BOA minutes 111113 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 4/22/2014 OC Board of Adjustment – 11/11/2013 Page 36 of 123 specifically made some determinations as to where the location of the active recreation should be, how much 1 should be there and the movement of portions of that acreage is in violation of the intent … 2 3 David Blankfard: Where is that in the special use permit? Is that in the commentary or the minute meetings? Is 4 it in the SUP? Specifically the five acres requirement? 5 6 Michael Buck: Attachment C, approved site plan, page 1. The site plan specifically says, recreation area 15 7 acres, five acres of recreation centrally located and I will not read through all the meeting minutes from the 8 November 25, 1985 meeting where the talked about what recreation should be provided by if you read through 9 the minutes of November 25, 1985, you will see that the applicant made certain proposals as to what was going 10 to be provided, where it would be provided and those requirements have not been met. The approval hearings 11 provide context for the importance of the central location of the active recreation and putting some of it to the 12 Phase IV area violates that intent and harmony with the approving board’s decision. In addition it violates the 13 intention of the original applicant who made multiple revisions to the site plan in order to address the concerns of 14 the board. The approving board was well aware of the Duke Power easement that runs through the property that 15 is not attempting to be used as the active recreation component. It is on the site plan. If you read through the 16 minutes, you will find they specifically rejected the “North end location” that is now being used for the active 17 recreation in Phase IV so in terms of the active recreation in terms of what was approved versus what was 18 delivered, the mandate was for a single primary parcel in the single family, multiple parcels have been provided. 19 The mandate was for a centralized large parcel undivided, instead, divided smaller parcels have been provided. 20 The board specifically rejected the use of the north end location instead we have gotten left over lots at the north 21 end and the development or the approving board specifically mandated on the site plan a five acre plot and that 22 has not been provided. Let me make that clear, five acre active recreation. That is in violation of the special use 23 permit and the intent of the approving board. If you find that the relevant date is after 1986, then there is a similar 24 claim that can be made through ordinance because the ordinance does have a unity provision. I won’t go 25 through that again because that is incumbent upon whether or not you choose to agree with the 1986 26 determination. Moving this active recreation to this central area to the more distant area creates a … there was a 27 reason the central area was chosen because it is accessible to everyone in the neighborhood, the multi-family as 28 well as all the single family. Moving it farther away is an imposition to those who are remotely located. 29 Pedestrian bridges, I maintain that the failure to provide the three pedestrian bridges substantially changes the 30 number of SUP required bridges, it substantially changes the pedestrian traffic pattern, it changes the condition 31 imposed during the SUP approval, it resulted in an unlawful defacto modification of the SUP and it violates the 32 internal relationships provision of 7.14 of the Planned Developments District Ordinance which was in effect in 33 1986 as well as subsequently so this argument is independent of what you are determination is on the relevant 34 date. Here is a picture of the creek, the bridge that has been provided, a picture of the foot path bridge that is 35 about six feet and the county is not claiming that is one of the bridges but there was a question last time as to the 36 fact that the corner here was showing, what is over Nancy Hill Creek and it clearly is not traversing the sides of 37 the creek so I am showing that for completeness. This is the only pedestrian foot bridge that has been built 38 understanding there is a claim the vehicle bridge, which I did not have a chance to get a picture of, also does 39 exist and does have a sidewalk. The special use permit says that you shall install bridges across the creek at 40 either end or midway in conjunction with the public walkways. Either is a curious word, I have provided you the 41 definition and the reason I provided you the definition because everyone thinks we know what either means but 42 then you realize that it can ambiguous meanings. The definition from the Oxford English Dictionary, the first 43 definition is “each of two, also both”. It does have an alternative definition, one or the other but its primary 44 definition according to the Oxford English Dictionary is each of two or both so if you reread that claim, install 45 bridges across the creek at both ends and midway that is how you get to the need for the missing bridges. I 46 realize there may be concern that well that is not frequently use of the word either. I encourage you to look at 47 your United States Constitution, Article 1, Article 5 and you will see that either is used in that exact same context. 48