[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by EdV

Steve it really won't do any good to argue this point. Over the past fifteen years we, Stonecrest and TV residents alike have been guilty of treaspassing on others properties.

It's better to focus on the issue at hand. Whether or not there is a right of way for all golf carts at the disputed property.

I don't that it's considered trespassing if he owner of the property allows you to do it.

[EdV]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

The meeting is over and there will be a gate.

Breaking news on

**************.com

And true to my word I will accept it. It's been an interesting ride for the past five years, but it's time to move on.

I bid all of you my best.

EdV

[Peachie]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

Surely you didn't take his comment as being serious??? IT WAS HUMOR !!!!!

After what the United States has been through with mass shootings these past few years, I can't find any humor at all, Warren. Suggesting people need to shoot each other if they disagree is soooo sad and depressing for me.

[Steve9930]

Ok. This is solved I'm happy. The least is the Villages will have access, Traffic will continue to Wal-Mart from the Villages, Wal-Mart will continue their negotiations with Duke energy which means I should still have access to all the businesses on the East Side of 441/27, Mr. Mores should be kept from building a home on the site. I can live with this solution.

[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

The meeting is over and there will be a gate.

Breaking news on

**************.com

So now we have to see what kind of gate, i.e., with or without a button to allow carts without a gate card to enter. Hopefully with a button. To me, that would address the concerns of residents on both sides of the "wall".

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by Peachie

After what the United States has been through with mass shootings these past few years, I can't find any humor at all, Warren. Suggesting people need to shoot each other if they disagree is soooo sad and depressing for me.

That was never said.

[Peachie]

Originally Posted by Steve9930

That was never said.

It was insinuated, wasn't it, Steve?

Decision is made, maybe this thread can close very soon.

[SpicyCajunPugs]

This is exactly why I said that we all (people on both sides of the coin) needed to know all the facts and legal aspects of the issues. As quoted in the article referred to by Gracie: "Documents unearthed last week during the height of fury over the wall showed that originally the site had been designated as a cart path that was to include a gate.
Commissioners this evening indicated that they feel compelled to follow the original intent of the plan as it was laid out in 1998."

I hope this brings a satisfactory solution and peace for everyone

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by SpicyCajunPugs

This is exactly why I said that we all (people on both sides of the coin) needed to know all the facts and legal aspects of the issues. As quoted in the article referred to by Gracie: "Documents unearthed last week during the height of fury over the wall showed that originally the site had been designated as a cart path that was to include a gate.
Commissioners this evening indicated that they feel compelled to follow the original intent of the plan as it was laid out in 1998."

I hope this brings a satisfactory solution and peace for everyone

I believe it does. There is nothing more to comment on.

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by Peachie

It was insinuated, wasn't it, Steve?

Decision is made, maybe this thread can close very soon.

You have no idea what it insinuated. Like I said there are no monsters around every corner.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

The meeting is over and there will be a gate.

Breaking news on

**************.com

Not much of an explanation there. I'd like to hear what the decision was based on.

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by Peachie

It was insinuated, wasn't it, Steve?
snipped

or maybe it was just assumed?

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by SpicyCajunPugs

I apologize, but I failed to state that because it hasn't been 20 years since the deed was granted, it wouldn't apply unless specific written permission were granted. I have been accused of being long winded when I write so I guess I didn't make myself clear...sorry

A prescriptive easement has nothing to do with a deed date nor does it require "permission". In fact, permission might negate a prescriptive easement. Since originally raising this issue, I have seen several references to the path's having been used by residents for decades. If so, the people cut off by the wall may well have met the twenty-year-use requirement and should certainly explore the possibility that they have already obtained a prescriptive easement by such use. IF they have, then the Developer's erection of the wall was an improper interference with such easement. Some big "ifs", I know, but the affected residents shouldn't overlook this possible arrow in their quiver.

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

or maybe it was just assumed?

By whom?

[graciegirl]

243rd verse.
Same chorus.