Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
261 <br /> DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES <br /> 7 ' <br /> Yuhasz Indicated he felt .this requirement would <br /> "eat up the site" and this development does not <br /> compare with Scotswood. He felt the same <br /> requirements do not apply to this subdivision as <br /> apply to Scotswood. <br /> Kramer noted that Mr. GreenVs operation is also a <br /> medical research operation connected with Duke <br /> University and the pedestrian easement would <br /> interfere with this operation. <br /> Mr. Green stated that he was in the process of <br /> purchasing this property before the Scotswood plan <br /> was presented. He noted the property had been <br /> landlocked and it took almost a ear <br /> negotiations to be completed for the property fhe <br /> needed for an easement due to travel absences of <br /> the owner. Caiiemyn stated that Mr. Green had <br /> worked with SCS for thirty years and was under <br /> contract with the SCS that this property would <br /> remain in sod for the next ten years. <br /> Kizer asked how far the floodplain extends and <br /> expressed concern with Lot #2 as to whether it is <br /> buildable and the possibilities of septic system <br /> failure. Caliemyn responded that there is Health <br /> Department approval for a primary system and a <br /> repair system in the pasture area. He continued <br /> that due to the size of the research operation the <br /> developer must hold the lot sizes to a minimum. <br /> Kizer continued asking Caliemyn if he would object <br /> to a condition requiring that arrangements be made <br /> for a repair site. Caliemyn responded he thought <br /> it was an excellent recommendation for lots 1 ,2 and <br /> 3. <br /> Collins responded to the comments about the <br /> pedestrian easement. He noted that this would <br /> provide a continuation of the greenways system and <br /> a potential for linking the segments. <br /> Mr. Green noted that the land adjoining that which <br /> belonged to Mr. Miller was a wide floodplain, but <br /> that he felt his property was not suitable for a <br /> pedestrian easement. <br /> Jacobs noted that If the County wants a greenways <br /> system the same problem will continue to occur Just <br /> as other easements and rights-of-way problems occur <br /> as more land Is developed. He stated that the <br /> applicant and future applicants may have good <br /> reasons to argue against the easements, but there <br /> is a need for some consistency. <br />