BOA minutes 111113 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 4/22/2014 OC Board of Adjustment – 11/11/2013 Page 21 of 123 Geof Gledhill: The recreation requirements in the ordinance at the time the permit was approved were honored 1 by the county and that honoring was throughout the evidence you have heard and it is specifically honored in the 2 way the special use permit was written, all commitments shall be constructed in accordance with the site plan and 3 the revised site plan and all commitments shall be as contained in the narrative statement of the project all of 4 which are incorporated herein made a part of this special use permit. The site plan contains the ratio, the 5 recreation requirements, everything else are recommendations. Continuing on that theme, 7.6 of the zoning 6 ordinance at the time, approval of final plans and reports, shall be based on compliance with regulations applying 7 at the time the land was zoned PD status with this important language, “including such specific modifications as 8 were made by Board of County Commissioners in its amending action”. The amending action was the recording 9 of the special use permit. Those requirements when this special use permit was recorded are the recreation 10 requirements that were met in this project and all the recommendations with respect to those recreation 11 requirements were a matter of negotiation between the developer and the county. The holistic look at this project 12 is that it has whatever 19 and 17 adds up to, it has over 30 acres of recreation area, passive and active 13 recreation area which far exceeds recreation requirements at the time of the approval of the project. The staff’s 14 efforts at getting as much compliance with the recommendations that are contained in the special use permit 15 should be, in my opinion, applauded and this appeal should be denied. Thank you for your attention. 16 17 Larry Wright: Were sidewalks in the zoning or any part of that requirement? 18 19 Geof Gledhill: Michael, do you know off hand? 20 21 Mark Micol: It states, “Sidewalks shall be provided on one side of the street along all streets”. 22 23 Jeff Schmitt: Special condition outside of the recreational requirement. 24 25 Geof Gledhill: Let me use that for one more thing I failed to mention. Although, I don’t think it is part of Mr. 26 Buck’s appeal, he has raised questions about lighting. I read through his appeal document and I don’t see any 27 reference about the lighting. I think his contention there is that the lighting standards changed and the county 28 required updated lighting standards be applied. What the special use permit says about lighting standards is that 29 “street lights approved by the Town of Hillsborough shall be installed throughout the development as each phase 30 develops”. That is why lighting standards aren’t the same as recreation requirements. There is one more thing 31 but I want to make sure I have all your questions answered. 32 33 Jeff Schmitt: The last point here, does that mean the county defers to the town for whatever the lighting is that’s 34 needed and there were no specifications. I don’t think there are any specifications, street lights, outside of just 35 saying that the street lights shall be in here as approved by the Town of Hillsborough. That’s all we’ve got. 36 37 Geof Gledhill: That is all the special use permit requires. Whatever happened about street lights, you are 38 probably going to hear from Mr. Buck about what happened about street lights and they are not part of his 39 appeal. But whatever you hear about those, it is also a negotiation to the extent that Hillsborough was not 40 involved in the final process about that. 41 42 David Blankfard: You made a statement that the County Commissioners could not require the recreation, number 43 27, why can’t they require it? 44 45 Geof Gledhill: Because the ordinance at the time did not authorize, I won’t say they couldn’t have required it but 46 the ordinance did not authorize them to require it. Sometimes the government over reaches. 47 48