Agenda - 10-23-2007-11b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

31 Developer Concerns At Churton Grove 19. Metal Drainage Grate In Play Area Is Safety Hazard a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that rusting, metal, sharp-edged sewer access grate with surrounding gravel in the center of the grassy play azea on the parcel with the legal description "LEASE AREA PH 2 CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #987S81S631) is consistent with the intent of the Special Use Permit (Condition 27b) which specifies an "open, grassed play area" within the active recreation area? b) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that a rusting, metal, sharp-edged sewer access grate with surrounding gravel in the middle of a grassy play area is consistent with the active recreation area site suitability standards articulated in Orange County Ordinance 46-78(b)3 requiring land provided or dedicated for active recreational purposes shall be of a character "capable of accommodating active recreation uses?" 20. No Picnic Area In Churton Grove +-,.,,,,r+.,+b..,++r.. .,;,; na,~ f •~ +ko~c„esial~3se-P-e~ix .. .. . -• -a)-.~~-'ter i ~g-~~g3~l~gp3?F119$$f'-8~a~.iz~c-cvu+i ~ ~...a.--T-~ r ~.-a~oru~v-s•'-vi4avc~-i'- =~.~~Y (Condition 27b) aze sufficient for the land area covered by the Special Use Permit, which laud area anticipates a total of approximately 600 residential units (each unit containing one or more actual residents)? b) Which document governs in the case of conflict between the Special Use Permit (Condition 27b) and Orange County Ordinance 46=79(b)4? c). Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that Phase IV Development can continue per Condition 37 of the Special Use Permit in light of the fact that this Phase II amenity has not yet been completed? 21. No Recreation Facilities In Braddock Park a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the open grassed azea, picnic azeas, tables, trash receptacles, and grills have been constructed in the multi-family area known as Braddock Park as specified in the Special Use Permit (Condition 27e)? b) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that Phase IV Development can continue per Condition 37 of the Special Use Permit in light of the fact that this Phase II amenity has not yet been completed? 22. Developer Provided Asphalt Walking Paths Not To Code a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the S foot wide asphalt paths built by one or more Developers through heavily wooded sections of Churton Grove on individual dwelling parcels (as opposed to dedicated greenways and open space parcels) is in compliance with Orange County Ordinance 46-79(b)4 which specifies pedestrian paths should have "well-defined headroom with maximum 10 feet width. Maximum average grade S percent, not to exceed 1 S percent. Path width 6-8 feet?" b) What remedy does Orange County propose if, in fact, it is the case that the Developer constructed walking paths aze in violation of Orange County Ordinance 46-79b(4)? 23. .Developer Provided Basketball Court Not To Code a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the community basketball court is in compliance with Orange County Ordinance 46-79(b)4 which specifies that the long axis of recreational basketball courts should have a true north-South orientation? b) What remedy does Orange County propose if, in fact, it is the case that the Developer constructed this community facility in violation of the standards set forth in Orange County Ordinance 46-79b(4)? 24. Designated Pedestrian Open Space Parcel Not In Compliance (POSAI a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the parcel with the legal description "OPEN SPACE PH 1 CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #987S91S 116) which, to date, has had no improvements of any kind, including hiking, walking, or biking paths; bridges; picnic areas; or other pedestrian recreation azeas, is in compliance with the Orange County Ordinance 46-82(c)3c concerning Pedestrian Open Space Areas (POSA)?