7i -
I
J S
P171
i
119W .t ; LNA
111 '
r -
UM
u.r
y
� 73
,.1.
wA
MR
..
t a
"G '
I
W.GGWANS
CREEK
off, a
I 1LL]4 •8
ZLOM
P{) i 174..11
2voL27
y In]p
BR001WOLLOW
rrA =
G
RdAp
7577
scum
3
_
I I
I
I
•
t
,;
I I
LU
u S.
0
I
Subdivision Regula�aons
Orange County, NC
The following are excerpts from the Subdivision Regulations pertaining to the
required dedication of land for public recreation /open space and the optional
payment in lieu of dedication.
IV-B-7-b. Recreation Sites [Page 36]
N- B- 7 -b -x. Applicability [Page 351
Every person, firm or corporation who subdividess land for residential
and /or non - residential. purposes shall be required. to dedicate a portion of
such land for the purpose of public recreation /open space, including the
Preservation of natural and cultural resources, to serve the liesure needs
of the resident$ of the subdivision and the residents of the immediate
neighborhood within which the subdivision is located. In all cases, the
Recreation and Parks Advisory Council shall review and make
recommendation to the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners on
the provision or dedication of recreation and /or open space areas.
IV- B- 7 -b -2. Dimensional Requirements [Page 36]
At least one fifty- seventh of an acre( -1157) shall be dedicated for each
dwelling unit planned or provided for. in the subdivision plan, except
where land is located in the flood plain of a stream or river as indicated
by the flood plain maps of the Federal Insurance Administration and /or its
characterized by steep slopes (15% or greater), then at least one
twentieth (1/20) of an acre of such land shall be dedicated for each
dwelling unit.
If the application of the provisions of Article 5.5.1(Required Minimum .
Recreation Space Ratio) and Article 6.12 (Land Use Intensity System) of
the Orange County Zoning Ordinance results in a greater amount of land,
then the difference between the application of the standards above.and
those of Article 5.1.1 and Article 6.12 shall be established as private
recreation for the use of the residents of the development
The total land area dedicated as part of a non- residential subdivision shall
be determined by an analysis of the site, the use(s)...
IV-B-7-b-3. Site Suitability' [Page 37]
Land provided or dedicated for active recreational purposes shall be of a
character, slope and location suitable for use as for play areas, tennis
courts, multi purpose courts, picnic areas, ball fields and other similar
recreation uses. Active recreation areas shall be located on land that is
11
IV-B-7-b-6. Pa meets in Lieu of Dedication [Page 441
Any subdivider required to dedicate recreation area pursuant to this
Ordinance may, with the approval of the Board of Commissioners, make a
payment in lieu of dedication or make a combination of land dedicate_ d
and payment Before approving a payment in lieu of dedication, the
Board of Commissioners shall find that no recreation and /or open space
sites have been designated an the adopted Comprehensive plan for the
Property in question.
The payment in lieu of dedication shall be equal to $422 per lot for a
subdivision to be located in the service area of a community park as
shown on the map in Appendix E. The payment in lieu of dedication shall
be equal to $455 per lot for a subdivision to be located in the service area
of a district - park as shown on the map in Appendix E.
Where a combination of land dedication and payments in lieu are
approved, the subdivider shall be given a credit equivalent to $10,000 per
acre of land dedicated for recreation purposes. The credit amount shall
be determined by multiplying the number of acres to be dedicated by
$101000 per acre. If the total payment in lieu as determined above is
larger than the credit amount, the subdivider shall pay the difference
between the two amounts. If the credit amount is larger than the total
payment in lieu as determined above, no additional payment in lieu is
required. However, the subdivider may not transfer the excess credit
from one subdivision to another.
Upon approval of the Board of Commissioners, payment in lieu of
dedication shall be made at the time of final subdivision plan approval or
within one (1) year of approval of the preliminary subdivision plan,
whichever occurs first All monies received by Orange County pursuant
to these requirements shall be used only for the acquisition and
development of recreation, park and open space sites to serve the
residents of the development and the residents of the immediate
neighborhood within which the development is located. The Board of
Commissioners shall also have the authority to sell land dedicated
Pursuant to these provisions with the proceeds of any such sale used
solely for the acquisition of other recreation, park or open space sites
within the immediate neighborhood within which the development is
located.
12
13
0
*IV -B -2.
*Amended
1/17/79 In reviewing subdivision proposals,. the Planning Board shall consider the
9 /4 /90 overall design of the proposal in light of the suitability of the land. for
1/6/92 development to insure that the platting and development of the subdivision
wiII not create a danger to the health, safety, and welfare of Orange County
residents.
Land suitability shall be determined by an investigation of conditions
including but not limited to flood prone areas, soil 'drainag'e, drainage
Patterns, slope, historic sites, and unique natural areas. The investigations
shall be carried out by the Planning Board, the Planning Department, or
other agencies or individuals having the appropriate technical expertise,
including those listed in Section III- D -2 -b.
t
r.,30
14
* 17 -B -2 -d, Resource Protection
*Amended
9/4/90 The proposal shall be evaluated by the Planning Board for
Potential impairment of habitat of
rare and endangered
species or unique natural areas. A strategy shall
be
developed to protect resources listed by the North
Carolina Heritage Program, or identified in "An
Inventory
Of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological,
and- Geological significance in the Unincorporated
Portions of Orange County" ',Inventory
or of the Natural
Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange county,
Carolina". North
The strategy shall provide protection of identified
natural and man -made resources from - impacts which could
result from development of the subdivision,
and, shall
include one or more of the following:
a) dedication of conservation easements,
b) restrictive covenants prohibiting clearing or
disturbance -.of the resource areas,
C) dedication of resource areas to Orange County,
d) clustering of lots to minimize Land disturbance and
preserve the special features of the property,
'
e) other restrictions or- development options which
provide an -adequate level of protection.
The Planning Staff shall review available documentation
of the
particular site and determine if the proposed
strategy adequately protects the identified
resources.
`
Maps, studies, and reports which are relevant to this
section will be maintained by the Planning Department.
r.,30
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
AGENDA ITEM 91:
AGENDA ITEM #2:
AGENDA ITEM #3:
MOTION:
VOTE:
AGENDA ITEM 94:
AGENDA MM #5:
AGENDA ITEM #S:
15
NJINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JULY 12, 2000
Leo Allison (Chair), Rachel Preston, Bob Strayhorn, Crauford Goodwin,
Karen Barrows, Howard McAdams, Nicole Gooding -Ray, Barry Katz
James Selkirk (out of town), Runyon Woods (sick), Lynne Holtkamp,
Onie Lea
Planning Director Craig Benedict, Robert Davis, Eddie Kirk, Jane
Garrett, Carla Bateman, Joanna Bradshaw
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Allison called the meeting to order.
CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
None
APPROVAL OF VEENUTES - June 21, 2000
Strayhorn moved approval of the June 21, 2000 minutes of the Orange
County Planning Board. Seconded by Barrows.
Unanimous
COMNIISSIONERS' MEETINGS ACTION REPORTS
None
PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
Lai I 1
Chair Allison said that he attended the last Commissioners meeting on June 29th and said that it was a
very good meeting. It was suggested by Commissioner Jacobs and reiterated by some of the other
Commissioners that as many Planning Board members as possible should attend the Board of County
Commissioners meetings..
AGENDA ITEM #7: COMMITTEE /ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS
a. Board of Adjustment - no meeting
b. Agricultural Districts Advisory Board - no report
C. Historic.Preservation Commission - no report (see David
Stancil)
d. Ordinance Review Committee - no meeting
e. Shaping Orange County's Future - discussed at earlier PB
meeting
AGENDA ITEM 98: SUBDIVISIONS
16
(1) Decision on Parkland vs. Payment -in -Lieu
(Cheeks Township)
4 Garrett made this presentation. The applicant desires to have payment -in -lieu rather than parkland
5 dedication. The staff s recommendation is to require dedication of the 10 -foot wide strip.
6
PURPOSE: The Planning Department requests the Planning Board to review condition required by
by the Orange County Subdivision Regulations regarding Parkland Dedication for
Minor Subdivision application.
BACKGROUND:
Reguest_The Planning Department requests Planning Board ruling on Planning Staff condition of
approval. The applicant seeks acceptance of Payment -in -Lieu versus Parkland
Dedication for the Minor Subdivision application for the Wilson Efland Subdivision. The
proposed subdivision plat does not include Parkland Dedication.
Location: The property is located on the north side of US Highway 70 West, Cheeks Township.
Existin and Pro osed Conditions
Existing: One tract consisting of 8.73 acres, which fronts on US Highway 70 West with a portion
also having access to an existing private right -of -way.
Proposed: Two lots (5,41 acres and 1.796 acres); the 5.41 acre tract will have access provided
via the existing private right -of -way proposed at Orange County Class B standards
(and has access from Brookhollow Road -SR 1324), while the 1.796 acre tract will
have direct access onto US Highway 70 West. The remaining 1.52 acres will be
combined with existing parcels.
Development Process Schedule and Action
Final Plat: The applicant submitted application for Minor Subdivision and Recombination
containing two lots and a combination of acreage with existing parcels on
April 13, 2000. Planning Staff reviewed the proposal on April 20, 2000 and determined
that the portion of this property along McGowan Creek is identified as a Resource
Protection Area in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan and also identified as part
of a potential Rustic Woodland Trail in the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work
Group report.
At its April 20'h review meeting, the Orange County Planning Department in
conjunction with the Orange County Economic Development, Resource and
Conservation Department recommended dedication of all the land within the 80 -ft.
stream buffer for the trail. After speaking with the applicant, the recommendation was
reduced to the minimum amount specified in Section IV- B -7 -b -2 of the Orange County
Subdivision Regulations. That amount being 1/20 of an acre for each newly created
lot, constituting a 10 -foot wide trail along the 218 -ft. width of the proposed new Lot 13.
The recommendation being that the dedication be located just inside the 100 -yr.
floodplain.
Pursuant to Section IV- B -7 -b-1 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, the
Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council (RPAC) shall also review and
make recommendation to the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners on the
provision or dedication of recreation and/or open space. RPAC reviewed the proposal
on.June 14, 2000. Their recommendation is to accept Payment -in -Lieu. This property
is located within the Cheeks Community Park area. The required payment is $422.00
fnr A�_I% ..e.,.t- - - - -. -i i _- . - . - ... . . - - . - - - -
17
Section IV- B -7 -b -6 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations states, "Before
approving a payment -in -lieu of dedication, the Board of Commissioners shallnd that
no recreation and/or open space sites have been designated on the adopted
Comprehensive Plan for the property in question: " This property has been designated
as such within the Comprehensive Plan. Because the directive of the Subdivision
Regulations requires dedication when it is designated as same, the recommendations
of both the Planning Department and RPAC must be forwarded to the Planning Board
for consideration. The Planning Board, in turn, must make a recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners.
The proposed McGowan Creek pedestrian trail is envisioned along both sides of the
creek from Richmond Road to the new County -owned McGowan Creek Preserve.
Thus far, three other subdivisions (Major Subdivisions), have apportioned or will
apportion land along the creek for the proposed walking trail. They are Richmond Hills,
McGowan Creek, and Ashwick. McGowan Creek and Ashwick are still in the
preliminary stages of the review process, however, the developers have agreed in
principle.
RECOM3MNDATION: Staff Recommendation
Approval of the subdivision application with Parkland Dedication, being a 10 -ft. wide trail aloud the 218 -ft
width of the proposed new Lot 13.
1 Gooding -Ray asked for an explanation of the payment -in -lieu versus parkland dedication.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Benedict said that the Commissioners asked that all areas noted on the Land Use Plan map within the
County that shows resource conservation areas be known to everyone who does subdivisions. For any
subdivided parcel in the Resource Conservation Area -noted on the Land Use Plan, dedication is the
appropriate method to satisfy the Parks and Recreation impact. The County has also recently approved
the Lands Legacy Program, which addresses the big picture.
Strayhom made reference to the 10 -foot easement and said that he was concerned. He said that it
sounded like it gave the applicant some problems. He said that the County would not be getting any
benefit from the dedication.
Mike Efland, the owner of this piece of property, said that he was desperately affected by this
recommendation.. He said that he might be building on this property in the future . and he did not want the
public around his house. He said that he would not be giving the 10 -foot easement for dedication. He
does not even agree with paying the $422.00. He is going to find a way to .beat this. He said that this was
a subdividing of a piece of property within his family and it was not a subdivision.
Barrows was confused about Strayhorn's concerns.
Strayhom said that the 10 -foot easement was a taking of rights without any compensation.
Mike Efland said that the Planning Department gave him the option to pay the $422.00 or to give the
piece of property. Davis responded that the ordinance does not give the staff a choice. He said that
ERCD recommended for the dedication of the 10 -foot easement and the Recreation and Parks Advisory
Council recommended the payment -in -lieu. This is why it is coming to the Planning Board for a
recommendation.
Strayhom clarified that he was opposed to requiring landowners to give an easement to the general public.
18
I Goodwin agrees with Mr. Efland and said that the policy was misguided.
2
3 Barrows made reference to the map on page 19 of the agenda packet and said that she agrees with
4 Strayhorn in that if the County wants this piece of land to connect the trail, the cleanest thing would be to
5 take the easement and pay Mr. Efland for it.
6
7 Chair Allison verified that the Comprehensive Plan requires an easement along McGowan Creek.
. 8
9 Mike Eland said that he also owns other pieces of property that border the stream and he will not give
10 easements for them. He warned of the fight to come. He said that everyone who owned property along
11 McGowan Creek was related to him and was opposed to giving the easement.
12
13, Barrows said that Mr. Efland's point was valid. She is also sympathetic to the County's position if there
14 should be some interconnectivity for recreational purposes. She said that the kindest thing to recommend
15 would be to buy the property from Mr. Efland.
16
17 MOTION: Katz moved to accept the recommendation of the Planning Staff to
18 approve the Wilson Efland subdivision application with the following
i9
20 conditions; 1) Dedicate a 10 -foot wide contiguous parcel at the outside 21 edge of the McGowan Creek floodplain as indicated on the map; and 2)
22 Compensation will be
given to the property owner for the piece_ of land
23 that is cut off by this easement. Seconded by Barrows.
24 The Planning Board agreed that this was a privacy issue. The land cut off by the easement is useless
25 because it is in a floodplain. The property owner would still have rights to the property.
26
27 Benedict said that the compensation is what. the impact fee would be. He said that at first the staff asked
28 the property owners to dedicate the area from the easement line all the way to the middle of the creek so
.29 there would be no hiatus area. This was cut down to the minimum of 10 feet. He said that this would be
30 an emotional issue throughout the County.
31
32 Chair Allison said that paying for the land would not solve the problem. The privacy issue would still be
33 there.
34
35 Goodwin said that it was more than privacy. There would be compacting of the soil and garbage, and
36 there would be serious infringement on the land.
37.
38 Katz said that no matter what is decided by the Planning Board, the outcome is still going to be the same -
39 the land will be taken for an easement by one means or another. Goodwin disagreed.
40
41 The motion was clarified as follows:
42
43 MOTION: Katz moved approval of the Planning staff s recommendation to approve
44 the Wilson Efland subdivision application with the following condition:
45 Dedicate a 10 -foot wide contiguous parcel at the outside edge of the
46 McGowan Creek floodplain as indicated on the attached map. Seconded
47
48 by Barrows.
49 VOTE; Ayes, 4; Noes, 4 (McAdams, Barrows, Strayhorn, Goodwin)
50 Due to the tie vote, this item will be forwarded to the Board of
51
52 Commissioners with the minutes and no recommendation.
R1 .
19
NORTH CAROLINA RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZING PAYMENT
ORANGE COUNTY IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION IN
FULFILLMENT OF SECTION IV -B -7 -b
"RECREATION SITES" FOR THE WILSON-
EFLAND MINOR SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, the Subdivision Regulations of Orange'County
require either l)land dedications for.all subdivisions for the
purpose of recreation /open space, including the preservation of
natural and cultural resources, or 2) the payment of monies in
lieu of land dedication when the property in question is not
designated as a recreation and /or open space site within the
county's adopted Comprehensive Plan and when approved by the
Board of Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, the Wilson Efland Subdivision property is not
noted on the adopted Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan of
Orange County as a recreation and /or open space site and can
therefore be considered for the payment in lieu alternative to
the recreation /open space dedication regulations by the Board of
Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, the proponents of the Wilson Efland Subdivision
have made application to the Board of Commissioners for the
payment in lieu option and the Board of Commissioners have
determined that this payment in lieu is acceptable; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the payment in lieu
fee for this property would equal $422.00;
1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that.:
1. the Board of County Commissioners approves the
acceptance of a $422.00 payment in lieu of land dedication for
the Wilson - Efland minor subdivision property (as shown in
Exhibit 1) in fulfillment of Recreation/ Open Space requirements
pursuant to Section IV -B -7 -b of the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations;
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by
Commissioner , the foregoing resolution was adopted
this the day of
2000.
I, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that
the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of
said Board at a meeting held on
2000 as relates in
any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said
proceedings are recorded in Minute Book No. of the minutes
of said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day
of , 2000.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
2
20
21
NORTH CAROLINA RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS REQUIRING LAND DEDI-
CATION IN FULFILLMENT OF SECTION
ORANGE COUNTY IV- B-7 -b "RECREATION SITES" FOR
WILSON-- EFLAND MINOR SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, the Subdivision Regulations of'Orange County
require dedications for all subdivisions for the purpose of
recreation /open space, including the preservation of natural and
cultural resources; and
WHEREAS, the Wilson Efland Subdivision is subject to ,the..
recreation /open space dedication regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Wilson Efland Subdivision.property has
floodplain lands within the McGowen Creek corridor that are
noted on the adopted Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan of
Orange County as a Resource Protection Area; and
WHEREAS, Section IV -B -2 of.the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations ( "Land Suitability" section) also supports the
preservation of this resource by land dedication because the
property is within an urbanizing designated transition area; and
WHEREAS, in fulfillment of the recreation site regulations.
and the regulations requiring the preservation of natural
resources it is in the best interests of the citizens of Orange
County to require a land dedication of at least 1/20 of an acre
of the subdivision in the area located within the floodplain of
the subdivision as noted on the attached Exhibit 1.
7_
22
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
1. the Board of County Commissioners requires a land
dedication (as shown in Exhibit 1) in fulfillment of Recreation/
Open Space requirements pursuant to Section 1V -B -7 -b of the
Orange County Subdivision Regulations;
2. Orange County reserves the right to use the dedicated
land for its parks and recreation purposes for the residents of
the Wilson Efland Subdivision and for the,residents living
within the Community and District Park Area Boundaries within
which the Subdivision is located, at such time as the dedicated
property is connected with other recreation /open space;
3. the land dedication shall be implemented by a deed
from the property owner to Orange County of the dedicated
property located in a Resource Protection -Area, limiting the use
of the dedicated property to wildlife corridor, open space use
for the residents of the Wilson Efland Subdivision and for the
residents living within the Community and District Park Area
Boundaries within which the Subdivision is located, reserving it
for future use as a low impact recreation use for the residents
of the Wilson Efland Subdivision and for the residents living
within the Community and District Park Area Boundaries within.
which the Subdivision is located and reserving to the grantor a
2
23
non - exclusive ingress, egress walking easement anywhere within
the dedicated property for the benefit of the 5.41 acre lot;
4. this resolution becomes effective upon its passage.
Upon motion of Commissioner. seconded by
Commissioner the foregoing resolution was adopted
this the day of 2000.
I, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that
the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of
said Board at a meeting held on
2000 as relates in
any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said
proceedings are recorded in Minute Book No. of the minutes
of said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said- County, this day
of 2000.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
lsg: orangecounty \wilsoneflandresolution.doc
C
rvuv 24
3
VICINITY: ONP NAIL Fo U.ND
NOT To SCALE I
NS NAIL SET
i
' A•
I
MP °IF r
5- 82- -00•, I
0 22.4$'
60.00•
MP :
N /F
1
OAN F. 8F20WN g q \ _ R�SUFfiER
\ `
P-- FLOOO'
F ~~ ~
rMGilCQ:+)dh Ffi•�� w� �zNCE ALONE
bDmd �rF
EXHIBIT 1
0
ti
m
nC -p
AC�Qm WjymiC
43m n ac'r m
rmySb ��Ow
0-112 xm"Yxi
m3mi mKyy
�aog 'oQ
;b
� � Y
n�v �.ic
x
and m� ti
mY m47 O
G ur
0
d�
Li
Temporary maintenance and
monitoring access easement
to dedicated property,
i
25
1 rr. m
WLL04 M
m nxoo
cut sT.
� m
ST. w
a
O
•
I � �b
o
r------ - - - ---
'
o
V
w eDE
I
1 16
g
I
8
1
!
Ir w1
I I
I
•
I
! I
1 '
oa
!
1 I
1
bOP a
N- BB'JS
L Te L
s- er- os• -z + "-W s��'TOY" � 1e +,�r �aF!
`
1
I '
m
I
a°ax' p `I
I
mW I
!
'w
al m'a
q a I
_ IbL
rt
[j. z
I
I I
o u
��yl=
=1 o
Temporary maintenance and
I P
monitoring access easement
I i
to dedicated property.
25
1 rr. m
WLL04 M
m nxoo
cut sT.
� m
ST. w
a
O
•
I � �b
o
r------ - - - ---
'
o
I
SC'
w eDE
I
1 16
fig
I
Aga
!
A
oa
�r
��
yy •
- �r�WILSON EFLAND ROAp
9
N- BB'JS
L Te L
s- er- os• -z + "-W s��'TOY" � 1e +,�r �aF!
`
m
EXISTING 50'
a°ax' p `I
I
C
I
W i
$r
_ IbL
I
I I
o u
��yl=
�
eii
Is
I'
i • �
I .
Fiva^
wmpp
as
g�
I
I
I�
* I orb
Its
�
0 l
I
�
OyD
O�
I AN
��
^'
%I
•F
C1 77.
�Ir�
�
$
I
Iu
m m tR
y I
a9n
F I
I
W�
app 1M2r y
A II
25
1 rr. m
WLL04 M
m nxoo
cut sT.
� m
ST. w
a
O
•
I � �b
o
r------ - - - ---
'
gr
N
S, 9
I
1 16
fig
I
Aga
!
A
oa
o o
i
`
m
tiS
o a I y
W i
:E
T
rl uNGU FR r4
O
m C
eii
pa�iy !
2
x
25
1 rr. m
WLL04 M
m nxoo
cut sT.
� m
ST. w
a
O
•
• O
/ •
N
S, 9
N T
x
oa
o o
T
P
m
tiS
x x
2
T
A
O
m C
1
2
x
O �
v
n
r
M
C
3
W
O
N
O
u
M=
MA
.Yl N
w�
lD �
lD O
a
z
M
m
N
00
a. D
rl-
mZ
—n
G7
on
N
oD
m
0
n
W gr•
i M
0In.a.
a�
m-4 Ch
c
mm
� Q
ORO
�T
r
Z
C
CD
O
a
r
26
Orange County
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of Commissioners
John Link, County Manager
From: Craig Benedict, Planning Director
David Stancil, Environment and .Resource Conservation Director
Date: September 29, 2000
Re: Wilson Efland Subdivision Land Dedication — Pros and Cons
At the request of Commissioner Gordon, we have prepared a list of pros and
cons regarding the issue of land dedication for recreation and open space in the
proposed Wilson Efland subdivision.
This material is provided for your information, as you consider the resolution on
this matter at the October 3 meeting.
27
Wilson Efland Subdivision
Dedication of Corridor for Potential Future Linear Recreation
"Pros and Cons'f
Issue: Should the County require dedication of a strip of land along McGowan Creek
floodplain from the developers of the Wilson Efland minor subdivision? Because land is
being subdivided into two lots, the current land dedication requirement would yield a
strip of land 10 feet X 218 feet. If the payment -in -lieu alternative were selected, payment -
in -lieu of dedication would be $422.
Proposed Method to Address Long -Term: Staff is working on a report for the
November 1 BOCC meeting clarifying the process for acquisitions through development.
This report will address the process for approval of dedication versus payment -in -lieu,
amendments to clarify this section of the Subdivision Regulations, and a range or "menu"
of possible priority areas where land dedication would be most appropriate. The findings
of this report would then be incorporated into amendments to the Subdivision
Regulations at a subsequent public hearing, as well as into next year's update to the
Master Recreation and Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Pro
• Several major developments along the McGowan Creek corridor have the potential to
create a linear park or wildlife corridor along the creek
• Long -term linkages: This corridor could link public .spaces near McGowan Creek to
the County's new McGowan Creek Preserve (and eventually, beyond that to
Hillsborough's Riverwalk and Eno River State Park). Such a network would also
connect to a long -term "Cane Creek to Eno River" Rustic Woodland Trail, which was
identified in the Joint Master Recreation and Parks report. Finally, the potential exists
for this corridor to be part of the new "Mountains -to -Sea Trail" State Park, which was
adopted into the State Park system this legislative session.
• The corridor could be reserved pending a future decision on how it would ultimately
be used (wildlife corridor or future linear park)
• The Efland area has been identified on existing land use maps as a transition area
where development is anticipated and is occurring.
• Efland will be a dramatically changing area in the next 10 -20 years, and may need
this corridor - which is the only green corridor in the community.
• If there is desire for a linear park in the future, land dedicated now and in the future
by developments in this area could provide most of the linear park. If not acquired
now, land for a linear park along McGowan Creek could be a very expensive (and
difficult) purchase for a future board.
• Concerns about future trails and crime /safety could be addressed through fencing of
the linear park/wildlife corridor in areas of close proximity to private homes. (Our
research to date does not support serious crime /safety problems along linear
parks /public trails).
• Dedication of the land for active recreation/passive recreation and open space is to
address the recreation and open space needs of current and future residents. Future
residents of a much - larger Efland may desire a linear park in the future.
28
• Protection of natural resources is connected to the general welfare, quality of life and
enjoyment of the greater community.
Con
• The linear park/wildlife corridor concept could be pursued on the north side of
McGowan Creek instead (larger tracts there, although potential still exists for minor
subdivisions and small dedications)
• Many current residents in the area have indicated adamant opposition to the
possibility of a County linear park in this area (although future residents may see
things very differently)
• McGowan Creek is not currently designated as a wildlife corridor or a rustic
woodland trail in the Land Use or Parks and Recreation Elements of the
Comprehensive Plan. It is a Resource Protection Area in the Land Use Element,
where land dedication is an alternative for preservation of an identified natural area
or other state - listed natural resource area (please see Section IV.B.2.d of the
Subdivision Regulations). No such identified area exists in the McGowan Creek
corridor. Furthermore, dedication under N.b.2.d is not for present or future low -
impact recreational use — which is the basis of the payment -in -lieu provision in
IV.B.7.b.
• The regulations for dedication for resource protection and dedication for recreation
are not the same and may be inconsistent with each other. This may need to
addressed in upcoming revisions to the regulations.
• Determination of whether to require dedication calls for site analysis, including a
determination that the property in question is designated for active recreation/low-
impact recreation and open space in the Comprehensive Plan. The land dedication is
being pursued without an adopted plan that specifically shows active
recreation/passive recreation and open space along McGowan Creek. The 1988
Master Recreation and Parks element shows a community park and a district park in
the area. The Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group report proposes
revisiting payment -in -lieu and stresses the importance of linking Town, County and
State Parks — but this has not yet been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.
• Although the current regulations offer payment -in -lieu only as an alternative to the
standard of land dedication for recreation/open space, the practice of the last decade
has been to accept payment -in -lieu (outside of the Rural Buffer). There is currently
no policy statement that addresses when dedications are desired and when payment -
in -lieu is desired. Such a statement may be needed, perhaps via an amendment to the
Recreation and Parks Element of the Plan and/or the Subdivision Regulations.
, DRAF'
1 conditions on Time Warner to live up to the existing franchises. The Cable TV Advisory Board is
2 asking the Board to approve this resolution that conditions the transfer of the franchises upon 29
3 Time Warner acknowledging the provisions of the old franchises as well as the recommendation
4 that we expect Time Warner to live up to its voluntary undertaking to provide open access to the
5 Internet over the cable system. He said that the merger would go through even if this resolution
6 was not approved, but the resolution was written in a way that requires Time Warner to do
7 everything that could possibly be asked of them under the law.
8 Commissioner Halkiotis said that he appreciates everything that the committee has
9 done and he supports this because of the time the committee spent on this issue. He said that, it
10 was a bad piece of legislation from Washington, but he will support it because he appreciates the
11 committee.
12 Commissioner Jacobs said that the committee had done a very good job, but he could
13 not support it.
14 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Chair Carey to adopt and
15 authorize the Chair to sign a resolution consenting to transfer ownership and control of Time
16 Warner to AOL and Media One to AT&T, which is incorporated herein by reference.
17
18 VOTE: Ayes, 2; Noes, 2 (Commissioners Brown and Jacobs)
19 The motion did not pass.
20
21 c. Recreation Site Dedication vs. Payment -in -Lieu in the Matter of Wilson Efland
22 Minor Subdivision
23 The Board considered a minor subdivision condition of approval regarding Recreation
24 Site Dedication for Minor Subdivision application.
25 Planning Director Craig Benedict said that this resolution had to do with requiring a
26 land dedication for the Wilson Efland Subdivision. The subdivision. is an eight -acre parcel located
27 in the Efland area on US 70 and Brookhollow Road. He said that, in a subdivision, if the property
28 includes a wildlife corridor, natural resource area, or resource protection area, staff makes a
29 recommendation that land dedication would be preferable over a payment -in -lieu. This eight -acre
30 site is forming two lots. He said that this area would more likely have increased population and
31 the resources within an area that is urbanizing are even more important than some other areas
32 throughout the County. The property in question is located adjacent to the 64 -acre Duke Property
33 that was purchased by the County last year. He said that a trail has been started at Efland
34 Cheeks Elementary School to go through the Habitat for Humanity subdivision and the McGowen
35 Creek corridor. The County has taken this recommendation to various boards and agencies
36 within the County. The Environmental Resource and Conservation Department recommended
37 that the entire stream buffer be incorporated as part of the dedication for the subdivision. The
38 ERCD recommended an 80 -foot wide corridor to be dedicated. It was taken to the Recreation
39 and Parks Advisory Council and they did not think it was appropriate in this case for a land
40 dedication, and they recommended payment -in -lieu. It was taken to the Planning Board, and four
41 votes were in favor of the land dedication and four votes were against the land dedication. He
42 read the Administration Recommendation, as follows: The Administration recommends that the
.43 County receive the land dedication as a wildlife and resource protection corridor with a provision
44 that public access within the corridor will not be considered unless and until the dedicated
45 property is connected with other publicly owned recreation /open space property. He said that this
46 dedication would provide an opportunity for future connections of publicly owned open space. He
47 said that the resolution was prepared by the County Attorney's office and the Planning
48 Department to include the language that both reserves the right to the property owner so that they
49 can traverse this at any time in the future so that it does not isolate any portions of their property
50 and that the County will not have public access onto this property except for maintenance or
51 monitoring until there is some open space /low impact corridor program that is in the general area.
52 Commissioner Jacobs said that, based on the original staff recommendation of 80 feet,
53 the 10 feet is a compromise. He asked what the change was based on. Craig Benedict said that
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(
a DRAFT „
1 purchased by the County. He owns land that is one of the oldest farms in Orange County. He
2 spoke about the military and his service in the military. He said that it appears we are losing our
3 land and freedom without any compensation. He said that people expect to reasonably be able
4 to do with their property as they want.
5 This was the end of the public comment.
6
7 Commissioner Halkiotis said that he sees this situation as a rural -urban
s misunderstanding. He said that Orange County had never condemned property. He said that the
9 Recreation and Parks Advisory Board stamped this the same way they have for years and the
10 Planning Board discussed this issue and ended up with a 4 -4 vote. In order to maintain a corridor
11 of any kind, there must be staff to patrol and a program to maintain the area. He said that this
12 was not a subdivision like the bigger ones that are being proposed in the Efland area. He is not
13 supportive of this recommendation. He feels that additional discussion needs to take place.
14 Commissioner Brown asked Geoffrey Gledhill to explain the process that has taken
15 place on this item. Geoffrey Gledhill said that when a landowner elects to subdivide their land,
16 the legislature of North Carolina and the state and.federal courts have recognized that the
17 government, in approving subdivision of the land, and in order to protect the public health, safety
18 and welfare, can exact certain things from the landowner in order to protect the public health,
19 safety and welfare. Some of the things that can, be exacted are land for public roads, land for
20 public recreation, and land for public schools. He said that if there was no subdivision of this
21 property going on, there would be no basis for exacting public rights of way and public recreation
22 areas: He explained that the other document was faxed to the Efland's because the
23 recommendation that was made to require this land to be reserved for wildlife open space at this
24 time caused a different set of documents to be sent to be put into the agenda than were originally
25 put into the agenda. This is why Craig Benedict asked the Efland's to destroy the other
26 document. It was not the intent to cover up anything. He made reference to the section. that
27 Chris Efland read from the document, "Land Suitability," and said that in the very next paragraph,
28 which was cut off, it talks about the kind of land needed for passive recreation.
29 Commissioner Brown asked for a clarification on the property that would be dedicated.
30 Craig Benedict explained that this property would be more f -a reservation and nothing would be
31 done until there was other property to connect to this property. There would be no public use of
32 the property until there is enough to provide for the low- impact public use bf the property.
33 Chris Efland made reference to the Planning Board meeting and said that Planner
34 Jane Garrett indicated that once the County got the key pieces of land through land dedication
35 the County would condemn the rest of the land and take it to connect the trail system.
36 Mike .Efland spoke about property owned by his uncle, Bobby Efland, questioning why
37 he was only permitted to put eight homes on 25 acres of land. He said that they have been told
38 that the sewer system that is currently from Efland- Cheeks to Hillsborough would not handle any
39 more connections. He said that the current proposal that he has been given about Ashwick
40 Subdivision (his land borders this subdivision), says that there will be 56 homes with a tap fee of
41 $4,000. He said that he would be opposing this subdivision.
42 Chair Carey restricted further comments from Mike Efland.
43 Commissioner Jacobs applauded the stewardship of the people in the rural areas.
44 The County government wants to work to help preserve land. He said that this was not about
45 active' recreation, but about leaving the land the way it was. He said that the law does not allow
46 government to discriminate between a large landowner and a small landowner. He said that there
47 needed to be a discussion on what people want in the Efland area. There are people who want
48 Efland to remain rural and others who want to build homes in the area. He said that the Board
49 was not talking about taking something from somebody and making it a public access point, but
So treating everyone the same and having some kind of long-term planning for the Efland area. He
51 feels there has been confusion and a lack of clarity.
52 Chair Carey said that he fully recognizes that the County has the authority to require a
53 dedication of property and that the County would withstand a challenge to this authority. He also
DRAFT „
1 recognizes that it is a hollow and shallow promise to the landowners in this County that this .
2 requirement is going to be for low- impact, wildlife corridors now, but may be an active recreation
3 space at some point in the future. He believes that if the County requires it of one landowner, it
4 should be required of all landowners. He agrees that more discussion is required. However, he
5 feels that the landowner should be given a choice of payment -in -lieu or dedication. He also feels
6 that the County's payment -in -lieu fees are not high enough for the landowner to make a decision
7 about payment -in -lieu or dedication. He is not ready to say that the County is to require
8 dedication at this point. However, he believes that the County has the right to require dedication
9 of land.
10 Commissioner Brown said that she has mixed feelings about dedication of property.
11 She said that she does favor a wildlife corridor. She said that she wants the land along the creek
12 that she lives on to be preserved. She sees the .walking trails in Efland as very far out into the
13 future. She said that there would be changes in the Efland area with the growth pressures that
14 will exist in this area. She sees the importance of dedicating properties along these stream
15 corridors.
16 A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
17 accept the administration's recommendation that the County receive the land dedication as a
18 wildlife and resource protection corridor with a provision that public access within the corridor will
19 not be considered unless and until the dedicated property is connected with other publicly owned
20 recreation /open space property.
21 VOTE: Ayes, 2; Noes, 2 (Commissioner Halkiotis and Chair Carey)
22
23 There is no land dedication for Wilson Efland Subdivision as a result of the vote.
24 John Link asked about the next step in terms of addressing this issue. Geoffrey
25 Gledhill said that the Board could act now to accept the payment in lieu. The Board has to either
26 accept a payment in lieu or the dedication.
27 . A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to
28 table this item to the next meeting.
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31 d. Open Burning Policy for Governmental Entities and Non - Profits Receiving Count
32 Funds
33 The Board. considered approving a resolution that would implement a policy governing
34 open burning by governmental and non - profit entities receiving Orange County funds.
35 Assistant County Manager Rod Visser summarized the major points in this policy. This
36 policy deals with other governmental entities and non - profit entities receiving Orange County
37 funds. The policy outlines provisions for burning as a last resort. This is a fairly narrow policy.
38 During the last legislative session, Orange County was given authority to further regulate burning
39 in the County.
40 Farimah Anoushiravani presented a petition signed by 134 people, which reads as
41 follows:
42 "We would like Orange County to adopt an ordinance codifying the legislation passed
43 in the General Assembly of North Carolina on clearing of land within the County that would
44 regulate and prohibit the open burning of trees, poisonous plants, stumps, and other construction
45 debris."
46 Farimah Anoushiravani read a prepared stated. She said the the developer at Lake
47 Hogan Farm, 1st American Land of Apex, has been burning piles of wood as high as a 3 -story
48 building, including poison ivy and poison oak, since June 16, 2000. The burning has effected the
49 health of many of us with asthma and allergies. More than 14 people have had poison ivy
50 rashes; 3 cases were very severe including my daughters. This burning will continue weeks at a
51 time for several more years until they are done with the development of this large subdivision.
52 We have spoken to Mr. David Goracke, director of development for 1st American Land, and
53 others in that company numerous times begging them to stop burning and to please shred or haul