Project position clarified

By Hannah Wever
Review Staff Writer
Published: June 5, 2008

When it comes to plans for a mixed-use, commercial, retail and office development on 900 acres just off Route 3, the Orange County Board of Supervisors doesn’t want to make promises it’s not prepared to keep. So at a May 27 meeting, county officials agreed to rework key negotiations initially outlined in a July 2007 letter to property owner Chip King.
At the time the first letter was drafted, Orange County Administrator Bill Rolfe explained to the board, he and the old board of supervisors were negotiating certain aspects pertaining to development of that parcel with King, and with local businessman Ken Dotson.
“It was really evolving as we went along,” Rolfe said.
Orange County Board of Supervisors Chairman Mark Johnson was part of the board in 2007, when the letter was first drafted.
“In dealing with Mr. King, we had to be very upfront and very clear about what we’re going to do,” Johnson said. “The new board has to give fresh instructions.”
Essentially, the July 2007 letter recapped a meeting between King and county officials. The discussion included an incremental build-out timetable of 20 to 30 years, projected need for water and sewer, and design features of the development. The bulleted points the new board wants to clarify in a new communication are associated with which party-the county or the developer-will be responsible for development of public improvements, such as utilities and the road network.
District 5 Supervisor Lee Frame suggested a work session, to discuss and develop the county’s role in any potential development on the King property.
“I’m reluctant to commit the county to spending money on this project, which this letter seems to do,” District 2 Supervisor Zack Burkett said.
But Rolfe said the former board’s intent was never to require county dollars be used to fund public improvements, like water, sewer and road construction. The idea was that the project would pay for its own infrastructure.
“This letter in no way obligated the county to make any improvements. We didn’t feel like we wanted private sector to control public improvements,” Rolfe said.
Dotson, who is acting as a representative of the King family, said the Kings aren’t concerned about the letter, even if the board of supervisors is.
“Mr. King understood the intent of the letter,” Dotson explained, which simply signifies one step in an ongoing dialogue about who-the county or the landowner-who will be responsible for certain aspects of development.
“We’re steadily moving forward with our rezoning application, and putting everything in place,” Dotson said. “We look forward to working with the county and the community to create a project we can all be proud of.”