BOA minutes 111113 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 4/22/2014 OC Board of Adjustment – 11/11/2013 Page 37 of 123 North Carolina General Statutes also has multiple uses… meaning both and the Orange County UDO also has 1 an example of either implying both. What was the original approving board’s intent with the wording? 2 Conveniently, the word either is used twice in that section. The first usage can literally signify as both when it 3 says along either side of Nancy Hill Creek designate 100 foot, so forth. Beyond reliance on the word’s primary 4 definition, it is logical to use the second usage also that the same meaning has the first. 5 6 Larry Wright: I think you have made your point here. 7 8 Michael Buck: The context of the word either has changed when you think about how the community has 9 changed. Originally, there was supposed to be a road at this corner, now that road, that Berryman Bridge has 10 shifted so the context of the work either shifts based upon whether you are using one end as your reference point 11 or whether you are centrally located. Can a motorize vehicle bridge be counted as a pedestrian bridge? I argue 12 that is an invalid interpretation because Condition 27 is entirely concerned with recreation as we have seen 13 before recreation space is part of livability space and it shall not be used for vehicles. I don’t think anyone can 14 claim that a group of cars crossing a bridge is an incidental use of the space. I maintain there is a consistent 15 understanding on the part of the original developer, the county prior to this appeal that there were requirements 16 for three walk bridges and I have submitted evidence to that effect. With regard to the inadequacy of the walkway 17 surrounding the bridge, I would point you to Section 7.14 Planned Development Housing District and the 18 provisions ways for pedestrian and cyclist. Walkways shall form a logical, safe and convenient system of 19 pedestrian access to all dwelling units and walkways shall be used by substantial numbers of children shall be so 20 located and safeguarded as to minimize contacts with normal automotive traffic. The revised document I have 21 provided which has sidewalks in conjunction with the walkways. I would encourage you to try to see if you can 22 move from one section of the development to another without substantial numbers of road crossing and if you 23 imagine you have a child you want to send from Phase I to send a friend in Phase IV or a Phase IV child you 24 want to send the recreation area, it is not possible to do that without multiple road crossings. 25 26 Larry Wright: Isn’t that a function of a cul-de-sac development? That is a common characteristic of cul-de-sac 27 development. 28 29 Michael Buck: Perhaps it is. 30 31 Larry Wright: When you move into a cul-de-sac development, isn’t something you expect? 32 33 Michael Buck: This is implemented as a planned development district and this is specifically an ordinance for 34 planned development. This is not another ordinance; it is a planned development ordinance. 35 36 Larry Wright: …or this planned development? Proceed, I am holding things up. I am reading through this and 37 see so much ambiguity even though; you are making your point. 38 39 Michael Buck: Condition 27 is optional. I think that is a novel argument certainly coming from the County’s chief 40 enforcement officer. I don’t find it credible; it is not consistent with general statutes or ordinance. It is an 41 argument being made for the option of the appeal and it is not reflected in historical record. If there is a question 42 of why the approving board put the condition there in the first place, if it is optional, why have it at all. It is counter 43 to the intent of the approving boards, it is counter to the intent of the original applicant and to interpret as to use 44 the recommendation word, it give the zoning officer excessive authority outside of what they are empowered to 45 have. I will briefly point out that North Carolina General Statutes as well as Orange County Ordinance has a 46 predisposition to enforce the higher standards. The planning director’s memo talks about requirements, 47 requirements, and requirements are repeatedly used in all the documentary evidence preceding this appeal. 48