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

Browse Search

Developer Concerns At Churton Grove 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 I amenity has not yet been completed? 25. Designated Pedestrian Open Space Parcel Not In Compliance (Active/Passive Recreational Area a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the parcel with the legal description "OPEN SPACE PH 1 CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #9875915116) which, to date, has had no improvements of any kind, qualifies as either an active or passive recreational area according to the recreational site suitability requirements outlined in Orange County Ordinance 46-79(b)3? b) Furthermore, if Orange County does consider this parcel either an active or passive recreational area in spite of its character, slope and location, can the county please outline the improvements required by developers to comply with the accessibility provisions outlined in Orange County Ordinance 46-79(b)3c? 26. Designated Pedestrian Open Space Parcel Not In Compliance (Special Use Permit) a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the parcel with the legal description "OPEN SPACE PH 1 CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #9875915116) which, to date, has had no improvements of any kind, is in compliance with the Special Use Permit (Condition 27d) which specifies "walking and hiking paths" and "bridges across the creek"? b) Furthermore, during what phase of development of the land within the Special Use Permit did the county anticipate completion of the hiking paths and bridges on this "Phase 1"parcel as called for in Condition 27d? c} Does Orange County have any opinion on the fact that Developer (Churton Grove LLC), in an AMENITIES AGREEMENT registered with Orange County (Book 2255, Page 14) in May; 2001, "agrees to construct within the subdivision...creek side picnic areas and a nature preserve?" d} Does Orange County have any opinion on the fact that Developer (Churton Grove LLC), in a document describing the "private club" referred to in the AMENITIES AGREEMENT, describes "futwe facilities planned" including "a woodlands park...to include picnic areas, creek crossings, walking trails and other nature sensitive activities: ' 27. Inadequately Connected Open Space and Recreation Areas Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that all actual and proposed pedestrian walking paths provide a sufficient level of connectedness between existing and proposed open spaces, recreation facilities, and passive and active recreation areas in accordance with the requirements as set forth in section 46-82(f)1? 28. No Pedestrian and Landsca ed Common Areas In Commercial Area a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the requisite 2.47 acres of the total 12.364 acres within Phase IIC has been reserved; improved, and maintained for pedestrian use according to Sec. 50-205(4) of Orange County Ordinances? b) What remedy does Orange County propose if; in fact, it is the case that the requisite 2.47 acres of pedestrian use land has not been reserved as required in Orange County Ordinance 50-205(4)? 29. Workmanship and/or Safety Concerns on Existing Walking and Sikin2 Paths a) Regarding the developer provided asphalt walking and biking paths in Phases I, II, and III does Orange County have an opinion as to the expected longevity of properly constructed asphalt walking paths and the mean time to repair of such asphalt paths due to excessive cracking and crumbling? b) Regarding the asphalt path constructed between Phase 1, Lot 27 and Phase I, Lot 38, which path terminates prior to connecting to the asphalt sewer easement on the north boundary of Lot 27, does Orange County have an opinion as to the safety and aesthetic nature of using one or more non-secwed 2x6 pieces of lumber as a makeshift scaffolding across the ditch that separates the two asphalt surfaces? Does Orange County believe that such a structure is safe for pedestrians, bicyclists, and strollers? 32