I've been checking into the limits imposed by Neuse River Buffer, CAMA and our own Growth Management Ordinance. It looks like, if the proposed exchange goes through, there may be enough room on the lot for a 20'x30' building and about four parking places.
There is much talk about what could be built there, but it would help to see some sketches.
In the meantime, a number of residents have sent letters to Towndock.net, published here.
We have not yet learned how the Board plans to deal with possible legal obstacles.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
South Avenue Deal
This evening, the Oriental Town Board of Commissioners by a unanimous vote of the four commissioners in attendance approved "in principal" to accept a counter offer by Mr. Chris Fulcher concerning the exchange of property. Details to be negotiated in a contract to be reviewed by the board. Public hearing to be held on the issue of vacating public rights of way currently owned by the town. The proposed map:
This is somewhat better than the earlier proposal here, but there still may be devils in the details. Lawyers for the two sides will negotiate.
Some commissioners, responding to skeptical comments by attendees, emphasized that the rights of way the town is giving up are "worth nothing." I think the truth is more complicated. To be sure, the town cannot sell the rights of way, because the town is not the owner of the underlying fee. But, if abandoned, there is clearly a tangible value to the land freed for sale, transfer or use by the fee owner. To truly understand the value to the recipient, it might be of interest to have a valuation of the real estate value of the land being abandoned by the town. Clearly it is not "nothing."
Earlier this week, the mayor spent a long time talking about the "intangible" benefits of the negotiation. I think the benefits to the public of public access to the water are a concrete benefit of living in the Town of Oriental, not just an "intangible" benefit. It is why people move here.
There were options open to the town had the Board wanted to use the existing South Avenue right of way to build a welcome center, public rest rooms, a museum, or any other purpose associated with public access to the water. It could, for example, have offered to purchase the underlying fee from the fee owner, either through negotiation or by exercising eminent domain. It might have been difficult and costly, but it would have been possible.
As it is, there will be building restrictions due to the fact that about half of the area to be donated to the town is within the 50 foot Neuse River Buffer and subject to building restrictions. It would be interesting to know what can be built there within those constraints.
A major advantage to the public of a dedicated and accepted right of way is that it cannot be sold, only abandoned. This provides better protection of the public interest than if the same property were owned outright. The town's governing body has the legal right to purchase and sell property at will. I would be happier if the property to be donated in this case were dedicated to the public for the purpose of public access to the water, including building of appropriate facilities to support public access. An example of a restricted donation to the town is Lou-Mac Park. We should look at this model.
This is somewhat better than the earlier proposal here, but there still may be devils in the details. Lawyers for the two sides will negotiate.
Some commissioners, responding to skeptical comments by attendees, emphasized that the rights of way the town is giving up are "worth nothing." I think the truth is more complicated. To be sure, the town cannot sell the rights of way, because the town is not the owner of the underlying fee. But, if abandoned, there is clearly a tangible value to the land freed for sale, transfer or use by the fee owner. To truly understand the value to the recipient, it might be of interest to have a valuation of the real estate value of the land being abandoned by the town. Clearly it is not "nothing."
Earlier this week, the mayor spent a long time talking about the "intangible" benefits of the negotiation. I think the benefits to the public of public access to the water are a concrete benefit of living in the Town of Oriental, not just an "intangible" benefit. It is why people move here.
There were options open to the town had the Board wanted to use the existing South Avenue right of way to build a welcome center, public rest rooms, a museum, or any other purpose associated with public access to the water. It could, for example, have offered to purchase the underlying fee from the fee owner, either through negotiation or by exercising eminent domain. It might have been difficult and costly, but it would have been possible.
As it is, there will be building restrictions due to the fact that about half of the area to be donated to the town is within the 50 foot Neuse River Buffer and subject to building restrictions. It would be interesting to know what can be built there within those constraints.
A major advantage to the public of a dedicated and accepted right of way is that it cannot be sold, only abandoned. This provides better protection of the public interest than if the same property were owned outright. The town's governing body has the legal right to purchase and sell property at will. I would be happier if the property to be donated in this case were dedicated to the public for the purpose of public access to the water, including building of appropriate facilities to support public access. An example of a restricted donation to the town is Lou-Mac Park. We should look at this model.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Renewable Energy
Monday night at the Pamlico County Commissioners meeting, a guest offered his views on why renewable energy sources (specifically wind energy) would be bad for Pamlico County: it costs more, it can't completely replace other forms of energy, its savings are exaggerated, it will reduce employment and it will chase tourists away. Since we currently have no wind generators in Pamlico County, I assume that means we must be awash in tourists, money and jobs.
Not exactly.
Since the meeting, though, I have been remembering a form of renewable energy that cost nothing but a bit of sweat, toil and tears.
Here is a picture of me and Joe Willie in Holmes County, Mississippi, gathering wood for the kitchen cook stove. Joe Willie chopped and both of us carried. About 1943:
Not exactly.
Since the meeting, though, I have been remembering a form of renewable energy that cost nothing but a bit of sweat, toil and tears.
Here is a picture of me and Joe Willie in Holmes County, Mississippi, gathering wood for the kitchen cook stove. Joe Willie chopped and both of us carried. About 1943:
Respect Your Betters
I was not quite four years old when I was introduced to the culture of the South. I had been raised in Oklahoma by Texans. I spent a number of my growing up years in Florida and Mississippi, but I really was a westerner, not a southerner.
My Mississippi grandmother tried valiantly to correct my deficiencies by teaching me to show proper respect for my elders, and also to show respect for my "betters."
Betters, of course, were those distinguished by higher social position or wealth. I remember my grandmother paying her respects to the owner of the biggest local plantation by curtseying to him.
My grandmother's lessons never took. I had already learned at an early age that I was an American. I had equals, but no betters.
My Mississippi grandmother tried valiantly to correct my deficiencies by teaching me to show proper respect for my elders, and also to show respect for my "betters."
Betters, of course, were those distinguished by higher social position or wealth. I remember my grandmother paying her respects to the owner of the biggest local plantation by curtseying to him.
My grandmother's lessons never took. I had already learned at an early age that I was an American. I had equals, but no betters.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Appeasement in Oriental?
There were some curious aspects to last night's meeting of the Oriental Town Board.
1. Although many members of the public attended, apparently hoping to learn more about South Avenue property negotiations, only two members of the public commented during the comment period. Neither appeared to be enthusiastic supporters of the proposal as it apparently exists. Grace Evans reminded the Board that back in the 1980's when she served on the Board, the Board adopted a policy not to transfer any more street ends to private ownership.
2. Perhaps one of the reasons more members of the public did not speak is that the proposal received from Mr. Fulcher has never been introduced at a business meeting of the Town Board nor was it tabled at Tuesday's meeting. Neither has it been posted on the Town's official web site. Following the public comment period, the mayor gave an exposition of his views of the issue, but there was no explanation of the procedure to be followed in considering the proposal, and the facts provided were sketchy at best.
3. Comments by the mayor and a few by members of the board seemed to constitute a discussion, but No Motion Had Been Made. There should be no discussion without a motion. The board did vote on a motion to go into closed session to deliberate on negotiating strategy. But we still have no official introduction of the matter to be negotiated.
4. Most curious, the mayor spent about fifteen minutes (I didn't time it) explaining that an important benefit of the proposal is the intangible benefit of improved relations with the Fulchers and the Henrys. He implied that a history of strained relations between the Town and Mr. Fulcher and the Town and Mr. Henry was caused by the Town Board's insensitivity to the concerns of both families.
I think it is a mistake to personalize policy disagreements. It is the duty of the Town Board, acting as our governing body, to protect and defend the long term interests of the residents, acting in accordance with state law. To that end, the Town has adopted a zoning ordinance (GMO) and has accepted responsibility for public rights of way established under North Carolina law. These laws apply to everyone in the town. Equally.
I wasn't here at the beginning of policy conflict between the Town of Oriental and Mr. Fulcher or the conflict over right-of-way law with Mr. Henry. But I have read the files. The conflicts weren't personal - they were business.
Both Mr. Fulcher and Mr. Henry have been successful businessmen. There was a time when businessmen were seen as "hard-nosed," meaning rational in action, making decisions on the basis of cold, hard fact. And on the basis of both personal and business interests. It would be good for the Town Board to assume this is still true.
I hope the Town Board will pursue negotiations concerning South Avenue in the same spirit - that is, in a rational effort to pursue the best long-term interests of the citizens of Oriental, protecting public access and use of the water.
1. Although many members of the public attended, apparently hoping to learn more about South Avenue property negotiations, only two members of the public commented during the comment period. Neither appeared to be enthusiastic supporters of the proposal as it apparently exists. Grace Evans reminded the Board that back in the 1980's when she served on the Board, the Board adopted a policy not to transfer any more street ends to private ownership.
2. Perhaps one of the reasons more members of the public did not speak is that the proposal received from Mr. Fulcher has never been introduced at a business meeting of the Town Board nor was it tabled at Tuesday's meeting. Neither has it been posted on the Town's official web site. Following the public comment period, the mayor gave an exposition of his views of the issue, but there was no explanation of the procedure to be followed in considering the proposal, and the facts provided were sketchy at best.
3. Comments by the mayor and a few by members of the board seemed to constitute a discussion, but No Motion Had Been Made. There should be no discussion without a motion. The board did vote on a motion to go into closed session to deliberate on negotiating strategy. But we still have no official introduction of the matter to be negotiated.
4. Most curious, the mayor spent about fifteen minutes (I didn't time it) explaining that an important benefit of the proposal is the intangible benefit of improved relations with the Fulchers and the Henrys. He implied that a history of strained relations between the Town and Mr. Fulcher and the Town and Mr. Henry was caused by the Town Board's insensitivity to the concerns of both families.
I think it is a mistake to personalize policy disagreements. It is the duty of the Town Board, acting as our governing body, to protect and defend the long term interests of the residents, acting in accordance with state law. To that end, the Town has adopted a zoning ordinance (GMO) and has accepted responsibility for public rights of way established under North Carolina law. These laws apply to everyone in the town. Equally.
I wasn't here at the beginning of policy conflict between the Town of Oriental and Mr. Fulcher or the conflict over right-of-way law with Mr. Henry. But I have read the files. The conflicts weren't personal - they were business.
Both Mr. Fulcher and Mr. Henry have been successful businessmen. There was a time when businessmen were seen as "hard-nosed," meaning rational in action, making decisions on the basis of cold, hard fact. And on the basis of both personal and business interests. It would be good for the Town Board to assume this is still true.
I hope the Town Board will pursue negotiations concerning South Avenue in the same spirit - that is, in a rational effort to pursue the best long-term interests of the citizens of Oriental, protecting public access and use of the water.
What's The All-Fired Rush?
Just received the following:
"From: <townhall@townoforiental.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:49 PM
Subject: Special Meeting Called
To: cechele@yahoo.com, larsum@aol.com, pstyron@embarqmail.com, barbventuri@gmail.com, kwjohnson@centurylink.net, bill@sagelaw.net
Cc: Pamlico News <editor@pamliconews.com>, Jeff <jeff@compassnews360.com>, Melinda <info@towndock.net>, Charlie Hall <chall@freedomenc.com>
"From: <townhall@townoforiental.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:49 PM
Subject: Special Meeting Called
To: cechele@yahoo.com, larsum@aol.com, pstyron@embarqmail.com, barbventuri@gmail.com, kwjohnson@centurylink.net, bill@sagelaw.net
Cc: Pamlico News <editor@pamliconews.com>, Jeff <jeff@compassnews360.com>, Melinda <info@towndock.net>, Charlie Hall <chall@freedomenc.com>
I
hereby call a special meeting of the Oriental Town Board of
Commissioners for 4:00 PM on Friday, February 10, 2012, at First Baptist
Church fellowship hall for the purpose of considering terms of property
acquisition transaction at Raccoon Creek.
Bill Sage, Mayor"
This sounds like something may be happening, but it isn't clear what. If I find out more, I'll share more thoughts.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Local Bill Shenanigans
Thirty-five years ago, the North Carolina state legislature passed a local bill taking away the right of municipalities in Pamlico County to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) subject to the same conditions that apply in all of the other 99 counties in North Carolina. In essence, this deprives citizens of Pamlico County of equal protection of the laws.
The original local bill also added preconditions to annexation that did not apply in other counties. The annexation provisions were repealed in 1983 by another session law, Chapter 636, Senate Bill 107, Section 37.1.
I believe Chapter 478, House Bill 1045 of the North Carolina General Assembly 1977 Session is an example of abuse of the local bill system and should be repealed.
The original local bill also added preconditions to annexation that did not apply in other counties. The annexation provisions were repealed in 1983 by another session law, Chapter 636, Senate Bill 107, Section 37.1.
I believe Chapter 478, House Bill 1045 of the North Carolina General Assembly 1977 Session is an example of abuse of the local bill system and should be repealed.
1977 SESSION
CHAPTER 478
HOUSE BILL 1045
AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 160A OF THE GENERAL STATUTES
RELATING TO ANNEXATION BY MUNICIPALITIES IN PAMLICO COUNTY.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
Section 1. G.S. 160A-44 is hereby amended by
adding a new sentence at the end of the first paragraph to read:
"No territory in Pamlico County may be annexed under the
provisions of this Part by any town or city with a population of 1,000 or less
according to the most recent federal decennial census."
Sec. 2. G.S. 160A-25 is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new paragraph.
"No territory in Pamlico County may be annexed under the
provisions of G.S. 160A-24 through G.S. 160A-30 by any town or city with a population
of 1,000 or less, according to the most recent federal decennial census, unless
the persons living in the area to be annexed vote in favor of annexation and
the governing body shall not adopt an annexation ordinance until after a
favorable vote has been obtained in the area to be annexed."
Sec. 3. G.S. 160A-360 is amended by adding a new
subsection (k) at the end thereof to read:
"(k) No town or city in Pamlico County having a
population of 1,000 or less, according to the most recent federal decennial
census, shall exercise any extraterritorial jurisdiction or powers outside its
corporate limits pursuant to the provisions of this Article."
Sec. 4. This act shall become effective upon
ratification.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified, this
the 7th day of June, 1977.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Fulcher Proposal Plan View
Here is the drawing that Mr. Chris Fulcher submitted to the town with his proposal for the town to close South Avenue and Avenue A, in return for which he would donate to the town 5,001.17 square feet of property as outlined in the bold marks. Included in that 5,001.17 square feet are 890 square feet within the South Avenue right of way (which, under his proposal would no longer be a public right of way).
Note that if the dock under construction were to become the new town dock, it would be very constraining for boaters on the southwest side of the dock. It would be much more comfortable for boaters if the distance from the dock to the edge of the property were the same to the southwest as it would be to the northeast.
By comparison, if the town were to build a dock centered on the South Avenue terminus, even taking into account the mandatory CAMA setback of 15 feet from adjacent riparian property owners, the town would have approximately 64 feet to work with. Even if the dock were to be 10 feet wide, that would leave 27 feet on each side for boaters to use without encroaching on the buffer, much less on the riparian boundary.
In short, Mr. Fulcher's proposal looks like a tight squeeze.
Another set of considerations relates to the effect of the town abandoning the South Avenue right of way on public access to the parcel Mr. Fulcher proposes to donate. The proposal appears to allow only a 20 foot access from the remaining public right of way into the parcel leading to the dock. Is this enough? What about parking? What about access needed to load boats?
A lot of things to consider.
Note that if the dock under construction were to become the new town dock, it would be very constraining for boaters on the southwest side of the dock. It would be much more comfortable for boaters if the distance from the dock to the edge of the property were the same to the southwest as it would be to the northeast.
By comparison, if the town were to build a dock centered on the South Avenue terminus, even taking into account the mandatory CAMA setback of 15 feet from adjacent riparian property owners, the town would have approximately 64 feet to work with. Even if the dock were to be 10 feet wide, that would leave 27 feet on each side for boaters to use without encroaching on the buffer, much less on the riparian boundary.
In short, Mr. Fulcher's proposal looks like a tight squeeze.
Another set of considerations relates to the effect of the town abandoning the South Avenue right of way on public access to the parcel Mr. Fulcher proposes to donate. The proposal appears to allow only a 20 foot access from the remaining public right of way into the parcel leading to the dock. Is this enough? What about parking? What about access needed to load boats?
A lot of things to consider.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
