Browse
Search
Agenda - 10-23-2007-11b
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2007
>
Agenda - 10-23-2007
>
Agenda - 10-23-2007-11b
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2008 2:02:15 AM
Creation date
8/28/2008 10:53:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/23/2007
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
11b
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20071023
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
28; <br />Developer Concerns At Churton Grove <br />b) What remedy does Orange County propose if, in fact, the county believes that a pool sized for 150 individual <br />swimmers is inadequate to serve the needs of over 800 families? <br />6. No Li~htin~ In Active Recreation Area <br />a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the failure of Developer(s) to provide any type of artificial lighting <br />on the parcel with the legal description "LEASE AREA PH 2 CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #9875815631) is in <br />compliance with the Special Use Permit (Condition 27b) which stipulates "adequate night lights far safety and <br />security reasons" are to be provided within the active recreational area? <br />b) Is it the legal opinion of Qrange County that Developer(s) requirement that the Churton Grove Homeowners <br />Association reimburse Developer for the cost to install light poles on the parcel containing the Active <br />Recreation Area is consistent with the intent of Special Use Permit (Condition 27b)? <br />c) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that Phase IV Development can continue per Condition 37 of the <br />Special Use Permit in light of the fact that this Phase II amenity has not yet been completed and paid for by <br />.Developer? <br />7. No Li~htin~ of Sidewalks Alon¢ North Scotsvvood Boulevard <br />a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that all Developer provided outdoor lighting conforms to the standards <br />articulated in Orange County Ordinance 50-161 concerning outdoor lighting? <br />b) Specifically, is it legal opinion of Orange County that outdoor lighting, provided along public roads with . <br />sidewalks, should be placed on the opposite side of~the street from sidewalks such that the light does not enable <br />pedestrians to see essential detail nor undertake their activities at night except in an unsafe manner? (Note: <br />This is of particular concern along North 5cotswood Blvd where 6 of nine total light poles have. been placed on <br />the opposite side of the street from the sidewalk. Given the width of North Scotswood.- a 90 foot right of way <br />per Special Use Permit Condition 11 -the sidewalk area for nearly the entire street is, effectively, unlighted. <br />This creates an unsafe condition for pedestrians walking during night time hours.) <br />8. Incorrect Acreage Identified as Active Recreation ~ <br />a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the entirety of 7.068 acres of the parcel with the legal description <br />"LEASE AREA PH 2 CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #9875815631) designated as an Active Recreation Area are <br />in compliance with Orange County Ordinance 46-79b(3)? <br />b) Specifically, is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the entire 7.068 acres of the Active Recreation Area <br />of the parcel is "capable of accommodating active recreation uses" despite the fact that significant portions of <br />the Active Recreation Area of the parcel are in a flood plain; have a slope in excess of 7 1/2 percent; are heavily <br />wooded; have significant underbrush; are inaccessible; are part of a stream buffer; are encumbered by a sewer <br />easement; andlor are in other ways unsuitable and incapable of supporting active recreation uses? <br />c) What remedy does Orange County propose if, in fact, it is the case that portions of the 7.068 acres of Active <br />Recreation Area can not be classified as asi Active Recreation Area without violating Orange County Ordinance <br />46-79b(3)? <br />9. Existing Parldn~ Spaces Encroach on Active Recreation Area Acreage <br />. a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the entirety of 7.068 acres of the parcel with the legal description <br />"LEASE AREA PH 2 CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #9875815631) designated as an Active Recreation Area, <br />which area includes 26 parking spaces, is in compliance with the provision of Orange County Ordinance 46- <br />79b(4)' regarding off-street parking and the requirement that land dedicated to off-street parking shall be <br />provided "in addition to land provided or dedicated for active recreational purposes?" <br />b) What remedy does Orange County propose if, in fact, it is the case that portions of the 7.068 acres of Active <br />Recreation Area is encroached upon by off-street parking in violation of Orange County Ordinance 46-79b(4)? <br />alculations" and "A endix C" for additional <br />' ~ Please see ` Appendix A -Active Recreation Space Revised Area C PP <br />information ~ ;. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.