Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
25 <br />request was made by Habitat for a private, gravel <br />road. <br />Eidenier stated that she had visited the site on <br />Saturday and that Gemena Road is a good gravel <br />road. She indicated the route it would take as <br />it is extended for the other phases of <br />development and noted that it would become a very <br />long road. She continued that she would like to <br />see Habitat build as many houses as they have <br />planned, but, she expressed concern that it might <br />be less than responsible to change from a public <br />road to a private road because she was afraid <br />that future generations might find the <br />maintenance of the road to be a problem. She <br />continued that Staff had given good <br />suggestions of things that could be pursued <br />such as block development grants that might <br />allow the paving of the road now while Habitat is <br />strong as opposed to waiting years from now when <br />the landowners would be the ones there to deal <br />with and bear the cost of paving the entire road <br />in order to be able to travel. <br />Cantrell reminded the Board that Lane Kendig had <br />recommended some high quality gravel roads in <br />Orange County as a part of preserving rural <br />character. Best responded that there are no <br />public unpaved roads in Orange County. The <br />discussion of high - quality gravel roads indicated <br />that they would be private roads and privately <br />maintained to State standards. <br />Reid asked to be able to address <br />of the location of Chestnut Oaks <br />were problems that would deter a <br />developer from developing in the <br />fore, he felt there is no better <br />than right there with affordable <br />the geographics <br />He felt there <br />private <br />area. There <br />place to start <br />housing. <br />Best asked if the plan was resubmitted requesting <br />a private road would the University Lake <br />Watershed Standards have to be met which would <br />reduce the number of lots by more than half. <br />Scearbo responded that the number of lots would <br />be determined by whatever acreage is remaining. <br />Total number of lots would be calculated by five <br />lots of two -acres each and the remaining density <br />at one unit per five acres. Best continued <br />asking if the density bonuses had been excluded <br />from the University Lake Watershed. Scearbo <br />agreed that density bonuses for affordable <br />housing have been excluded from all water supply <br />watersheds. <br />