Browse
Search
IPRWG report 061199
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Intergovernmental Parks Work Group
>
Other documents
>
IPRWG report 061199
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/5/2020 4:01:45 PM
Creation date
2/5/2020 3:47:40 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
102
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
5/ 26/ 99 <br /> C . Impediments to Location of New Facilities <br /> In recent years , more attention has been paid to the impacts of recreational <br /> facilities . In particular, impacts of lighting , intensity of use , traffic and noise <br /> have been cited as posing negative impacts to nearby neighborhoods in the <br /> location of recreational facilities that involve active recreation fields , <br /> programs and lighting . <br /> The Parks and Recreation Directors met with staff to explore this issue . Since <br /> these concerns are almost exclusively related to active and low - impact <br /> recreation , a definition of active and passive recreation might be an <br /> important first step to addressing impacts . <br /> While many definitions could be developed for the terms active recreation <br /> and low - impact recreation , the following might serve as a starting point : <br /> Active Recreation : Recreation facilities programmable for structured <br /> activities, such as ballfields, tennis courts and picnic shelters . <br /> Low-Impact Recreation : Facilities that are designed for individual rather than <br /> structured activities, such as hiking trails, open picnic tables, open fields and <br /> other natural areas . <br /> Having defined the nature of active recreation , several points were noted as <br /> critical to resolution of future siting problems : <br /> • Examples from other communities that have public education on <br /> facility location and public input into decisions ; <br /> • Point out the positive components of nearby active recreation ; <br /> • Focus on greater community needs and the downside of not <br /> providing active facilities ; <br /> • Work to better define the type of land appropriate for active <br /> facilities with lights - locating adjacent to schools and other more - <br /> intensive uses ; <br /> • Stress accessibility to pedestrians , bicycle riders , and public <br /> transportation ; <br /> • If active facilities must be located in areas adjacent to residential <br /> communities , buy larger land area to develop buffers for shielding <br /> of light and noise . <br /> More analysis is needed to explore the change in attitude toward park <br /> impacts . However , the following suggestions may be ways to mitigate <br /> concerns about active recreation facilities while meeting the public need : <br /> • The co - location of schools and parks can address this issue with <br /> appropriate design . <br /> • Co - locating schools with parks may have superseded the old <br /> concept of community ( mid - level ) parks . If this is the case , the <br /> 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.