Browse
Search
BOA minutes 091013
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Board of Adjustment
>
Minutes
>
2013
>
BOA minutes 091013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 9:17:20 AM
Creation date
3/7/2018 10:42:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/10/2013
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
Document Relationships
BOA agenda 091013
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Board of Adjustment\Agendas\2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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
APPROVED 11/11/2013 <br />OC Board of Adjustment – 9/10/2013 Page 35 of 38 <br /> 1 <br />Geof Gledhill: In my argument I will quibble with the planning director’s use of the term exempt. 2 <br />Another term is legally correct and yes that is in your evidence. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Geof Gledhill: Is it true that at the time the special use permit was approved by the BOCC the 5 <br />recreation requirements, this ratio you have talked about, included recommendations with respect 6 <br />to satisfying its ration, the recreation area could include parking or slopes of any percentage and 7 <br />all the things that would now not be permitted by the revisions? 8 <br /> 9 <br />Michael Harvey: Yes. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Michael Buck: Is that in the ordinance somewhere? You have referenced 6.12. 12 <br /> 13 <br />Geof Gledhill: Please wait until you cross-examine. What was required in terms of recreation for 14 <br />Scotswood beyond the RSR or these ratios you talked about. 15 <br /> 16 <br />Michael Harvey: That is the recreation space. 17 <br /> 18 <br />Geof Gledhill: That was negotiated between the developer and the planning staff, correct? 19 <br /> 20 <br />Michael Harvey: Yes. 21 <br /> 22 <br />Geof Gledhill: On the basis of the negotiation were the county’s negotiating point the 23 <br />recommendations? 24 <br /> 25 <br />Michael Harvey: Yes. 26 <br /> 27 <br />Geof Gledhill: Those negotiations continued until the recording of the plats? 28 <br /> 29 <br />Michael Harvey: Yes sir. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Geof Gledhill: Ground of appeal F, does it appear to speak to Condition 27d of the special use 32 <br />permit. Ground of Appeal F is one related to the stream crossings. Michael and I are sharing 33 <br />documents. The plat does not indicate locations or easements for SUP mandated pedestrian 34 <br />bridges? 35 <br /> 36 <br />Michael Harvey: Yes sir. 37 <br /> 38 <br />Geof Gledhill: Was there anything in the SUP that required that easements be provided? 39 <br /> 40 <br />Michael Harvey: No sir. 41 <br /> 42 <br />Geof Gledhill: To find out where these facilities are, you have to look on the ground. 43 <br /> 44 <br />Michael Harvey: Yes sir. 45 <br /> 46 <br />Geof Gledhill: What are the, particularly with respect to the bridges, what are the bridges that 47 <br />exist at this project right now? 48 <br /> 49 <br />Michael Harvey: There are two bridges. Mr. Buck has shown the board a picture he entered into 50 <br />evidence showing a pedestrian bridge on the northwestern portion of the project towards the edge 51
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.