Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
10 <br /> Burklin asked if there are requirements for <br /> approval by the neighbors in covenants since all <br /> the lots, from the beginning, were to access St. <br /> Thomas Drive. Willis responded that this was a <br /> County requirement, not covenants so the approval <br /> of the neighbors is not required. She continued <br /> that if there was some conflict in the covenants, <br /> then, it would be up to the Homeowners <br /> Association to resolve that issue. <br /> Jobsis asked if there was any reason that the <br /> driveway on St. Thomas Drive could not be widened <br /> to accommodate the RV and boat. Willis responded <br /> that could be a possibility, but, since this lot <br /> is at the entrance to the subdivision, the visual <br /> impact that would occur with the widening of the <br /> concrete driveway would create more of a <br /> disturbance. She also noted that at the present <br /> time, the RV and boat cannot be removed from the <br /> property. <br /> Hoecke asked if the Planning Staff felt that <br /> landscaping could be installed that would make <br /> the driveway not appear as a driveway. He <br /> expressed concern that something that "looks like <br /> a driveway" will be used as a driveway, perhaps <br /> not by the owner but by others. Willis responded <br /> that it would appear as a driveway but, that the <br /> visual impact would not be as great in this <br /> location as in some other location on the <br /> property. <br /> Hoecke asked if the buffer was cleared to install <br /> that driveway. Collins responded that a portion <br /> of the buffer was cleared originally for power <br /> lines. The owner felt since that area was <br /> already cleared it would be simple to clear the <br /> additional small area needed to install a gravel <br /> driveway for' the storage of the RV and boat. <br /> Scott asked about the lots that were required to <br /> have joint driveways but did not (lots 1 & 2, 33 <br /> & 34 , and 35 & 36 ) . Willis responded that lots <br /> 1, 33, 35 and 36 have been developed. In all <br /> cases, individual driveways have been <br /> constructed, however, the access is at or very <br /> close to the appropriate property line, and the <br /> Planning Staff has determined that the intent of <br /> the joint driveway requirement has been met. <br /> MOTION: Gray moved approval as recommended by the <br /> Planning Staff. Seconded by Waddell. <br /> VOTE: 5 in favor. <br />