Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
29 <br />Developer Concerns At Churton Grove <br />10. Insufficient Active Recreation Parking Spaces Provided <br />a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the parcel with the legal description "LEASE AREA PH 2 <br />CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #9875815631) has a sufficient number of parking spaces to comply with Orange <br />County Ordinance 46-79b(4) governing site improvements? (For reference: This parcel, on which the pool, <br />tennis court, and basketball court aze sited, contains 26 parking spaces. The surface area of the Churton Grove <br />pool is approximately 4000 square feet thus supporting approximately 150 swimmers.) <br />b) What remedy does Orange County propose if, in fact, it is the case that this parcel is deteremined to have <br />insufficient parking for the currently provided recreation facilities as specified within Orange County Ordinance <br />46-79b(4}? <br />11. Incorrect Acreage Identified as Passive Recreation (As Currently Developed) <br />a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the entirety of 9.059 acres of the parcel with the legal description <br />"LEASE AREA PH 2 CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #9875815631) designated as an Passive Recreation Area are <br />in compliance with Orange County Ordinance 46-79b(3) governing site suitability for passive recreation? <br />b) Specifically, is it the legal opinion of Orange. County that the entire 1.059 acres of the Passive Recreation Area <br />of the parcel is "of a character, slope and location suitable for use for walking, jogging, reading and similar <br />quiet activities" despite the fact that signif cant portions of the Passive Recreation Area of the parcel are in a <br />flood plain; have a slope in excess of 7 1/2 percent; are heavily wooded; have significant underbrush; aze <br />inaccessible to pedestrians; aze part of a stream buffer; andlor are in other ways unsuitable and incapable of <br />supporting active recreation uses? <br />c) What remedy does Orange County propose if, in fact, it is the case that portions of the 9.059 acres of Passive <br />Recreation Area can not be classified as a Passive Recreation Area without violating Orange County Ordinance <br />46-79b(3)? <br />12. Desi ated Passive Recreation Parcel Not In Compliance (Special Use Permits <br />• a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the 9.059 acres of the parcel with the legal description "LEASE <br />AREA PH 2 CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #9875815631) designated as an Passive Recreation Area, that area <br />which, to date, has had no improvements of any kind, is in compliance with the Special Use Perniit (Condition <br />27d) which specifies "wallcing and hiking paths" and "bridges across the creek"? <br />b) Additionally, is it the legal opinion of Orange County that any poition of the 9.059 acres designated as a Passive <br />Recreation Area can actually qualify towazd the 15 recreational acres called for in Condition 27a in light of the <br />fact that the Passive Recreation Area is, in fact, inaccessible to pedestrians? <br />c) Furthermore, during what phase of development of the land within the Special Use Permit did the county <br />anticipate completion of the improvements to this "Phase 2" parcel as called for in Condition 27d (i.e: walking <br />and hiking paths along Nancy Hill Creek; public walkways to these paths; bridges across Nancy Hill Creek)? <br />d) Does Orange County have any opinion on the fact that Developer (Newland Communities), in its promotional <br />materials, refers to "the serene Nancy~Hill Creek, complete with old-style bridges and greenbelt borders" when, <br />in reality, the old-style bridges' and greenbelt borders do not exist? <br />e) Is Orange County committed to ensuring that all amenities promised in the Special Use Agreement and used by <br />Developers to spur sales in the neighborhood are, in fact, built? <br />13. No Pedestrian Crossinsof Churton Grove Blvd <br />a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the lack of any marked crosswalk providing safe pedestrian access <br />across Churton Grove Blvd is in accordance with Sec. 50-204(3)a2 of Orange County Ordinances which <br />requires that pedestrians have "safe and convenient routes" by which to enter and leave the development? <br />b) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the lack of any marked crosswallc providing safe pedestrian access <br />across Churton Grove Blvd is in accordance with Sec. 50-204(3)b3 of Orange County Ordinances which <br />requires that stteet crossings "shall be located and designed to promote safety, and shall be appropriately <br />marked and otherwise safeguarded?" <br />