Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES <br /> 6 26L <br /> Jacobs inquired if the easement. is the same size as <br /> that of Scotswood. Eddie Kirk responded that the <br /> easement for Scotswood was 100 feet. <br /> Kramer inquired the location of Oak Rise In <br /> relation to _ this subdivision-. The response was <br /> directly to the north. <br /> Pilkey inquired the location of Scotswood in <br /> relation to this property. The response was <br /> southeast of the site. <br /> Alois Callemyn, Surveyor, responded to a request by <br /> Kramer to comment'on the relationship between Oak <br /> Rise and Beechwood Knoll in regard to the <br /> development of roads. Callemyn responded that <br /> neither developer wanted through roads, but George <br /> Horton, developer of Oak Rise agreed to a stub-out <br /> to the south. He noted that the developer <br /> preferred to see the roads dead-end. Kramer <br /> continued asking if there are any plans to connect <br /> the road system and Callemyn responded no. <br /> Callemyn stated that he wished to address the <br /> pedestrian easement. He noted that is <br /> development Is for the retirement residenceshof <br /> associated persons. He noted that there is a 40 <br /> foot bluff along the creek. Each house is to be <br /> designed to the site. He continued that the <br /> developer, Cyrus Green, owns the land across the <br /> creek and thus desires to control the privacy of <br /> the homeowners. Mr. Green also has a sheep farm <br /> operation and the pedestrian easement would <br /> interfere with the sheep operation. Callemyn noted <br /> that this property was purchased for the isolation <br /> and agricultural aspects and he felt the pedestrian <br /> easement would be detrimental to the plans and <br /> futures of these owners. <br /> Kramer asked the reason for requiring a pedestrian <br /> easement. Atwater responded that this requirement <br /> is in line with the request of the Recreation <br /> Director. <br /> Best inquired why a 100 foot easement was not <br /> required like that of Scotswood. Smith noted that <br /> the applicants for Scotswood had offered the 100 <br /> foot easement. Best continued that this was listed <br /> as a condition for Scotswood. Smith noted that for <br /> clarification purposes conditions often duplicate <br /> the provisions of the site plan. <br />