HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-23-2007-11bynfor-~n~a-l-jon ~-~l-~em
A~'acd,mertks ~roy~ded l~ncler s~'a-~ ~er•
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
~ountY °_ ®r
Current Planning ~~ +*~ °'~ 306E Revere Road
(919) 245-2575 ~_ ~ sz P O Box 8181
(919) 644-3002 (Fax) ~,° Hillsborough,
yyww.CO.orange.nc.us 'r°<<h ~p~~`'°4 North Carolina, 27278
€~ '~'
f ~ ~ ~, ~-
Y _ _ ! y,.
1 f rv ~ ~ I ~ ~ a uur.~... ....,t. -. 1 r uunr..~~..,.:.J_ ~... 7' .. • ~ ~ ,~(~".f '' ~.F
~f~ ~ iii „ _ ~... ~,..
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 10, 2007
To: Laura E. Blackmon, County Manager
Board of County Commissioners
From: Robert P. Davis, AICP
Current Planning Supervisor
Re: Citizen Concerns With Churton Grove Planned Development
Cc: Craig Benedict; Planning Director
Geoffrey E. Gledhill, County Attorney
Brian Ferrell, Associate County Attorney
Michael Buck; Churton Grove Resident
Bryan Hampton, Churton Grove Resident
John Michos, Churton Grove Resident
Mr. Fredrick J. DeGroff, Churton Grove Resident
Mark Schultz, Churton Grove Resident
Lee Bowman, Newland Communities Project Manager
James Moore, Churton Grove LLC
Will Atherton, Churton Grove Homeowners Association
Gray Styers, Attorney for Newland Communities
Churton Grove resident, Mr. Michael Buck, delivered a letter dated September 10, 2007
to the Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") regarding perceived construction
deficiencies and alleged zoning violations within the Churton Grove development. Mr:
Buck appeared at the September 19, 2007 Board meeting [under non-agenda items] and
briefly reiterated his concern with the status of the development. Subsequently, several
other Churton Grove residents, including; Mr. Bryan Hampton, Mr. Fredrick J. DeGroff,
Mr. John Michos and Mr. Mark Schultz also contacted the Board and Planning Staff to
express similar concerns to those expressed in Mr. Buck's September 10th letter. Staff
has addressed each specific concern of these residents in the attached "Staff
Response." The Staff Response also addresses the concerns raised by the other
residents listed herein as they were duplicative of the concerns raised by Mr. Buck.
2
Mr. Buck divides the concerns expressed in his letter into three lists as follows: (1)
"Violations of Orange County Municipal Codes and/or Special Use Permit Conditions;"
(2) "Concerns Regarding Churton Grove Phase IV;" and (3) "General Developer
Concerns."
The attached Staff Response is designed to: (1) addresses each item contained within
these three lists; (2) provide the Board with an update on the overall progress of the
Churton Grove development; and (3) outline future plans for the final section of the
Churton Grove Planned Development.
NOTE: All correspondences received from Mr. Buck, Mr. Hampton and Mr.
Michos, Mr. DeGroff and Mr. Schultz are attached. Please refer to Mr.
Buck's correspondence for the cross reference to the numbers/headings
used in the attached response. Also, the recorded Special Use Permit
for Churton Grove is attached as is the May 22, 2002 letter referenced in
staff response Number 1.
Page Numbers:
Staff Memo/Response pages 1 -19
Mr. Buck's Correspondence pages 20 - 55
Mr. Bryan Hampton pages 56 - 57
Mr. John Michos pages 58 - 59
Mr. Fredrick J. DeGroff page 60
Mr. Mark Schultz pages 61 - 62
Special Use Permit pages 63 - 74
May 22, 2002 Letter pages 75 --78
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
~°~ntY °~ Dr
Current Planning yam` ¢ ~ '8 306E Revere Road
(919) 245-2575 1= ~ 5z P O Box 8181
(919) 644-3002 (Fax) ~~ Hillsborough,
www.co.orange.nc.us 'k°<<h ~°~°~'°4 North Carolina, 27278
c~ ~
~ . <1 ~ I ~. 41 +~'f i4' iT't 'r~eiq~. ~ ~g~ i o 4 0.. ~ 3 ~~~~ ~ __^ ~
f .. y~~ -
r
~ n.
~~ '' Z4 °^^' ..1.. i c7.'1~yC~q"n",~,:_ n -k= ~ ~ ~.~a~-..-.... `` ~"-::.; .~..rse"e ' _ ..~..,.L~1d.~
Staff Response 1b Citizen Concerns Regarding Churlon Grove Planned Development
Introduction
Staff received a copy of a letter dated September 10, 2007 along with an
attached document titled "Developer Concerns at Churton Grove", addressed, to the
Board of County Commissioners ("Board"), from Mr. Michael Buck, a Churton Grove
resident. This letter and its various attachments predominately pertain to (1) "Violations
of Orange County Municipal Codes and/or Special Use Permit Conditions;" (2)
"Concerns Regarding Churton Grove Phase IV;" and (3) "General Developer Concerns."
Planning Staff has also received correspondences from other Churton Grove residents
that echo the concerns raised in the materials from Mr. Buck. The following is Planning
Staff's response to citizen concerns regarding the Churton Grove development.
Background
The Churton Grove Planned Development (formerly known as "Scotswood") is
located northeast of the Town of Hillsborough along Highway 70 East between Saint
Mary's Road .and Miller Road (the "Development"). The Development, contains
approximately 330 acres and was approved by the Board on May 20, 1986. The
Development is governed by a "Class A Special Use Permit for a Planned
Development" recorded in Book 1709 at Pages 101-112 in the Orange County Registry
("SUP"). The SUP approved the construction of 410 single-family lots; 216 multi-family
lots and a 65,460 square foot commercial complex to be constructed in several phases.
The conditions of the SUP require that in no event "shall more than 25% of the total
approved residential units be constructed in any 2.5 year period."
One key condition of approval contained within the SUP was that construction
within the Development could begin only after the Town of Hillsborough received
approval from the Water Resources Division of the N.C. Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development for a water allocation plan. The Eno River
Management Plan Implementation Agreement was adopted on February 6, 1989 and on
February 11, 1989 Hillsborough recorded plats for the new reservoir. The
condemnation process to obtain the land needed to construct the reservoir was
commenced on or about April 25, 1997. Based the commencement of the construction
4
of the reservoir, the effective date of the rezoning and SUP for the Development is
March 31, 1998.
Work began on Phase 1 of the Development shortly after the effective date of the
rezoning and SUP. The Final plats for Phase I were recorded on January 31, 2000. The
project has progressed over the last 7.5 years at a pace that complies with the intervals
prescribed in the SUP. Two sections of the multi-family portion of the Development
(Phase II-B) and the final phase of the single-family portion of the Development (Phase
IV) are yet to be constructed. Several development companies have been involved in
the various phases of the Development since construction began. Newland
Communities is the developer of phases 3 and 4 of the single-family portion of the
Development. Beazer Homes is the developer responsible for the first section of the
multi-family portion of the Development. The word "developer" is used generically in
this report to refer to the builder having responsibility for a particular phase. There are
currently two separate homeowner associations that enforce the private restrictive
covenants applicable to the residential portion of the Development. The Churton Grove
Home Owner's Association (the "Master HOA") governs the single-family portions of the
development, and the Braddock Park Home Owner's Association governs the first
section of the multi-family portion of the Development (the "Braddock Park
HOA")(collectively the "HOA").
Preliminary Issue
The majority of the concerns raised by Mr. Buck request a response as to the
"legal opinion" of the Board in relation thereto. However, the Zoning Officer is given the
authority under Article 23 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to investigate and
inspect potential zoning violations of the type alleged in Mr. Buck's letter and not the
County Attorney. Therefore, the Planning Supervisor, in conjunction with the Zoning
Officer, is the appropriate County personnel to investigate and respond to the concerns
of the Churton Grove residents in this instance.
The document written by Mr. Buck titled "Developer Concerns at Churton Grove"
contains several fundamental flaws that require clarification before the substance of the
individual concerns are addressed. Page 2 of the Developer Concern document states
that "[t]he citations in this document refer to the Code of Ordinances for Orange County,
North Carolina May 2, 2006; Supplement No. 7, Update 1)." This is an apparent
reference to the collection of Orange County ordinances published online by Municode.
This is an unofficial version of Orange County ordinances that is not regularly updated
and does not follow the official ordering of official Orange County ordinances.
Therefore, it is necessary to cross-reference the Municode sections cited within Mr.
Buck's document to the current official version of the County Zoning Ordinance in order
to properly evaluate the substance of Mr. Buck's concerns. Mr. Buck's citations to the
Municipal Code are further confused by the fact that the controlling zoning regulations
for this Development are not the current regulations,. but the regulations that were in
place at the time the SUP was granted in 1986.
Finally, Mr. Buck mentions in his letter that Braddock Park is an individual
subdivision. Braddock Park is, in actuality, the multi-family component of the Churton
Grove Planned Development; it is not considered to be a separate development or
5
subdivision. Although the various phases of Churton Grove are platted at separate
times, and the names of the phases are different on the relevant plats, the SUP, along
with pertinent zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations, govern all development in
the Churton Grove Planned Development in its entirety. For purposes of this Staff
Report ,all references to Churton Grove include the detached single-family portion, the
attached single-family (i.e. town homes) portion and the commercial portion of the
Planned Development.
Staff Responses
Following is a response to each of the thirty-five (35) alleged violations of Orange
County ordinances/regulations, the SUP or other policies of the County as alleged by
Mr. Buck:
1. Sequencing and Timing for Constructing Churton Grove and Braddock
Park:
a) Mr. Buck asks if the commencement of Phases III and IV -prior to the
completion of Phase 11-B in its entirety constitutes a modification of
Condition number thirty-seven (37) of the SUP.
Condition thirty-seven (37) of the approved SUP reads as follows:
`The project shall be developed according to the following phasing
schedule:
Phase 1 Single-family lots #1-59,
Phase 11 A Single-family lots #60-115, #120-139, and #274-275
Phase 11-B (Entire) Multi-family area
Phase 11-C (Entire) Commercial area
Phase Ill Single-family lots #116-119 and #140-273
Phase IV Single-family lots #276-423
Construction plans for each phase shall be submitted and approved by the
Zoning Officer prior to the initiation of construction activity for each phase.'
Staff Comment: Condition 39 of the SUP states [paraphrased] that no
more than 25% of the total approved residential units may be constructed
in any 2 1/2 year period. Approximately 303 homes (both single-family
and .town homes) have been built or under construction to date. This
number represents the construction of 40 units per year since the first
residential lots were platted [303 / 7.5 years]. The first 2'/2 year interval
began in January 2000, the second began in July 2002, the third began in
January 2005 and the final interval began in July 2007. The plat for the
final interval of residential units (i.e. Phase 4) has not been recorded even
though it was eligible to be recorded in July 2007 according to the
permitted schedule for residential construction.
6
The number of residential lots and the 2 1/2 year sequencing as
laid out in the SUP for each phase has been followed during the
recordation of the various phases. It is anticipated that the build out will
increase from the historic pace of 40 residential units per year when the
second and third sections of Braddock Park town homes are platted.
There is no requirement in the SUP that construction of infrastructure
improvements for any phase (i.e. roads, sewer, water, etc.) be dependant
on the complete build out of a previous phase (i.e. Phase 2B does not
have to be fully built before work in Phases III or IV can begin). The
relevant SUP condition only mandates that `construction plans for each
phase shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Officer prior to the
initiation of construction activify for each phase'. This condition has been
followed.
Both Phases 2B and 3 have been platted. The infrastructure for
these phases has either been built already, or the developer has supplied
a letter of credit to the County to guarantee its eventual completion. The
County has letters of credit on file related to phases 2B and 3 that provide
financial security to the County to ensure that there will be sufficient funds
on hand to complete all infrastructure required by the SUP should the
developers abandon the project before final completion.
There is no SUP requirement that each individual phase be
completely built out (i.e. with homes) prior to recordation of the next
phases. Therefore, the commencement of construction activities in order
to plat a new phase prior to the complete build out of Phase 2B is
permitted without modification of the SUP.
b) Mr. Buck asks if the commencement of construction activities in Phases III
and IV require action by the BOCC according to Orange County
Ordinance 50-237.
Staff Comment: No. The developer has met the phasing requirements of
the SUP as set out in conjunction with Item 1.A. above. Early on, in 1999,
staff laid out the SUP-timing procedure for recordation of all phases of
Churton Grove. A letter dated May 22, 2002 from the Manager, Attorney
and Director clarified the phasing requirements. That letter further clarified
the timing for recordation of plats and what would be necessary in order to
met the progression criteria in the SUP (i.e. platted, constructed or
bonded). Planning Staff.and the developers have operated in accordance
with that document. Each phase has been constructed either fully or in
part, secured by a letter of credit to ensure completion of any unfinished
part and then platted in accordance with the timing sequencing set forth in
the SUP and further clarified in the May 22, 2002 letter. As a result, work
on Phase IV is permitted.
7
2. Non-satisfactory Completion of Phase I, II, and III Elements:
a) Mr. Buck asks if all the elements of Phases I, II, and III `are deemed
satisfactory in relation to the total development' in accordance with
Section 50-199 (a) of the Orange County Ordinance.
Staff Comment: There are still items that will have to be completed in the
earlier phases (i.e. Phase I and 2A) before the entire Development is
completed; Churton Grove LLC is aware of this. Churton Grove LLC's
stated intent is to finish all of the uncompleted work remaining in earlier
phases when construction of the infrastructure in Phase IV and multi-
family phase neared completion. Phase IV will be platted within a month
and the next section of the multi-family phase will be approved in the near
future. It is Staff's expectation that Churton Grove, LLC, will complete the
unfinished work as it has indicated.
3. Inadequate Amount of Open Space:
a) Mr. Buck asks if the recorded/proposed site plans referenced within the
recorded SUP comply with Section 46-82 (c) (1) specifically, of the Orange
County Subdivision regulations.
Staff Comment: The open space platted, or to be platted, will comply
with the SUP-specified open space. The section that Mr. Buck references
is apparently in the Flexible Development section of the Subdivision
Regulations. Flexible Development had not been adopted at the time of
the approval of the rezoning of Churton Grove. Therefore, none of the
Flexible Development guidelines are applicable.
With respect to Mr. Buck's contention that `Open Space C' within Phase
2A, was lost, the original Phase 2A plat submitted by the developer
showed 79 lots. The number of SUP-approved lots in Phase 2A was 78
lots. Staff stated that one of the lots would have to be removed. The
developer chose to designate one of the lots as `Open Space C' in order
to avoid having to pay for additional fieldwork and re-platting expense, all
with the understanding that he would be able to plat the lot later for
development. The developer retained ownership of the open space lot
and the two adjacent lots until the Open Space C lot was later re-platted.
The plat reference by Mr. Buck was the `swapping' of a Phase 2A platted
lot at the northwest corner of Ainsworth Boulevard and North Scotswood
Boulevard for the Open Space C lot. The lot on the corner of Ainsworth
Boulevard was recombined back into Phase 3 and then was recorded as a
part of Phase 3. There was no open space acreage `lost' because there
was no requirement for open space at that location.
4. Use of off-site Conservation Areas to meet Open Space requirements:
Churton Grove adheres to the required open space set forth in the SUP;
therefore off-site conservation areas are not applicable to this project.
[For future informational purposes, with regard to the off-site conservation
of open space, there are provisions in the flexible development section of
8
the Subdivision Regulations that would permit off site open space. As
stated before Flexible Development does not apply to this project.]
5. Pool inadequately sized for build out of eight hundred (800) families:.
a) Mr. Buck is concerned about the size of the pool and that, in his opinion, is
not sufficient to satisfy the recreational needs of the development. Mr.
Buck has asked if we consider the pool compliant with Section 46-79 (b)
(4) of the Orange County Ordinance.
Staff Comment: The pool size was not addressed in the SUP. The
subdivision recreation requirements were adopted August 4, 1986, after
the Development was approved (May 20, 1986). Therefore, the existing
sizing standards do not apply to the Development. In general, there are
multiple recreational sites and amenities within this development that are
intended to serve the recreational needs of local residents.
b) Staff Comment: The SUP does not require developer to provide
recreational amenities of sufficient size to allow all residents to take
advantage of the same amenity at the same time. No recreational
facilities (public or private) are built to accommodate all potential users
simultaneously. The internal Home Owner's Association ("HOA") rules
govern use of the swimming facilities as well as the other amenities
(tennis court, basketball court, play areas, walking trails and all-purpose
field).
6. No lighting in active recreation area:
Staff Comment:
a) The Orange County Planning Department recently approved an outdoor
lighting plan whereby the developer will erect outdoor lights at the parking
area of the clubhouse.
b) The question regarding whether or not the developer (Churton Grove LLC)
may require the Churton Grove HOA to reimburse the developer for the
cost to install the light poles is a private matter dispute between the HOA
and developer.
c) Lighting is being installed; this issue is being resolved. The timing of the
lighfing installation is the concern here, not whether or not it is to be
accomplished.
7. No lighting of sidewalks along North Scotswood Boulevard:
a) Mr. Buck wants to know if the County believes that all outdoor lighting
conforms to the standards articulated in Section 50-167 of the Orange
County Zoning Ordinance.
Staff Comment: The actual fixtures and type of lights comply with the
ordinance provisions and the Town of Hillsborough standards as required
in the SUP. All of the streetlights conformed to the Town's standards
when each section was platted. Phases 1 and 2A have standard fixtures
9
and phases 2B, 2C and 3 have cutoff fixtures (i.e. dark skies compliant);
the lighting ordinance requiring cutoff fixtures was passed after Phases 1
and 2A were platted. There are no streetlight spacing requirements (i.e.
separation b/w lights) in the Town of Hillsborough code, per Town
representatives. The 3rd and final section of Braddock Park (town homes)
has not yet been constructed along North Scotswood Boulevard;
therefore, there have been no streetlights installed along this section of
sidewalk. This will be addressed in the future when construction begins
on the final section of the town homes. With regard to Phase 3, Duke
Energy designated the location of the light poles according to where their
power lines were and alternated sides based on their typical lighting
requirements to ensure a more uniformed lighting of the site. If the HOA
wants more lighting, then they would need to ask Duke Energy to install
them and pay the monthly fees.
8. Incorrect acreage identified as active recreation:
Mr. Buck wants to know if the entire seven (7) acres of property contained within
the recreational site (PIN 9875-81-5631) complies with Section 46-79 (b) (3).
Staff Comment: This ordinance provision was not adopted until August 4,
1986, three (3) months after the Churton Grove SUP was approved. As a result
the following standards do not apply, specifically:
a. The prohibition of a portion of the `active' recreation area being on a lot
with an identified flood plain,
b. The prohibition of having `active' recreation area on a parcel of
property that has a slope in excess of seven and a half percent (7 1 /2
%)~
c. The suggestion that having recreation areas that are free from:
wooded areas, stream buffers, utility easements (i.e. water /sewer), is
also a moot point, as the SUP is silent on these requirements.
Therefore, they do not apply to this development.
As a general policy, staff has enforced stream buffers with regard to Neuse River
Buffers and Orange County stream buffers in Churton Grove; they are shown on
the recorded plats.
There is no remedy proposed or required that addresses Mr. Buck's concerns
over his interpretation of `active' recreation area. However, there are other active
recreational alternatives in the development for the use and/or enjoyment of local
residents. The walking trails have not been counted as active recreation in staff's
administration of the SUP (although trails are considered active recreation in the
non-applicable section of the current recreation standards referenced by Mr.
Buck that are not applicable to the Development)
9. Existing parking spaces encroach on active recreation area:
10
Mr. Buck is requesting information demonstrating that the parking on the `active'
recreation lot (i.e. lot with PIN 9875-81-5631) complies with Section 46-79 (b) (4)
of the Orange County Ordinance.
Staff Comment: The section that Mr. Buck is referencing was adopted after the
approval of the Churton Grove PD/SUP; these standards do not apply to the
Development.
10.Insufficient active recreation parking spaces provided:
Mr. Buck is requesting information demonstrating that there is adequate parking
on the recreational site in compliance with Section 46-79 (b) (4) of the Orange
County Zoning Ordinance.
Staff Comment: The section that Mr. Buck is referencing was adopted after the
approval of the Churton Grove PD/SUP; these standards do not apply to the
Development.
11.Incorrect acreage identified as passive recreation (as currently developed):
Staff Comment: The section that Mr. Buck is referencing was adopted after the
approval of the Churton Grove PD/SUP; these standards do not apply to the
Development.
12. Designated passive recreation parcel not in compliance (SUP):
Mr. Buck is requesting information demonstrating that the acreage contained
within the parcel of property with PIN 9875-81-5631, and designated as Passive
Recreation Area, is compliant with SUP condition number 27-D that reads as
follows:
`Along either side of Nancy Hill Creek, designate 100 ft as open
pace/passive areas with walking and hiking paths. Provide public
walkways (to be part of the designated `open space area) to these areas
from both Graham Drive and Cameron Circle. Install bridges across the
creek at either end, and midway, in conjunction with the public walkways.
A pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle easement shall be dedicated
coterminous with the open space area.'
The construction of these walking paths was delayed until Phase 4 construction.
Staff determined that for safety reasons connection of both trails at the location
where the bridge was to be constructed would encourage resident usage of the
trails and paths at locations that would be used for staging of construction
equipment. When major construction in Phase 4 is completed, the trails will be
finished; we estimate that this will be in April of 2008.
With the passage of the Neuse River Buffer regulations, the County's adoption of
Stream Buffer regulations, and the remapping of the FEMA floodplain, which
affects application of the above regulations, staff has determined that these trails
need to be shifted up the hill (i.e. parallel to Stroud's Creek). This was necessary
to avoid encroachment into the stream buffers or FEMA flood plain. The Neuse
River Basin rules limit disturbance along streams and a variance from the state
would be needed to construct pedestrian bridges. The current plat is to connect
11
the trails to Berryman Boulevard at the completion of Phase 4. The ability of
residents or others to walk down to the steam on their own has not been affected
by the Staff's application of this condition. Also, the trail that crosses the
clubhouse and recreation area will be connected to Berryman Boulevard at the
same time.
13. No pedestrian crossing of Churton Grove Boulevard:
Mr. Buck would like to know if the staff considers the existing crosswalk situation
along Churton Grove Boulevard to be in accordance with the provisions of
Section 50-204 (3) (a) (2) of the Orange County Ordinance. Mr. Buck is
concerned that pedestrians do not have a `safe and convenient route' to `enter
and leave the development'.
Staff Comment: Churton Grove, PLC, is -aware of the need to provide one
additional access point in the curb and gutter sections near the clubhouse to
allow for ease of wheelchair use. With regard to pedestrian crossings, the HOA
has been working with the NCDOT District Office in Graham to designate
pedestrian crossing points. To date, one area has been marked and others are
being investigated by the HOA.
14. No sidewalks on active recreation area parcel.
Staff Comment: The SUP requires that a sidewalk be provided on one side of
the street along all streets. The decision was made early on to install the
sidewalks on the south side of Churton Grove Boulevard; the recreation area is
on the north side of Churton Grove Boulevard.
15. Split rail fence at top of retaining wall is a safety hazard.
Staff Comment: There is no specific zoning or building code requirement to
provide a fence at the top of the retaining wall. The Planning Department
repeatedly has received complaints from an adjacent single-family owner about
the split rail fence; the developer has offered to install a dark green mesh wire to
the split rail to provide additional security. However, residents of the multi-family
town home project have expressed objections about the wire mesh and do not
see the need for it. Their concern is that they would have to look at the wire
fence all the time, while the single-family side has a 50' vegetated and
landscaped buffer to block visibility from the single-family side. This issue is
properly addressed by the HOA.
16. No shade provided at Tot Lot.
Staff Comment: There are shade trees on the recreation lot only a few steps
from the play area. Additional trees will be placed after the picnic area is
installed.
17. No play area for elementary and middle school children through age
fourteen (14).
Staff Comment: There is a basketball court, a tennis court and walking trails
already constructed on the site. The additional all purpose field will be
constructed in Phase 4.
12
18. Playground includes lumber with carcinogenic Chromated Copper
Arsenate (CCA).
Staff Comment: This is an issue for the developer, the HOA and the contractor
who installed the equipment. The Planning Department does not condone the
use of any product that is not in compliance with all federal, state and local
regulations. That said, the Planning Department does not verify suitability for play
apparatus, other than for the physical placement of equipment on the lot.
19. Metal drainage grate in play area is a safety hazard.
Staff Comment: The grate creates a potential hazard and it is incumbent that.
there be adult supervision for younger children using the area. This issue is
properly addressed to the HOA, and Staff encourages the HOA to remedy the
situation.
20. No picnic area in Churton Grove
Staff Comment: Churton Grove, LLC, is aware of this requirement and
understands it is to be accomplished prior to completion of Braddock Park town
homes. Target date for completion is April 2008.
21. No recreation facilities in Braddock Park.
Staff Comment: Recreation facilities (pool, picnic table, grill, restrooms, etc) are
to be provided when Section 2 of the multi-family town homes are built, estimated
to be completed in the spring of 2008.
22. Developer provided asphalt walking paths not to code:
Mr. Buck is requesting information demonstrating that the various walking paths
have been built in compliance with Section 46-79 (b) (4) of the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance.
Staff Comment: As stated earlier there are numerous trails that have not been
constructed but will be prior to completion of the Development. Built trails are the
responsibility of both the HOA and the individual homeowners who own the land
under the trails.
23. Developer provided basketball court not to code.
Mr. Buck is requesting information demonstrating that the installed basketball
facilities are in compliance with Section 46-79 (b) (4) of the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance.
Staff Comment: The SUP requires the installation of a "full-length basketball
court." According to the developer the basketball court was intended to provide
recreation for the residents and their guests and was not intended to
accommodate sanctioned athletic events.
24.Designated Pedestrian Open Space Parcel (POSA)'not in compliance.
Staff Comment: This is a Flexible Development requirement. It is not
applicable to this project.
13
25. Designated Pedestrian Open Space Parcel (POSA) not in compliance
(Active /Passive Recreational Area).
Staff Comment: This is a flexible development requirement. It is not applicable
to this project.
26. Designated Pedestrian Open Space Parcel (POSA) not in compliance (SUP).
Staff Comment: This is a flexible development requirement. It is not applicable
to this project.
27.Inadequately connected open space and recreation areas.
Staff Comment: The trail system is not complete. Completion by either Churton
Grove LLC or by Newland Communities, whichever is responsible, prior to
leaving the project is required. There are two letters of credit in Orange. County's
favor securing the completion of unfinished work---$256,703 letter of credit for
Phase 3 of Churton Grove and a $25,000 letter of credit for Braddock Park
landscaping, trail completion, etc.
28. No pedestrian and landscaped common areas in Commercial area.
Staff Comment: The commercial areas are landscaped. The SUP did not
require a common open space area for pedestrians.
29. Workmanship and/or safety concerns on existing walking and biking paths.
Staff Comment: Staff has no opinion as to the expected longevity of asphalt
paths. Maintenance issues related to the paths should be addressed to the
HOA.
30.Incomplete walking and biking paths.
Staff Comment: See #27above.
31.Trash receptacles not provided at recreation facilities:
Staff Comment: The SUP requires 1 trash receptacle per 2 tables in the picnic
area once the picnic area is constructed.
Staff Comment: Requests for additional trash receptacles are properly
addressed to the HOA.
32.Non-compliant developer signage along St. Mary's Road.
Staff Comment: Illegal signage of all types has been an ongoing problem
throughout Orange County for a number of years. Staff will investigate the signs
and take appropriate enforcement measures as it does with all reports of illegal
signs in the County.
33. Path connections between Braddock Park and Churton Grove.
Staff Comment: This connection will be installed after completion of town home
adjacent to the trail. For safety reasons, staff does not want this trail connected
until the town home building adjacent to the proposed trail location is issued a
certificate of occupancy. Additionally, construction equipment would, in all
probability, damage the trail.
14
34.Voiding of SUP.
Staff Comment: There is no violation that warrants the revocation or voiding of
the SUP at this time.
35.Approved modifications requiring Board (BOCC) approval.
Staff Comment: There have been no modifications to the SUP by the Board.
Any deviations from the original site plan(s) are deemed by Staff to be changes
that do not require modification of the SUP.
With regard to specific homeowner concerns staff has the follow information:
a) Safety
a. Crosswalks -cross walks were not reviewed initially because all
streets were to be NCDOT maintained and NCDOT requirements
would apply. Within the last month, the HOA has contacted staff about
requesting of the developer to provide a handicap curb cut .near the
clubhouse area to allow NCDOT to place a crosswalk across Churton
Grove Boulevard. Staff has notified Churton Grove, LLC, and it is
aware of the requested modification; the curb work will be completed at
the time the unfinished portion of the trail system is done (referenced in
#12 and #33).
b. Sidewalks at Recreation Areas -See response to number 14.
c. Split Rail Fence at Retaining Wall -See response to number 15.
b) Amenities
Condition # 27:
a. All recreation conditions of the SUP (homeowner's vernacular is
`Amenities are either met, are bonded or will be met. The passive
and active areas will meet the SUP acreage requirements when Phase
4 is recorded and Phase 2B recreation area is improved.
b. The picnic areas are to be constructed when the trails are to be
completed.
c. 26 parking spaces serve the recreation and clubhouse area
d. Path along Nancy Hill Creek addressed in #12 above.
e. Multifamily recreation will be provided in section two of multifamily
project.
f. Parking for multifamily recreation will be provided when it is
constructed.
g. Fence is installed around pool.
h. Handicapped parking spaces provided at recreation area. Paved trails
for walking and bicycle have been built on the natural topography of
the site. In order to meet the 5% slope there would have had to be
large amounts of grading to effectively level large natural rolling
15
topography. Staff determined that to keep more trees and character
the trails might deviate from time to time on the 5% slope requirement.
Pool Capacity: Pool capacity is not a Special Use Permit regulated condition.
c) Phased Sequencing -Condition 37 of Special Use Permit.
Staff Comment:See response to #1.
d) Path Easements -The required paths will be completed prior to the
developers leaving the project.
Concerns Regarding Churton Grove Phase /V (please refer to Mr. Buck's
correspondence)
Phase IV will have an all-purpose field constructed at the northwest corner of the site.
Its purpose is to provide a suitable field sport recreation area for residents and their
guests.
1. Site Suitability of Proposed Recreation Parcel
a. Transmission utility easement on all purpose field site---The section of the
ordinance with regard to utility easements is not applicable to the
Development.
b. Wetlands ---The wetlands on this site are not in the active recreation area.
Again, the site can have wetlands, but the recreation area is not allowed to
disturb the wetlands.
c. Parking --- The parking on this site is the most that can be accommodated.
The streets have been built to accommodate on-street parking.
d. Soccer Field Size --- The field is not a soccer field; it is an all-purpose field.
2. Acreage of Proposed Recreation Parcel
a. Site Suitability ---The acreages are valid. As stated earlier, the walking trails
have not been included in the active recreation area, nor has the active
recreation that will be constructed as a part of the second section of the town
home project. The active recreation acreage will be well in excess of that
specified in the SUP.
b. Condition 27a and 27b will be met when Phase 4 and the next section of the
town homes are recorded.
3. Lack of Connecting Paths
a. There will be sidewalks constructed in Phase 4. There is no SUP or
ordinance requirement that mandates a 30-40-foot width path to connect two
recreation areas especially when sidewalks and trails will be built as the
project progresses.
b. The sidewalk and trail system proposed is logical. Sidewalks are set back
from the edge of the street by three feet just like the rest of the project.
4. Required Cross Walk Locations on East and West Hatterleigh
16
a. Crosswalks are placed in accordance with NCDOT standards because these
streets are to be NCDOT maintained. NCDOT does not mandate crosswalks.
5. Lighting to Be Provided at Active Recreation Areas
There has been no discussion regarding the lighting of the all-purpose field. This
is an issue to be addressed by the HOA.
6. Lighting Along Sidewalks
Streetlights are placed per Duke Energy specifications. In order to balance the
lighting plan for the streets there will be times where light posts are placed
opposite the sidewalks. It may seem counterintuitive to not completely light the
sidewalks; however, the lights are streetlights, not sidewalk lights. If the HOA
wants more lights then Duke Energy would probably install them without delay.
With respect to the tot lot.and all-purpose field there is no proposal from the
developer to provide lighting. The lights needed would be expensive and the
HOA would have to pay to have them maintained and pay the monthly electric
bills. .
7. Playground Equipment
Once the picnic facility is installed trees may be added for the site. It will take
time for trees to establish a shady area for the'tot lot.
8. Soccer Field
The recreation area to be constructed in Phase IV is an all-purpose field, not a
soccer field per se. The comments regarding construction will be taken into
consideration and are helpful. With regard to irrigation, there has been no
discussion of irrigation of the fields. The SUP does not have an irrigation
requirement.
General Developer Concerns (please refer to Mr. Buck's correspondence)
1. Substandard Quality and/or Installation of Pool Equipment
This is not an SUP or regulatory issue. This is a matter between the HOA,
Churton Grove, LLC, the installer of the equipment, and Newland Communities,
the developer of Phases 3 and 4.
2. Substandard Quality of the Irrigation Equipment
See number 1 above.
3. Inadequate Landscaping at Churton Grove Main Entrance
The landscaping met SUP requirements when installed. Ongoing landscape
maintenance is an issue for Churton Grove, LLC, and the HOA.
4. Failure to Provide Two Tennis Courts
The SUP did not require the installation of a tennis court. The Developer built
one tennis court and a clubhouse in place of two tennis courts.
17
5. Bicycle Racks
Churton Grove LLC is aware of the need for bicycle racks. The pad was
constructed but the racks not ordered. Staff is informed that bike racks will be
installed before completion of the Development.
6. Inadequate Landscaping at Braddock Park Entrance
The landscaping along North Scottswood Boulevard is not completed or even
required at this time. Staff requested that the developer install the evergreen
base screening well in advance of the recordation of the third section in order to
get it established (for privacy) and growing prior to the construction of the last
portion of the town home project.
Beazer Homes (builder of section 1) choose to not spend money on entrance
landscaping and Churton Grove, LLC, provided a Letter of Credit to guarantee
the installation at a later date. The $25,000 letter of credit mentioned in Staff
Comments # 27 is, in part, to assure that the landscaping will be installed prior to
Churton Grove, LLC exiting the project.
Irrigation is not a SUP requirement. In any event, the two main evergreen- plants
used are extremely drought tolerate and once established will thrive and grow to
30-40 feet in height.
7. Workmanship Issues at Churton Grove Clubhouse
This is an issue for the HOA, Churton Grove LLC and Newland Communities to
resolve. The clubhouse was an amenity offered by the developer.
Appendices (please refer to Mr. Buck's correspondence)
Appendix A -Active Recreation Space Revised Area Calculations
The SUP condition #27 requires seven (7) acres of active recreation area. Mr. Buck's
calculations are approximately correct. The two areas that are not in Appendix A are
the pool area for the town home .project and the walking trails. It is anticipated that the
town home recreation area will add approximately 20,000 square feet to the active area.
The walking trails will add approximately 3 miles to the equation, or roughly 2.9 acres
[8-foot width times (3 x 5280 ft/mile) divided by 43,580 square feet]. Adding these two
areas together will exceed seven acres.
Appendix B -Open Space Phase 1 Churton Grove
The trail connection for this area will be provided. See number 12 response in Staff
Comments memo
18
Appendix C -Lease Area Phase 2 Churton Grove
Staff determined that the areas shown in Phase 2 plat were not adequate to meet the
SUP 7 acres active requirement even though the surveyor designated it on the plat.
Churton Grove LAC early on requested.to create an active all purpose field at the
location it is shown on the soon-to-be recorded Phase 4 plat. Everyone understood that
the topography limitations at the clubhouse lot would require additional land to meet the
entire 7 acres SUP requirement. That's the reason that there will be an all-purpose field
in Phase 4. Please refer to the answer to Appendix A above to verify acreage totals.
Appendix D --- Open Space A Phase 2 Churton Grove
The open space is a visual amenity only. It was land that, due to 20,000 minimum
square foot lots, did not meet the minimum lot size. Therefore, the parcel was
designated as Open Space.
Appendix E --- Open Space B Phase 2 Churton Grove
The open space is a visual amenity only. It was land that, due to 20,000 minimum
square foot lots, did not meet the minimum lot size. Therefore, the parcel was
designated as Open Space.
Appendix F --- Remaining A Phase 2 Churton Grove
This is part of the passive open space, with the exception of a portion of the land that is
in the right-of-way of Berryman Boulevard
Appendix G --- Phase 1V Proposed Recreational Parcel (Soccer)
This is an all-purpose field. The aerial photography is available. Mr. Buck is correct in
his assessment that this will be a portion of the Active Recreation space for the
community.
Appendix H --- Phase IV Proposed Recreational Parcel (Tot Lot)
This is a proposed open space lot that the HOA will decide how to develop.
Appendix 1--- Plat Maps Showing Incomplete Walkways
The walkways will be completed prior to the developers leaving the project. See
.Number 12 on Staff Comment memo. All areas that have easements were not to be
constructed by the developer. Easements were retained for future connection if the
HOA wanted to further expand the system.
Appendix J --- Photos
The photos were submitted as supporting information.
19
• Many of the photos relate to not-yet-constructed trails. Staff has provided
information regarding why the trails are not complete.
• Other photos relate to poor maintenance of surfaces and headway issues on the
existing trails. This is an HOA maintenance responsibility for phases 1 and 2.
Some of the trails are over 5 years old and will have maintenance issues from
time to time. The restrictive covenants indicate that headway and canopy are the
HOA enforcement responsibilities.
• Other photos relate to slope and suitability of the active areas. The acreage
counted toward meeting this requirement is contained in Appendix A.
• Two additional photographs relate to the town home project active recreation
area (to be built in section 2 of project) and the landscaping along North
Scotswood Boulevard. This has been covered in Appendix A above and in Staff
Comments Memo Number 6 in General Developer Concerns section.
Appendix K --- Newland Communities Promotional Material
Promotional material is a private sector decision and not governed by the SUP or
Orange County ordinances. The developer states that the old style bridge is the bridge
that connects phase 2 to phase 4.
20
September 10, 2007
Orange County Board of Commissioners
200 S. Cameron Street .
Hillsborough, NC 27278
RE: Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
Dear Commissioners:
I am a resident of the Churton Grove subdivision in unincorporated Orange County. I am writing
to you regarding what I believe to be a significant number of actual and potential violations of
Orange County Ordinances by one or more of the developers operating within my subdivision
and the adjacent subdivision, Braddock Park. While I am aware that there have been attempts to
address some of these issues through the County Planning and Inspections Department -and I
liave no wish to disrupt these ongoing efforts - I am writing to you because:
• Many of these issues have persisted for multiple years with no resolution
• Some of the safety issues may require a legal opinion regarding the county's liability
• Some of the issues may require legal interpretation regarding potentially conflicting
elements of Orange County Ordinances as compared to the "Special Use Permit"
s Awareness ought to be raised regarding the rising frustration level of homeowners at
Churton Grove and Braddock Park
• Citizens of Churton Grove and Braddock Park deserve to know what efforts the county is
taking to ameliorate these problems and compel the subdivision developers to keep the
promises they made to homeowners and the county
The enclosed document describes 35 topics concerning code and/or special use permit violations;
8 topics of specific concern regarding Phase IV; and 7 topics of general concern that, despite not
being tied to any specific code violations, are concerns directly re]ated to the past behavior of ane
of the developers that impacts our neighborhoods. The questions and sub-questions regarding
code and Special Use Permit violations are all directed to specific sections of what I understand to
be the controlling legal documents.
Based on my research of the facts and my layman's knowledge of the relevant statutes, I believe
there are violations in each of the topic areas. In many cases, it seems to me, the violations of
code are clear and longstanding. Despite my belief, I have posed the concerns as questions in
deference to the fact that Orange County is the arbiter of whether there is a code violation. To the
extent Orange County believes, after investigating each issue, that there is no code violation 1 am
seeking an explanation as to why no code violation is deemed to exist.
1 am aware of past and present efforts to address some of these issues; but I know of no other list
as comprehensive as the one i am providing. I know that Churton Grove issues have come before
tl~e County Commissioners at least two times in the past (November 19, 2001 and June 27, 2002).
There l~~ay also be other instances in tl~e past when Churton Grove concerns have been brought to
the attention of County Commissioners.
I am also aware of current efforts by tl~e Board of Directors of the Churton Grove Homeowners
Association to work through some of these issues with the Planning Department. I am very
G35 C:hurtcm Gro~•c Ri~ulc~•;ird • I Iillsbor~ugh, NC 27278 * (919) 732-39$8
appreciative of these efforts. However, 1 do not feel the HOA alone can be as effective an
advocate for these issues as it might otherwise be given that the HOA (along with its Board of .
Directors) is still under.Declarant control. It is a conflict of interest for the HOA to be the sole
organ by which to work through these issues when some of the issues are, in fact, the
responsibility of the Declarant who has controlling interest within the HOA.
I am aware that there are multiple developers operating on various parcels of the land covered by
the ``Special Use Permit." The developers, it seems to me, have been effective at confusing the
issues by essentially pointing tl~e finger of responsibility at each other. Many of these issues have
been allowed to persist, with no progress, as a result.
But as a homeowner, a~taxpayer, and a voter it is very difficult for me to understand how new
pleases of the development can be allowed to proceed when there are so many elements from prior
phases yet to be completed, regardless of which developer is responsible.. The fact that one
developer has chosen to mitigate HIS risk by selling off phases of work to another developer does
not justify the county's acquiescence in'the face of longstanding unresolved issues.
The Special Use Permit is an essential mechanism by which the county and the homeowners are
supposed to be protected. The phasing condition within the Special Use Permit gives the county
considerable power to compel any and all developers to complete required work before future
phases are allowed to proceed. To the extent the various developers must actually work together
to ensure completion of certain conditions before either is allowed to continue developing then so
much the better.
Ultimately, my interest is to ensure that the county retains all the tools necessary to compel
developers to live up to their agreements. The homeowners in Churton Grove and Braddock Park
want a safe and aesthetically pleasing neighborhood filled with each of the code-compliant
amenities that developers committed to building in their agreements with the county. Many
residents have been waiting years for the completion of certain amenities. We look to the county
to protect our interests as well as the county's own interests by obliging all developers to work
together to deliver on their promises.
The residents of Churton Grove and Braddock Park look forward to your attention to this matter.
Thank you very much,
Michael Buck
cc: Ms. Laura Blackmon, County Manager
Mr. Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney
Mr. Craig Benedict, County Planning Director
Mr. Lee Bowman, Newland Communities
Mr. James Moore, Churton Grove, LLC
Mr. Will Atherton, Churton Grove HOA Board of Directors
Ms. Sandy Chandler, Churton Grove HOA Board of Directors
Attachments
21
ti
G35 (:hurtnn Grcn•c BoulrcarJ ~ t 1i11sUorough, NC 27?78 • (919) 73?-39$8
22
Developer Concerns
at
Churton Grove
In Relation to
Orange County Ordinances
and
Special Use Permit
(Book 1709, Page 101)
23
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... l
Summary ................................................................................................:........................................1
Violations of Orange County Municipal Codes and/or Special Use Permit Conditions ......................................... 1
Phase IV Concems ...--• .........................................................................................................:.................................. 2
.General Developer Concerns ..................................................................:..................:........-----..................._............ Z
Referenced Documents ................................ .......................................... ................................2
Special Use Permit .......................................................... ......._._......................................................._.................. 2
.....
Amenities Agreement .............................................................................................................................................. 2
Subdivision. Plats ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
Code of Ordinances for Orange County ...............:.................................................................................................. 2
Document Authorship ...................................................................................................................2
Violations of County Ordinances and/or Special Use Permit Conditions ................................3
1. Sequencing and Timing for Constructing Churton Grove and Braddock Park .......................................... 3
2. Non Satisfactory Completion of Phase I, II, and III Elements ................................................................... 3
3. Inadequate Amoun~of pen Space ............................................................................................................ 3
4. Use of Off Site Conservation Areas to Meet Open Space Requirements .................................................. 3
5. Pool Inadequately Sized far Build Out of 800 Families ............................................................................. 4
6. No Lighting In Active Recreation Area .....................................................................................................
7. No Lighting of Sidewalks Along North Scotswood Boulevard ................................................................. 4
8. Incorrect Acreage Identified as Active Recreation ...................................................:............................... 4
9. Existing Parking Spaces Encroach on Active Recreation Area Acreage ................................................... 4
10. Insufficient Active Recreation Pazking Spaces Provided ...............................:........................................... 5
11. Incorrect Acreage Identified as Passive Recreation (As Currently Developed) ......................................... 5
12. Designated Passive Recreation Parcel Not In Compliance (Special Use Permit) ...................................... 5
13_ No Pedestrian Crossing of Churton Grove Blvd ..................................................................:..................... 5
14. No Sidewalks On Active Recreation Area Pazcel ...................................................................................... 6
15. Split Rail Fence At Top of Retaining Wall Is A Safety Hazard ................................................................. 6
16. No Shade Provided at Tot Lot .:......................................................................:..............---................----...... 6
17. No Play Area for Elementary and Middle School Children Through Age 14 ............................................ 6
I8_ Playground Includes Lumber With Carcinogenic Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) ............................ 6
19. Metal Drainage Grate In Play Area Is Safety Hazard ................................................................................ 7
20. No Picnic Area In Churton Grove .............................................................................................................. 7
21. No Recreation Facilities In Braddock Pazk ................................................................................................ 7
22. Developer Provided Asphalt Walking Paths Not To Code ................................:....................................... 7
23. Developer Provided Basketball Court Not To Code ........................................................:......................... 7
24. Designated Pedestrian Open Space Parcel Not In Compliance (POSA) .................................................... 7
25. Designated Pedestrian Open Space Parcel Not In Compliance (Active/Passive Recreational Area)......... 8
26. Designated Pedestrian Open Space Parcel Not In Compliance (Special Use Permit) .........................:...... 8
27. Inadequately Connected Open Space and Recreation Areas ..........................................:........................... 8
28. No Pedestrian and Landscaped Common Areas In Commercial Area ....................................................... 8
29. Workmanship and/or Safety Concerns on Existing Walking and Biking Paths .........................:............... 8
30. Incomplete Walking and Biking Paths ....:..............................................................................:................... 9
31. Trash Receptacles Not Provided At Recreation Facilities ............................:........................................... 9
32. Non Compliant Developer Signage Along St. Mary's Road ................................................................... ] 0
33. Path Connections Between Braddock Park and Churton Grove ............................................................. 10
34. Voiding Special Use Permit ......................... ........ l 0
35. Approved Modifications Requiring Board Approval ............................................................................... I 0
Concerns Regarding Churton Grove Phase IV ........................................................................11
1. Site Suitability of Proposed Recreation Parcel .................................................:....................................... 11
2. Acreage of Proposed Recreation Parcel .......................................:........................................................... 1 I
3. Lack of Connecting Paths ........................................................................................................................ 11
4. Required Cross Walk Locations on East and West Hatterleigh ............................................................... 12
5. Lighting to Be Provided at Active Recreation Areas ............................................................................... 12
6. Lighting Along Sidewalks .....................................................................................:................................. 12
7. Playground Equipment ............................................................................................................................. 12
8. Soccer Field ............................................................................................................................................. l2
24
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
' .13
.............
................................
General Developer Concerns .........................................
..... ...............
................ ... 13
...... ............... ...
1. Substandard Quality and/or hzstallation of Pool Equipment ....................
........ ,-. 13
.................
anon E ui ment ..............................................................
Substandard Quality of Img q P
2 13
~ - •- --~ --
.
3- Inadequate Landscaping at Churton Grove Main Entrance
.......:............. 13
....
..................................
4. Failure to Provide Two Tennis Courts ..........................
.................
13
....................
5. Bicycle Racks ......................................................................................................
......... ....................13
..............................
6. Inadequate Landscaping at Braddock Park Entrance .................... 13
Workmanship lssues at Churton Grove Clubhouse
7
.
APPENDIX B -OPEN SPACE PH 1 CHURTON GROVE ...................................
..... ..............••.15
................
GIS Image ~ ............................................................................................
..............:.
.............. ....
.
Parcel Information .......................................................... ..GROVE .....
APPENDIX C -LEASE AREA PH 2 CHURTON ...•............• ................
.
... ..............16
..'.
..................... 16
GIS Image ....................................:.......................
....•
.................................-- •--....
..........................
Pazcel Information ........................
•••••
APPENDIX D -OPEN SPACE A PH 2 CHURTON GROVE •••-•-••-.•••.••.••••• ............17
. '•••--.-..-.-.•---. 17
--
GIS Image -----
...................................
........-
Pazcel Information .................................:....................
.
•
•••
•••
GROVE
RTON ...........18
•
-••
•
-
~
-
-
~~
:
:
:
APPENDIX E -OPEN SPACE B PH 2 CHU :
_
-------------- is
--- .
--
.
-
..
•
.
GIS Image -•••• "-'-
-..................................
......
Parcel Information ..............................:..........................
•
••
•
••
••
••••
GROVE...
INING A PH 2 CIIURTON ..............19
•••••
:
:
:
:
:
-
:
:
APPENDIX F - REMA -.-•------------- lg
-..
---
.
-
GIS Image .............................................
................... ........ .. 19
............
Parcel Information ............................................................. .................
e IV Pro osed Recreational Parcel (Soccer) ..:..................
Ph
P .........20
...........
as
APPENDIX G -
APPENDLX H -Phase IV Proposed Recreational Parcel (Tot Lot) ................... ....................21
22
APPENDIX I -Plat Maps Showing Incomplete Walkways ...• ............................
...... ....................
....
.................... 22
Gverview .........:............... -----..........................................------.........................
................ ........................
Phase I ........................................
....................... ................................ ............ 2
Phase II ..................... ....---.......................
Phase III ..................................... .26
..
................................................................................
APPENDIX J -Photos ...........
l
i ....................
....................31
........................
a
APPENDIX K-Newland Communities Promotional Mater .
25
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to consolidate a complete list of all known developer related issues and concerns related
to the Churton Grove and Braddock Park subdivisions over which Orange County exercises jurisdiction.
The concerns identified in this document are divided into three lists:
Violations of Orange County Municipal Codes and/or Special Use Permit Conditions
• Concerns Regarding Churton Grove Phase IV
General Developer Concerns
The summary below is followed by detailed questions with specific citations of the relevant sections of Orange County
Ordinances or Special Use Permit Conditions.
Summary
Violations of Orange County Municipal Codes andJor Special Use Permit Conditions
1. Sequencing and Timing for Constructing Churton Grove and Braddock Park
2. Non Satisfactory Completion of Phase I, II, and III Elements
3. Inadequate Amount of Open Space
4. Use of Off Site Conservation Areas to Meet Open Space Requirements
5. Pool Inadequately Sized for Build Out of 800 Families
6. No Lighting In Active Recreation Area
7. No Lighting of Sidewalks Along North Scotswood Boulevard
8. Incorrect Acreage Identified as Active Recreatiop
9. Existing Parking Spaces Encroach on Active Recreation Area Acreage
10. Insufficient Active Recreation Parking Spaces Provided .
11. Incorrect Acreage Identified as Passive Recreation (As Currently Developed)
12. Designated Passive Recreation Parce] Not In Compliance (Special Use Permit)
13. No Pedestrian Crossing of Churton Grove Blvd
14. No Sidewalks On Active ~t.ecreation Area Parcel
15. Split Rail Fence At Top of Retaining Wall Is A Safety Hazard
16. No Shade Provided at Tot Lot .
17. No Play Area for Elementary and Middle School Children Through Age 14
18. Playground Includes Lumber With Carcinogenic Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA)
19. Metal Drainage Grate In Play Area Is Safety Hazard
20. No Picnic Area In Churton GrcSVe
21. No Recreation Facilities In Braddock Park
22. Developer Provided Asphalt Walking Paths Not To Code
23. Developer Provided Basketball Court Not To Code
24. Designated Pedestrian Open Space Parcel Not In Compliance (POSA)
25. Designated Pedestrian Open Space Parcel Not In Compliance (Active/Passive Recreational Area)
26. Designated Pedestrian Open Space Parcel Not In Compliance (Special Use Permit)
27. Inadequately Connected Open Space and Recreation Areas
28. No Pedestrian and Landscaped Common Areas In Connmercial Area
29. Workmanship and/or Safety Concerns on Existing Walking and Biking Paths
30. Incomplete Walking and Biking Paths
31. .Trash Receptacles Not Provided At Recreation Facilities
32. Non Compliant Developer Signage Along St. Mary's Road
33. Path Connections Between Braddock Park and Churton Grove
34. Voiding Special Use Permit
35. Approved Modifications Requiring Board Approval
26
Developer Concerns At Churtan Grove
Phase IV Concerns
1. Site Suitability of Proposed Recreation Pazcel
2. Acreage of Proposed Recreation Parcel
3. Lack of Connecting Paths
4. Required Cross Walk Locations on East and West Hatterleigh
5. Lighting at Active Recreation Areas
6. Lighting Along Sidewallcs
General Developer Concerns
1. ' Substandard Quality and/or Installation of Pool Equipment
2. Substandard Quality of Irrigation Equipment
3.'~ Inadequate Landscaping at Churton Grove Main Entrance
4. Failure to Provide Two Tennis Courts
5. Bicycle Racks
6. Inadequate Landscaping at Braddock Park Entrance
7. Workmanship Issues at Churton Grove Clubhouse
Referenced Documents
Special Use Permit
The Special Use Permit referred to throughout this document is a legal agreement executed with Orange County
which applies to any developer who operates on land typically described as "Churton Grove" and/or `Braddock
Park" subdivisions (along with the adjacent commercial area along Highway 70 known, as "Churton Grove
Center"). The Special Use Permit describes in specific terms certain "conditions" which govern any
development of property covered by the Special Use Permit. A number of conditions of the Special Use Permit
' cover things like required recreation areas, facilities, and amenities that developers are obligated to provide.
. The Special Use Permit for the azea known as Churton Grove and Braddock Park is retarded with Orange
~ County in Book 1709, Page 101. '
Amenities Agreement
Developer CHURTON GROVE LLG established a,binding Amenities Agreement between CHURTON
GROVE LLC and the CHURTON GROVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. The Amenities Agreement is
recorded with Orange County in Book 2255, Page 14.
Subdivision Plats '
This document makes reference to multiple subdivision plats. When such references is made the relevant Book
and Page information is provided: In certain instances a parcel's legal description and PIN are also provided for
reference.
Code of Ordinances for Orange County
The citations in this document refer to the Code of Ordinances for Orange County, North Carolina (May 4,
2006; Supplement No. 7, Update 1).
Document Authorship
The preparation of this document was not sanctioned by nor was it written by the Churton Grove Homeowners
Association (HOA). As the HOA is currently under Declara t control it is a conflict of interest for the HOA to be the
sole organ of identifying and seeking resolution to many of thes 'sues.
~~
27
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
Violations of County Ordinances and/or Special Use Pearmit Conditions
1. Sequencing and Timing for Constructing Churton Grove and Braddock Park
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the commencement of Phase III and the commencement of Phase
IV prior to the completion of Phase II-B in its entirety is not a modification to condition #37 of the Special Use
Permit?
b) Furthermore, is it the legal opinion of Orange County that authorization for the commencement of Phase III and
the commencement of Phase IV prior to the completion of Phase II-B does not require action by the approving
board according to Orange County Ordinance 50-237?
c) Additionally,~to the extent the county believes the sequencing of Phases III and IV are unaffected by the
completion of Phase II-B please comment on the relevance of a letter dated May 22, 2002 from the Orange
County Planning & Inspections Department to Churton Grove LLC which states that "condition number
37...requires each phase to be platted, constructed or bonded in the phasing order as listed."
2. Non Satisfactory Completion of Phase I, II, and III Elements
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that all elements of Phase I, II, and III "aze deemed satisfactory in
relation to the total development" in accordance with Orange County Ordinance 50-199(a)?
b) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that any further permit requiring work can proceed within Phase IV in
compliance with Orange County Ordinance 50-199(a) despite the concerns documented (in this document and
in other homeowner correspondence with the county)?
3. Inadequate Amount of Open Space
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that recorded and proposed site plans for the 329.96 acres covered
within the Special Use Agreement, and the subdivisions therein, comply with the open space composition,
accessibility, shape and size requirements as set forth in section 46-82 of the Orange County subdivision
regulations, generally; and in 46-82(c)1 specifically?
b) To the extent that a reduction in total amount of required open space was approved due to "special
circumstances," what is the county's legal opinion regarding the amount of said reduction and the total acreage
of open space required for the 329.96 acres covered within the Special Use Agreement as it relates to
requirements set forth in section 50-197(4)a pf the Planned Development District regulations?
c) When developer abandoned Phase 2, "Open Space C" and established in its place residential Lot 118 (per Book
91, Page 22) did county require or did developer establish a separate open space parcel elsewhere within the
development to replace open space acreage lost by "Open Space C?"
4. Use of Off Site Conservation Areas to Meet Open Space Requirements
To the county's knowledge have any Developers (past or present) sought the use of off-site primary conservation
areas to meet the mandatory minimum open space requirements of section 46-82 of the subdivision regulations?
5. Pool Inadequately Sized for Build Out of 800 Families
a) Is it the opinion of Orange County that the swimming pool located on the parcel with the legal description
"LEASE AREA PH 2 CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #9875815631), having an approximate surface area of 4000
squaze feet and thus able to serve approximately 150 individual swimmers according to Orange County.
Ordinance 46-79b(4), is sufficiently sized to serve the leisure needs of approximately 260 single family homes
in Phases I, II, and III; approximately 140 single family homes in phase 4; approximately 175 multi-family units
in Braddock Park; and 250 "Patron Memberships" as specified in an AMENITIES AGREEMENT. registered
with Orange County (Book 2255, Page 14)?
28;
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
b) What remedy does Orange County propose if, in fact, the county believes that a pool sized for 150 individual
swimmers is inadequate to serve the needs of over 800 families?
6. No Li~htin~ In Active Recreation Area
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the failure of Developer(s) to provide any type of artificial lighting
on the parcel with the legal description "LEASE AREA PH 2 CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #9875815631) is in
compliance with the Special Use Permit (Condition 27b) which stipulates "adequate night lights far safety and
security reasons" are to be provided within the active recreational area?
b) Is it the legal opinion of Qrange County that Developer(s) requirement that the Churton Grove Homeowners
Association reimburse Developer for the cost to install light poles on the parcel containing the Active
Recreation Area is consistent with the intent of Special Use Permit (Condition 27b)?
c) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that Phase IV Development can continue per Condition 37 of the
Special Use Permit in light of the fact that this Phase II amenity has not yet been completed and paid for by
.Developer?
7. No Li~htin~ of Sidewalks Alon¢ North Scotsvvood Boulevard
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that all Developer provided outdoor lighting conforms to the standards
articulated in Orange County Ordinance 50-161 concerning outdoor lighting?
b) Specifically, is it legal opinion of Orange County that outdoor lighting, provided along public roads with .
sidewalks, should be placed on the opposite side of~the street from sidewalks such that the light does not enable
pedestrians to see essential detail nor undertake their activities at night except in an unsafe manner? (Note:
This is of particular concern along North 5cotswood Blvd where 6 of nine total light poles have. been placed on
the opposite side of the street from the sidewalk. Given the width of North Scotswood.- a 90 foot right of way
per Special Use Permit Condition 11 -the sidewalk area for nearly the entire street is, effectively, unlighted.
This creates an unsafe condition for pedestrians walking during night time hours.)
8. Incorrect Acreage Identified as Active Recreation ~
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the entirety of 7.068 acres of the parcel with the legal description
"LEASE AREA PH 2 CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #9875815631) designated as an Active Recreation Area are
in compliance with Orange County Ordinance 46-79b(3)?
b) Specifically, is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the entire 7.068 acres of the Active Recreation Area
of the parcel is "capable of accommodating active recreation uses" despite the fact that significant portions of
the Active Recreation Area of the parcel are in a flood plain; have a slope in excess of 7 1/2 percent; are heavily
wooded; have significant underbrush; are inaccessible; are part of a stream buffer; are encumbered by a sewer
easement; andlor are in other ways unsuitable and incapable of supporting active recreation uses?
c) What remedy does Orange County propose if, in fact, it is the case that portions of the 7.068 acres of Active
Recreation Area can not be classified as asi Active Recreation Area without violating Orange County Ordinance
46-79b(3)?
9. Existing Parldn~ Spaces Encroach on Active Recreation Area Acreage
. a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the entirety of 7.068 acres of the parcel with the legal description
"LEASE AREA PH 2 CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #9875815631) designated as an Active Recreation Area,
which area includes 26 parking spaces, is in compliance with the provision of Orange County Ordinance 46-
79b(4)' regarding off-street parking and the requirement that land dedicated to off-street parking shall be
provided "in addition to land provided or dedicated for active recreational purposes?"
b) What remedy does Orange County propose if, in fact, it is the case that portions of the 7.068 acres of Active
Recreation Area is encroached upon by off-street parking in violation of Orange County Ordinance 46-79b(4)?
alculations" and "A endix C" for additional
' ~ Please see ` Appendix A -Active Recreation Space Revised Area C PP
information ~ ;.
29
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
10. Insufficient Active Recreation Parking Spaces Provided
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the parcel with the legal description "LEASE AREA PH 2
CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #9875815631) has a sufficient number of parking spaces to comply with Orange
County Ordinance 46-79b(4) governing site improvements? (For reference: This parcel, on which the pool,
tennis court, and basketball court aze sited, contains 26 parking spaces. The surface area of the Churton Grove
pool is approximately 4000 square feet thus supporting approximately 150 swimmers.)
b) What remedy does Orange County propose if, in fact, it is the case that this parcel is deteremined to have
insufficient parking for the currently provided recreation facilities as specified within Orange County Ordinance
46-79b(4}?
11. Incorrect Acreage Identified as Passive Recreation (As Currently Developed)
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the entirety of 9.059 acres of the parcel with the legal description
"LEASE AREA PH 2 CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #9875815631) designated as an Passive Recreation Area are
in compliance with Orange County Ordinance 46-79b(3) governing site suitability for passive recreation?
b) Specifically, is it the legal opinion of Orange. County that the entire 1.059 acres of the Passive Recreation Area
of the parcel is "of a character, slope and location suitable for use for walking, jogging, reading and similar
quiet activities" despite the fact that signif cant portions of the Passive Recreation Area of the parcel are in a
flood plain; have a slope in excess of 7 1/2 percent; are heavily wooded; have significant underbrush; aze
inaccessible to pedestrians; aze part of a stream buffer; andlor are in other ways unsuitable and incapable of
supporting active recreation uses?
c) What remedy does Orange County propose if, in fact, it is the case that portions of the 9.059 acres of Passive
Recreation Area can not be classified as a Passive Recreation Area without violating Orange County Ordinance
46-79b(3)?
12. Desi ated Passive Recreation Parcel Not In Compliance (Special Use Permits
• a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the 9.059 acres of the parcel with the legal description "LEASE
AREA PH 2 CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #9875815631) designated as an Passive Recreation Area, that area
which, to date, has had no improvements of any kind, is in compliance with the Special Use Perniit (Condition
27d) which specifies "wallcing and hiking paths" and "bridges across the creek"?
b) Additionally, is it the legal opinion of Orange County that any poition of the 9.059 acres designated as a Passive
Recreation Area can actually qualify towazd the 15 recreational acres called for in Condition 27a in light of the
fact that the Passive Recreation Area is, in fact, inaccessible to pedestrians?
c) Furthermore, during what phase of development of the land within the Special Use Permit did the county
anticipate completion of the improvements to this "Phase 2" parcel as called for in Condition 27d (i.e: walking
and hiking paths along Nancy Hill Creek; public walkways to these paths; bridges across Nancy Hill Creek)?
d) Does Orange County have any opinion on the fact that Developer (Newland Communities), in its promotional
materials, refers to "the serene Nancy~Hill Creek, complete with old-style bridges and greenbelt borders" when,
in reality, the old-style bridges' and greenbelt borders do not exist?
e) Is Orange County committed to ensuring that all amenities promised in the Special Use Agreement and used by
Developers to spur sales in the neighborhood are, in fact, built?
13. No Pedestrian Crossinsof Churton Grove Blvd
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the lack of any marked crosswalk providing safe pedestrian access
across Churton Grove Blvd is in accordance with Sec. 50-204(3)a2 of Orange County Ordinances which
requires that pedestrians have "safe and convenient routes" by which to enter and leave the development?
b) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the lack of any marked crosswallc providing safe pedestrian access
across Churton Grove Blvd is in accordance with Sec. 50-204(3)b3 of Orange County Ordinances which
requires that stteet crossings "shall be located and designed to promote safety, and shall be appropriately
marked and otherwise safeguarded?"
30
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
c) What remedy does Orange County propose if the county fmds that lack of any marked crosswalk across
Churton Grove Blvd is, in fact, an unsafe condition in violation of Orange County Ordinance 50-204(3)a2
and/or Sec. 50-204(3)b3?
14. No Sidewalks On Active Recreation Area Parcel
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the lack of any'sidewalks on the parcel with the legal description
"LEASE AREA PH 2 CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #9875815631), which parcel contains the Active Recreation
Area (including basketball court, tennis court, swimming pool, and children's playground), is in accordance "
with Sec. 50-204(3)b3 of Orange County Ordinances which requires that "walkways in the PD-H district shall
. form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to all...project facilities...Walkways to be used
by substantial numbers of children as play areas or routes to school or other destinations shall be so located and
safeguarded as to minimize contacts with normal automotive traffic?"
b) What remedy does Orange County propose if the county finds that lack of any child accessible sidewalks near
the playground and recreation area is, in fact, not safe, logical, or convenient as required in Qrange County
ordinance 50-204(3)b3?
15. Split Rail Fence At Top of Retaining Wall Is A Safety Hazard
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County.that the split rail fence which sits atop a 7 to 10 foot high retaining wall
along the property line shared by Churton Grove (Phase II) and Braddock Park is in compliance with all
relevant safety ordinances?
c) To the extent the split rail fence is not in compliance with relevant ordinances, what are the expectations of
Orange County regarding Developer(s) requirement (method and timeline) to rectify the situation?
16. No Shade Provided at Tot Lot
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the tot lot located on the parcel with the legal description "LEASE
AREA PH 2 CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #9$75815631) is incompliance with the Special Use Permit
(Condition 27b) and Orange County Ordinance 46-79(b)4 both of which provide for shaded areas to be
constructed within the tot lot area'?
b) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that Phase IV Development can continue per Condition 37 of the
Special Use Permit in light of the fact that this Phase II amenity has not yet been completed?
17. No Play Area for Elementary and Middle School Children Through Abe 14
a) Is it the opinion of Orange County that the pre-kindergarten play structure located on the parcel with the legal
description "LEASE AREA PH 2 CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #9875815631) is in compliance with the Special
Use Permit (Condition 27b) which specifies "playground area with play apparatus for children, ages pre-school
to 14?"
b) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that Phase IV Development can continue per Condition 37 of the
Special Use Permit in light of the fact that this Phase Il amenity has not yet been completed?
18. Pla round Includes Lumber With Carcinogenic Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA
a) Does Orange County have an opinion on the use of pressure treated lumber containing the cancer-causing
additive Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA} in lumber used in and around children's play areas?
b) Does Orange County have any policies surrounding the use of pressure treated lumber in light of the
Environmental Protection Agency's directive of December, 2003 prohibiting the use of CCA treated lumber in
residential applications, including children's playgrounds?
31
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
19. Metal Drainage Grate In Play Area Is Safety Hazard
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that rusting, metal, sharp-edged sewer access grate with surrounding
gravel in the center of the grassy play azea on the parcel with the legal description "LEASE AREA PH 2
CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #987S81S631) is consistent with the intent of the Special Use Permit (Condition
27b) which specifies an "open, grassed play area" within the active recreation area?
b) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that a rusting, metal, sharp-edged sewer access grate with surrounding
gravel in the middle of a grassy play area is consistent with the active recreation area site suitability standards
articulated in Orange County Ordinance 46-78(b)3 requiring land provided or dedicated for active recreational
purposes shall be of a character "capable of accommodating active recreation uses?"
20. No Picnic Area In Churton Grove
+-,.,,,,r+.,+b..,++r.. .,;,; na,~ f •~ +ko~c„esial~3se-P-e~ix .. .. .
-• -a)-.~~-'ter i ~g-~~g3~l~gp3?F119$$f'-8~a~.iz~c-cvu+i ~ ~...a.--T-~ r ~.-a~oru~v-s•'-vi4avc~-i'- =~.~~Y
(Condition 27b) aze sufficient for the land area covered by the Special Use Permit, which laud area anticipates a
total of approximately 600 residential units (each unit containing one or more actual residents)?
b) Which document governs in the case of conflict between the Special Use Permit (Condition 27b) and Orange
County Ordinance 46=79(b)4?
c). Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that Phase IV Development can continue per Condition 37 of the
Special Use Permit in light of the fact that this Phase II amenity has not yet been completed?
21. No Recreation Facilities In Braddock Park
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the open grassed azea, picnic azeas, tables, trash receptacles, and
grills have been constructed in the multi-family area known as Braddock Park as specified in the Special Use
Permit (Condition 27e)?
b) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that Phase IV Development can continue per Condition 37 of the
Special Use Permit in light of the fact that this Phase II amenity has not yet been completed?
22. Developer Provided Asphalt Walking Paths Not To Code
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the S foot wide asphalt paths built by one or more Developers
through heavily wooded sections of Churton Grove on individual dwelling parcels (as opposed to dedicated
greenways and open space parcels) is in compliance with Orange County Ordinance 46-79(b)4 which specifies
pedestrian paths should have "well-defined headroom with maximum 10 feet width. Maximum average grade S
percent, not to exceed 1 S percent. Path width 6-8 feet?"
b) What remedy does Orange County propose if, in fact, it is the case that the Developer constructed walking paths
aze in violation of Orange County Ordinance 46-79b(4)?
23. .Developer Provided Basketball Court Not To Code
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the community basketball court is in compliance with Orange
County Ordinance 46-79(b)4 which specifies that the long axis of recreational basketball courts should have a
true north-South orientation?
b) What remedy does Orange County propose if, in fact, it is the case that the Developer constructed this
community facility in violation of the standards set forth in Orange County Ordinance 46-79b(4)?
24. Designated Pedestrian Open Space Parcel Not In Compliance (POSAI
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the parcel with the legal description "OPEN SPACE PH 1
CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #987S91S 116) which, to date, has had no improvements of any kind, including
hiking, walking, or biking paths; bridges; picnic areas; or other pedestrian recreation azeas, is in compliance
with the Orange County Ordinance 46-82(c)3c concerning Pedestrian Open Space Areas (POSA)?
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
b) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that Phase IV Development can continue per Condition 37 of the
Special Use Permit in light of the fact that this Phase I amenity has not yet been completed?
25. Designated Pedestrian Open Space Parcel Not In Compliance (Active/Passive Recreational Area
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the parcel with the legal description "OPEN SPACE PH 1
CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #9875915116) which, to date, has had no improvements of any kind, qualifies as
either an active or passive recreational area according to the recreational site suitability requirements outlined in
Orange County Ordinance 46-79(b)3?
b) Furthermore, if Orange County does consider this parcel either an active or passive recreational area in spite of
its character, slope and location, can the county please outline the improvements required by developers to
comply with the accessibility provisions outlined in Orange County Ordinance 46-79(b)3c?
26. Designated Pedestrian Open Space Parcel Not In Compliance (Special Use Permit)
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the parcel with the legal description "OPEN SPACE PH 1
CHURTON GROVE" (PIN #9875915116) which, to date, has had no improvements of any kind, is in
compliance with the Special Use Permit (Condition 27d) which specifies "walking and hiking paths" and
"bridges across the creek"?
b) Furthermore, during what phase of development of the land within the Special Use Permit did the county
anticipate completion of the hiking paths and bridges on this "Phase 1"parcel as called for in Condition 27d?
c} Does Orange County have any opinion on the fact that Developer (Churton Grove LLC), in an AMENITIES
AGREEMENT registered with Orange County (Book 2255, Page 14) in May; 2001, "agrees to construct within
the subdivision...creek side picnic areas and a nature preserve?"
d} Does Orange County have any opinion on the fact that Developer (Churton Grove LLC), in a document
describing the "private club" referred to in the AMENITIES AGREEMENT, describes "futwe facilities
planned" including "a woodlands park...to include picnic areas, creek crossings, walking trails and other nature
sensitive activities: '
27. Inadequately Connected Open Space and Recreation Areas
Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that all actual and proposed pedestrian walking paths provide a sufficient
level of connectedness between existing and proposed open spaces, recreation facilities, and passive and active
recreation areas in accordance with the requirements as set forth in section 46-82(f)1?
28. No Pedestrian and Landsca ed Common Areas In Commercial Area
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the requisite 2.47 acres of the total 12.364 acres within Phase IIC
has been reserved; improved, and maintained for pedestrian use according to Sec. 50-205(4) of Orange County
Ordinances?
b) What remedy does Orange County propose if; in fact, it is the case that the requisite 2.47 acres of pedestrian use
land has not been reserved as required in Orange County Ordinance 50-205(4)?
29. Workmanship and/or Safety Concerns on Existing Walking and Sikin2 Paths
a) Regarding the developer provided asphalt walking and biking paths in Phases I, II, and III does Orange County
have an opinion as to the expected longevity of properly constructed asphalt walking paths and the mean time to
repair of such asphalt paths due to excessive cracking and crumbling?
b) Regarding the asphalt path constructed between Phase 1, Lot 27 and Phase I, Lot 38, which path terminates prior
to connecting to the asphalt sewer easement on the north boundary of Lot 27, does Orange County have an
opinion as to the safety and aesthetic nature of using one or more non-secwed 2x6 pieces of lumber as a
makeshift scaffolding across the ditch that separates the two asphalt surfaces? Does Orange County believe that
such a structure is safe for pedestrians, bicyclists, and strollers?
32
33
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
30. Incomplete Walicina and Sildna Paths
a) Regarding the following greenway/path easements:
Phase I (Final Plat Book 85 Page 12• also re recorded in Book 88 Paae 801
i) Path easement originating at intersection of Churton Grove Blvd and Lot 22 heading roughly north east
toward Lot 25
ii) Path easement originating at intersection of Churton Grove Blvd and Lot 21 heading roughly south west
towazd Carolina Avenue
Phase II (Final Plat Book 88 Paae 80)
iii) Path easement originating at East Bromfield Drive between Lot,l33 and Lot 1.34 _
iv) Path easement originating at intersection of Churton Grove Blvd and Lot 137 heading roughly west then
south to terminate at Starmont. Drive •
v) Path easement originating at intersection of Alanbrook Court and Lot 114 heading roughly east terminating
at Lot 118 (formerly "Open Space C")
vi) Path easement originating at intersection of Alanbrook Count and Lot 113 heading roughly north west
terminating at the intersection of Scotswood Blvd and Lot 106
Phase III A (Final Plat Book 98 Paae 13 & 14)
vii) Path easement originating at East Chapman Court between Lot 9 and Lot 10 heading roughly south to
terminate at the boundary of Lot 2
viii)Path easement originating at Churton Grove Blvd between Lot 69 and Lot 70 heading roughly north east
terminating at the boundary of designated Churton Grove Open Space
Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the lack of any constructed walking or biking path on all of these
path easements is consistent with Developer(s) responsibilities as defined within Condition 27b of the Special
Use Permit?
b) Regazding the aforementioned path easements, did the county have an expectation that Developer(s) would
construct paths when the county approved these easements?
c) When developer abandoned Phase 2, "Open Space C" and established in its place residential Lot 118 (per Book
91, Page 22) did county require or did developer provide an impact analysis on the pedestrian path system
which has an easement terminating at this location?
d) Will Orange County allow Developer(s).to proceed with activities in other Phases (e.g. Phase IIB and Phase IV)
despite Developer(s) failure to construct promised paths along path easements in Phases I, II, and III?
e) What is the date by which Orange County expects Developer(s) to construct promised paths along path
easements in Phases I, II, and III?
f) What is the date by which Orange County expects Developer(s) to construct linkages between promised paths
along path easements and promised paths within Pedestrian Open Space Areas and/or Passive and Active
Recreation Areas?
31. Trash Rece tacles Not Provided At Recreation Facilities
a) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that trash receptacles have been provided at each of the recreation
facilities (i.e. swimming pool, tennis court, basketball court, tot lot) as required in Orange County Ordinance
46-79(b)4 which specifies that anchored "trash receptacles shall be provided for all recreational areas regardless
of the number and type of other improvements located thereon?"
b) What remedy does Orange County propose if, in fact, it is the case that the Developer constructed .this
community facility in violation of the standards set forth in Orange County Ordinance 46-79b(4)?
c) Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that Phase IV Development can continue per Condition 37 of the
Special Use Permit in light of the fact that this Phase II amenity has not yet been completed?
34
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
32. Non Compliant Developer Sisnase Along St. Marv's Road
Is it the legal opinion of Orange County that the sign erected by Newland Communities at the entrance to Churton
Grove along St. Mary's Road, which sign contains 64 square feet of sign area (32 square feet times 2-sided sign), is
in compliance with all sections of Orange County Ordinances concerning Zoning and Signs (Chapter 50, Article
~?
33. Path Connections Between Braddock Park and Churton Grove
_a) What is Orange County's expectation regarding the incomplete path which runs along the path easement
originating at the intersection of Hadfield Street and Phase 2, Lot 92 heading roughly west toward Scotswood
Blvd?
b) Does Orange County have an expectation that Developer(s) will comply with Sec. 50-204(3)b3 of Orange
County Ordinances which requires that "walkways in the PD-H district shall form a logical...and convenient
system for pedestrian'access to all...project facilities and principal off-site pedestrian destinations?"
c) Does Orange County have a landscaping plan or other commitment from Developer(s) to dedicate a portion
along the eastern most boundary of the parcel with the legal description "COMMON-FUTURE BRA.DDOCK
PARK" (PIN #9874696944} toward the construction of a logical pedestrian tie in to the existing path located
between Lot 89 and Lot 94 of Churton Grove Phase Il? (For reference: There is, at present, a makeshift path
along this route. It is not paved and, unless included on a landscape plan, maybe encroached upon by an
eventual dwelling structure. The existing makeshift path is in a logical location for'pedestrian access between
. Churton Grove and Braddock Park.)
34. Voiding Special Use Permit.
In light of the actual and potential: code violations of Orange County Ordinances by Developer(s) and in light of
failure, to date, of Developer(s) to abide by all the conditions of the Special Use Permit, what is the legal~opinion of
Orange County regarding the severability of the Special Use Permit according to Condition 45 and Orange County
Zoning Ordinances specified in Sec. 50-194?
35. Approved Modifications Requiring Board Approval
a) ~To the extent that any of the aforementioned items of concern resulted in approved deviations from Orange
County Ordinances or approved modifications of the Special Use Permit, is it the legal opinion of Orange
County that such deviations and/or modifications are allowable without action by the approving board
according to Sec.50-237?
b) Please comment on any approved modifications (per code) regarding items of especially high homeowner
concern including, but are not limited to:
i) Safety .
(1) Crosswalks
(2) Sidewalks at Recreation Areas
(3) Split Rail Fence At Retaining Wall
ii) Amenities
(1) Condition 27 of the Special Use Permit, Items a - h
(2) Pool Capacity
iii) Phased Sequencing -Condition 37 of the Special Use Permit
iv) Path Easements
io
35
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
Concerns Regarding Churton Grove Phase N
Some elements in Phase IV are still in the planning stages. The concems articulated below are based upon reviewing a
preliminary site plan prepared by Newland Communities. Some of these concerns may have been addressed in
subsequently revised site plans. To the extent they are not yet addressed Orange County should review the site plan with
these concerns in mind.
Newland Communities Site Plan (proposed) calls fora 3.83 acre parcel near Friendship Lane to be dedicated "Active
Recreation Space". The developer considers a proposed soccer field to accommodate the requirement for developed,
active recreation area.
1. Site Suitability of Proposed Recreation Parcel
a) Utility Easement -The western boundary of the proposed parcel is encumbered by a utility easement with
existing high-tension power lines. This is in violation of Orange County Ordinance 46-79 b(3) governing site
suitability which states that "active recreation areas shall be located on land that is...free of easements for
public utility transmission lines."
b) Wetlands - A significant portion of the northern portion of the parcel exists within a wetlands buffer. This is in
violation of Orange County Ordinance 46-79 b(3) governing site suitability which states that "active recreation
areas shall be located on land that is...free of wetlands and/or floodplains:'
c) Parking -The proposed plat indicates 10 parking spaces. This is in violation of Orange County Ordinance 46-
79 b(4) governing site improvements. According to the ordinance, a 3.83 acre parcel containing a soccer field
must have 37 parking spaces provided on land "in addition to land provided or dedicated for active recreational
purposes."
d) Soccer Field Size -The soccer field on the proposed plat has a size of 120 x 240 feet. This is in violation of
Orange County Ordinance 46-79b(4) which specifies that private recreational soccer fields within subdivision
shall have a width of 195 to 225 feet by a length of 300 to 360 feet with 10 feet minimum clearance on all sides.
2. Acreage of Proposed Recreation Parcel
a) To the extent the Site Suitability concems indicated above are valid, the inclusion of the entirety of the 3.83
acre parcel as Active Recreation Area is called into question (due to utility easement, wetlands, and
requirements for parking).
b) Furthermore, in light of the concerns raised regarding the actual acreage of active recreation area in Phase II
there is a serious question as to whether the terms of Special Use Permit Condition 27a and 27b are being met
even with the inclusion of all 3.83 acres of the proposed recreation area.
3. Lack of Connecting Paths
a) The Phase IV parcel on which the proposed soccer field will be sited is approximately 2,900 feet distant from
the existing Phase 2 Active Recreation parcel. Orange County Ordinance 46-79b(3b) stipulates that "land
dedicated for recreational purposes shall be a single parcel except where it is determined that two or more
parcels are suited to the needs of a particular subdivision." Given the distance between the two parcels a
dedicated connecting path of between 30 and 50 feet in width should be required for pedestrian access between
the two Active Recreation Areas: The dedicated path should be provided in addition to the land dedicated to
recreation in the Special Use Permit and in Orange County Ordinance 46-79b(2).
b) Furthermore, Sec. 50-204(3)b3 of Orange County Ordinances requires that "walkways in the PD-H district shall
form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to all...project facilities and principal off-site
pedestrian destinations...Walkways to be used by substantial numbers of children as play areas or routes
to...other destinations shall be so located and safeguarded as to minimize contacts with normal automotive
36
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
traffic. If substantial bicycle traffic is anticipated, bicycle paths shall be coordinated with the walkway system.
Street crossings shall be held to a minimum on such walkways, shall be located and designed to promote safety,
and shall be appropriately marked and otherwise safeguarded."
4. Reuuired Cross Walk Locations on East and West Hatterlei~h
In light of the proposed location for the Phase N Active Recreation Area it is critical to anticipate the cross walk
needs for pedestrians and bike riders, especially children who will be primary users of the Active Recreation Area.
This is especially important in light of the curved nature of the major thoroughfare that must be traversed at least
twice when walking~from the Phase II Active Recreation Area to the proposed location of the Phase IV Active
Recreation Area.
5. Li~htin~ to Be Provided at Active Recreation Areas
Per Special Use Permit Condition 27b there should be adequate night lights for safety and security provided at both
proposed Active Recreation Areas (i.e. soccer field and tot lot).
6. Li~htin~ Alone Sidewalks
Developer installed light poles should be placed so as to make maximum use of the illumination along pedestrian
sidewallcs. Locating light poles on the side of the street opposite sidewalks decreases the usefulness of the light pole
toward fulfilling the purpose and intent articulated in Sec. 50167.
7. Play~round Equipment
a) The playground equipment provided and all amenities (benches, picnic areas, etc.) should comply with EPA
guidelines and should not include lumber treated with CCA.
b) Shaded areas should be provided as specified in the Special Use Permit (Condition 27b)
8. Soccer Field
a) Size and orientation in accordance with 46-79b(4).
b) . Eliminate excessive slopes surrounding field to prevent errant sports equipment (i.e. soccer balls, Frisbees, etc.)
from rolling into woods or streets
c) Shaded structures should be provided in close proximity.
d) Picnic areas should be provided in close proximity.
e) Suitable imgation to be provided.
iz
37
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
General Developer Concerns
1. Substandard Quality and/or Installation of Pool Equipment
In 2007 the Churton Grove HOA spent approximately $8000 to replace components of the pool pump and ducting
system. This is apparently not the first pump that had has to be replaced in the three year history of the pool. The
root cause of the problems appears to be the Developer's installation of inadequately sized pumps and ducts that
were too small to handle the pool volume. Unfortunately, to date, there has been no attempt to recover the cost of
repairs from either the Developer or pool installer.
2. Substandard Quality of Irri>7ation Equipment
The community has had some. issues with. providing adequate irrigation at v_,aripus landscaping, sites ,~e.g., entry.
monuments, clubhouse recreation area). The root causes of some of the problems appear to be the Developer's
installation of inadequately sized irrigation pumps. The cost to date to the HOA is unknown.
3. Inadequate Landscapin>? at Churton Grove Main Entrance
The landscaping at the entrance of the neighborhood (St. Mary's Road) is inadequate. A combination of the
inadequate irzgation equipment (see above) along with failure of Developer to install irrigation in some locations,
along with the failure of Developer to properly maintain the landscaping has resulted in an eyesore at the main
entrance to the neighborhood. The HOA has attempted to repair some of the damage. The HOA is currently unable
to afford to repair problem in its entirety.
4. Failure to Provide Two Tennis Courts
The AMENTIES AGREEMENT that exists between the HOA and CHURTON GROVE LLC specifies that
CHURTON GROVE LLC will provide two tennis courts. To date only one has been provided.
5. Bicycle Racks
Developer had committed (perhaps on a landscaping plat7) to provide a bicycle rack in the clubhouse vicinity. To
date the bicycle rack has not been provided.
6. Inadequate Landscaping at Braddock Park Entrance
The landscaping all along the North Scotswood entrance to the neighborhood is inadequate. No fiuther information
regarding why it looks so bad. It is not clear what method of irrigation is intended for the landscaping in this
vicinity.
7. Workmanship Issues at Churton Grove Clubhouse
There are a number of workmanship defects that have become apparent at the clubhouse, including: broken kitchen
flooring; broken kitchen window; overly slick bathroom floors are a safety concern. Developer has not warranted
the work on this new structure.
13
38
~
O
U
m ~
N C
',~, p ~ c
~ ~ ~
~ ~ m ~ N
O - ~ LL
" m ~ a
~
d
~ t
6
¢
U ~
O _
mQ ~
N ~
N
b
~+
~'{
G
-~
-d
.~
0
`~'
~ o
•N ~
a~i
~ .d
CI•a .
N ~
o
U ~
CC
~1 _d
~
{
`4
O
~
y
• .~
ai
~
a
.~
°'
C~
~i ~
> :~ ~
~~1
l/ ~ •~
c ~
v
~ •v~
~
~
~ .
~
a>
v °'
~
.~
~, . ~
~
`n .~ o
V
~ '
~ y
O t3y
0
v
~
N ""'
~
~ ~ G
~ o
.
O
y .D ~.
~
°~ +.. w
a~ v
Q d' H ri:
p~ O O O ~ N
~ a o
p 00 O O O p0 O
O O ~t
O N TN'
V
r
(D M r7" CD M M O
U m N N r C~'? M M c0 N
~ N. ~- t[j CO O O N M O
n.~Q r
m
N r N N N N ~f' d'
m
L
m
0
[6
m
N
J
N
E
m
Z
N
O
W
°o
~ ~~°~
C7 O
ZZ OOZO o
~ ~
~ ~ T ~
T Z ~ -~
V V N N U •n ~
N
rN
d = N
daZ 4m--
` m
~ Q U] ~- a
~ r
Q Q V N
W
0
'
O
~ ~
}y
.
t~l1
Q Cn f!1 Z m
N d
N
L
LI
({J Q W W cc' G-
O~
OOH O
a O
n.
Q
W
Q
z
O
Q
V
W
w
V
4
W
i.~.
W
W
W
Q
W
Q
Q
0
H
Q
U
4
W
z ~ ~W~W
'S U U~U~
W J M J~ J U
~ _ ~ ~ OZOZOz
W WUW W (~9~(~7~~~
>Z`/
~ ~Z~ ~ p00000
U C4O(7 C7 ~-U~-UF-U
O O`~O O =Z=z=2
F- F-U{- E- U~U~U~
~ ~o~ ~
~ _~_ ~ a~a~d~
_ =cA= T ZWZWZW
U UQU U ZZZZZZ
~p M O) V'
Z r ~ O) O CO
n r CD V cY M
.
~
07 [O
i'~ ~ CO
N
V1
m
U ~~
r., h. ~~~
h- f~- r. Q
M M W M O O O
~ O) 07 01 m W ~ Q
0..
~ ~- N M d' tL7 t0 ti
G
H
~ y
\
•~ c1 F w
y
~
G G
C
O •
•
i-. v
c
i
of W Cp N i.. ¢.
.1] w^ap V
~
O ~~~
H
~
O
m N
O w
O N .
..
~
v
~ N ^ e
?C •O ~ •N O G
p O C
^
O~ ~~ O d d
p
w ~ .~ aKi y ~ ~ ' ~,
O O~ •
d O at 7 N
~ N 0. -0 N
t~
Q W y
y d ~
{Yi O
P
.
[
d
O O .S;
N ~ N C ~
b
~ ~ .
N
N
O ~' ~
• O.'O
• Y
•
,y
Q~ R M R R
n~+
N !
r
n
y H v ~ w
G
w p,..u .d
a
i
G v b O~ G ~
G ~ N N "[7 Q• O
07 N O N
w-
~ o o. o ~
y
O W
~ o
0
'G O
.b•ci ov m ~ c:° o
m e v o y~ 3~ ~'
F O b G q p
•~ ~. ~, b ~ ~ N y
z b
•
R. •Ly N .~,' ~.. 'N C
..O R N~ N ~.~'
J
O V _ N G.
O. O N
y
O v k ~ .a
C ~ W R,~ a~ °~
cC •° G
...
~ d ~ •~
G V
~ c b
a
a~wy
3•
'O ' O .N v
O V 0
N
N• V w. .~ O G O w n b
~ G' of N O ~
N •`-~ N C .D •_
N ~~, C1. ;
R
~ m ~ U ~ o N % d U
~- ~ r
° ~
v
^_ _~ ~ ao
r+
~ U i
y y.v
~ V' m
O.
m x O v
W ~~
• a. _ o o m rn
G r•
8 ~ ~_
•
•f? y, E c ~
y •N G ~
1"• y
~ ~? G
~ N
N
0.. .b. •X ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 0
w y
o ~ = a~
fn ~C. w v cct
C O S 00 U~ C u
.
~• O c
G
Q. v ,~ ~ Y 0
~ ~ G ~y
7
0 ~ .^~'' ~ R
N
~ ~ b ~~ C G (~ ~ G d
nn v
m
y U ~
m N w X •O O
y G
^O C.1 U
O G ?~ O ~.
A 4~ 3O O.
~
c u o x o 0 ~ ~ a~ ,°~•v'E v
0 3 m v= ~
4 o o .~. ~ m ,~.
• ~
a
~
to Z ~ ~'
°J ~ ~
a}i a~i w a~
~
b O ',~ c a
o
o
p =
m m o., ~ v ~o ~ ~ o °~' ~
(~,~ •O 4.. •,p •N •O ~ ....
~ C O
V
~' `
° O O
3 N
c
c
' c 3 3 N
c N
~.. N <+i cf• vi v.. r
0
z
~-
39
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
APPENDIX B -OPEN SPACE PH 1 CHURTON GROVE
GIS Image
To date no walking/hiking paths,
pedestrian bridges, or other creek side
amenities have been piovided as called
for in the Special Use Permit or in the
Amenities Agreement or in the
Newland Communities Promotional
Material
,:
Patceis
Parcel Information
PIN#: 9875915116
TMBL#: 4.66..60
TRACT#: 462074
Tax Account: 238226
Owner: CHURTON GROVE LLC
Additional Owner:
Mailing Address: 620 FAYETTEVILLE STE 104
Mailin Cit : DURHAM
Mailin State/Zi NC,27713
Legal Descri tion: OPEN SPACE PH 1 CHURTON GROVE
Le al Descri tion 2: P85/12
Assessed Land
Size:
A5.26
Rate Code: 0
Land Value: $2
Buildin Value: $0
Total Valuation: $2
~s
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
40
APPENDIX C -LEASE AREA PH 2 CIiURTON GROVE
GIS Image
Described as "Passive Recreation
~~ Area" in plat (Book 88, Page 80).
• However, this area is currently
completely inaccessible to pedestrians
and contains no wallcing or biking trails
as called for in the Special Use Permit.
Parcel Information
PIN#: 875815631
4.6.B.13A
TRACT#:
Tax Account: '~"T"~`
~ 87664
Street Address: 500 CHURTON GROVE BLVD
Owner: CHURTON GROVE HOMEOWNERS
Additional Owner: ASSOCIATION INC
Mailin Address: 5915 FARRINGTON RD STE 104
Mailing Cit :
Mailin State/Zi CHAPEL HILL
NC;27517
Legal Descri tion:
Leoal Description 2: LEASE AREA PH 2 CHURTON GROVE
P86/141
Assessed Land
Size: A16.13 -
Rate Code: 0
Land Value: $1,528
Buildin Value:- $4,067
Total Valuation: $56
Entire circled area (south of "Passive
Recreation Area") is described on
Plat (Book 88, Page 80) as `.`Active
Recreation Area" of 7.068 acres. It is
not possible for this .entire area to be
"Active Recreation Area",according
to county ordinance as portions of-the
area are within a flood plain or
stream buffer or too steeply sloped.
Additionally, significant portions of
parcel specified as active recreation
area are overgrown with trees,
underbrush, poison ivy, and the like
making the area completely
inaccessible to "active recreation"
activities.
Finally, a portion of the required
parking eincroaches on the Active
Recreation Area in violation of
county ordinance.
"L" shaped polygon is the estimated
Maximum possible Developed
Footprint for the Active Recreation
Area of 3.35 acres (146,000 square
feet) comprised of a 400' x 300'
rectangle plus a 200' x 130' rectangle
Actual available area for recreation is
likely even smaller considering site
contours and uncleared vegetation
16
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
APPENDIX D -OPEN SPACE A PH 2 CHURTON GROVE
GIS Image
T._____~ r__r .....,.s;,,~.
17
41
42
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
APPENDIX E -OPEN SPACE B PH 2 CHiTRTON GROVE
GIS Image
n ___....7 T.F ...,.,...fii, v.
43
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
APPENDIX F - RENL~INING A PH 2 CHURTON GROVE
GIS Image
Parcel Infarmatian
PIN#: 9875819384
TMBL#: 4.6C..59
TRACT#: 464817
Tax Account: 280397
Owner: NNP CHURTON GROVE LLC
Additional Owner: % NEWLAND COMMUNITIES
Mailin Address: 9820 TOWNS CENTRE DR
Mailin Ci SAN DIEGO
Mailing State2i CA,92121-1974
Le al Descri tion: REMAINING A PH 2 CHURTON GROVE
Le al Descri tion 2: P88/80
Assessed Land
Size:
A2.33
Rate Code: 0
Land Value: $1
Buildin Value: $0
Total Valuation: $1
19
44
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
APPENDIX G Phase N Proposed Recreational Parcel (Soccer).
NOTE: No GIS image or Parcel Information available as this is a proposed parcel.
Nevrland Communities Site Plan (proposed) calls fora 3.83 acre parcel near Friendship Lane to be
dedicated "Active Recreation Space". The developer considers a proposed soccer field to accommodate
part of the requirement for developed, active recreation area.
20
45
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
APPENDIX H = Phase N Proposed Recreational Parcel (Tot Lot)
NOTE: No GIS image or Parcel Information available as this is a proposed parcel.
Newland Communities Site Plan (proposed) calls fora .29 acre parcel along West Hatterleigh Avenue to be
a "Tot Lot".
w
2l
46
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
APPENDIX I Plat Maps 5howin;; Incomplete Walkways
Overview
Orange County Ordinances specify that:
1) "walkways in the PD-H district shall form a logical...and convenient system for pedestrian
access" and that "bicycle paths shall be coordinated with the walkway system.." Sec. 50-
204(3)b3
2) "The pedestrian circulation system shall be designed to ensure that pedestrians can walk
safely and easily on the site, between properties and activities or special features within the
neighborhood open space system. Roadside footpaths and off road trails shall connect with
each other and link with existing or potential open space on adjoining parcels." Sec. 46-82{fjl
The Special Use Permit specifies the following:
1) `Bicycle paths throughout"
2) "Along either side of Nancy Hill Creek, designate 100 ft. as open space/passive areas with
walking and hiking paths. Provide public walkways (to be part of the designated "open space
area") to these areas from both Graham Drive and Cameron Circle. Install bridges across the
cieek at either end and midway, in conjunction with the public walkways."
The present state of the paths and walkways in Churton Grove are not sufficiently connected or
coordinated. Given that many paths are not yet built the pedestrian system cannot be considered to exist
"throughout". Furthermore, none of the designated open spaces, passive recreation areas, and pedestrian
areas have the required pedestrian walk ways in place.
In the plat maps below the single line represents greenway/path easements on which asphalt paths have
been built. (Notwithstanding the fact that many paths are already in disrepair and do not meet code
requirements for minimum width and/or headway as specified in 46-79(b}4.)
In the plat maps below the polygons represent greenway/path easements on which no path has yet been
built. The large areas are open spaces in which pedestrian walkways are envisioned by ordinance and/or
Special Use Permit.
22
47
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
Phase .I
Path easements on which no
paths have been built
.~ ~~
~=~ ,~~ ..
:r` ~~t . ;
w I I~
I
s~ Iy
s,'~'.tr i~ ! R
z~i: r
Pedestrian Open Space with no pedestrian
paths as specified within Special Use
Permit. Additionally, bridges across
Nancy Hill Creek have not been provided.
:~~.:.~~: _~ ~ .~~ . ~~IslYl~l
M~
~ i ~ I~p[R1tM ~I"1
T- r. iI
' l
a~~
.~1
~. T2~ ~'i-r.M ~~i ~'~ M
W
E
-n ~ "~r~^t~`
^~,.,,,,.. LF ppy ~,,,...^ I
L.w3
~~ .+
..tee ~
~ -
^ ~
e raa ~ ~ a ~ ~sx.
cw.rwc lsne
Asphalt paths do exist as planned;
however, note following:
• Some paths do not connect to
anything
• Paths are not to code regarding
width and sufficient head
clearance
• ,Paths are in disrepair in many
places despite being recently
built
23
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
Phase II
Path easements on which no
paths have been built
!i ~ ~~ ~ y
t r
~ 1 a
/•i
!
~
~
~ ~F,#
' :rte' .
~
~' , ~E.
t~
Y
`
~ L9lII M
~
~ ,,t
~Z aw. w
~ l~~{
_....
\ !
A~
~
•
pp44 R yy!!qq K.
• , =` ¢~ y
~,~ ' i ^.^1' Y ~PD M..o
~ ~
L'
.'~4".~
w rte, r ~ ~C. ~~~
ma
„ x. _ grit ._.. ,'bir ~
.... ~
~c~ ~
r
~
s
~
'
-
g
.
~
~
.
a~i:.ekn~w <_v e...
~
prN
"~,
--
-+
--
~
s~ -
7
„ a
~..~e
k
Path tie in between Churton
Grove and Braddock Park
does not exist; path entry
from Braddock Park
(Bartlett Circle) is an issue
48
"Passive Recreation Area" with no
pedestrian paths as specified within Special
Use Permit. Additionally, bridges across
Nancy Hill Creek have not been provided.
~~'~ t'~,1 ~1,,
Q 'Tl y
` ~ v
~~
.~ ., T~ Y.;,, pgtt
,.
Asphalt paths do exist as planned;
however, note following:
• Some paths do not connect to
anything
• . Paths are not to code regarding
width and sufficient head
clearance
• Paths are in disrepair in many
places despite being recently
built
Za
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
Phase III
Path easements on which no
._~___ paths have been built
..~.~..r' ~ ACS.: -.LCGS .~- Etl.OP w`~Xi. C..`.~w~
=~.. ~
~~ ~M 5 1
~°~~W i ~
~ ~~-
~••-
~yS,W MWOI
e
~~
~.
~~
`1 £f
:.r~,~. -~ ~".~' ~~ ~ Jai .~ ; ~
~cAass~"~ . ~ ~:
'L:~4iQ'o."~'i ~ fie,+. °~ '\ ~~ ~ ~
~~
49
"Passive Recreation Area" with no
pedestrian paths as specified within Special
Use Permit. Additionally, bridges across
Nancy Hill Creek have not been provided.
y~ ~~ ..
.~
~~
x~
~E
III
25
Developer Concerns At Churkon Grove
APPENDIX J -Photos
A few examples of walkways that abruptly end.
A makeshift crossing of a ditch poses a safety hazard.
50
26
.. 51
Developer Concerns At Churkon Grove
A few (of many) examples of wallcways in disrepair. These walkways are only a few
years old.
Path not proper width;
overgrowth, including
poison ivy, on path
a~
Walkways not proper width and do not allow enough headroczm for pedestrians or
bicyclists.
52
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
Metal drainage grate in the
middle of the Churton Grove
children's play area and sports
field
zs
53
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
An example of the "Active
Recreation Area" that, although
not in a flood plain, is
completely inaccessible to any
type of active or passive
recreation activity due to
excessively slope and/or
overgrowth
Another example of land that is
counted as acreage with the __
"Active Recreation Area." The
picture shows an excessive
slope along with weeds that are
6-8 feet high.
29
54
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
Braddock Park landscaping along
Scottswood Blvd; a major entry to
Churton Grove and the only entry .
to Braddock Park
Note:
® indadequate irrigation for
plantings
® monoculture landscape will
likely pose problems for
future plant health
30
55
Developer Concerns At Churton Grove
.APPENDIX K -Newland Communities Promotional Material
The following screen shot is from http:J/www.churtongrovenc.com/amenities.htliil from
early September, 2007.
A sampling of the mane amenities featured at Churton Grode:
• Wooded half-acre homesites
• Olympic-sized pool and fully furnished clubhouse
• Tennis and basketball courts
• Parks and playgrounds
• '
• T e serene Nancy Hi Cree ,comp ete w o -.
borders
• Fine and casual dining, shopping, and the Hillsborough Historic District, all
within blocks '
•. Easy access to UNC, Duke Universitq, and Research Triangle Park
The fact that Newland Communities refers to non-existent "old-style bridges" and
"greenbelt borders" near Nancy Hill Creek is prima facie evidence that Newland
Communities expects to provide such amenities
31
Page 5 6
Robert Davis
From: Craig Benedict
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 11:05 AM
To: .Robert Davis
Subject: FW: Churton Grove
fyi
From: Barry .7acobs [mailto:Barry.J@mindspring.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 7:50 PM
To: Craig Benedict
Subject: FW: Churton Grove
fyi
From: Bryan Hampton [mailto:brypa93@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 5:50 PM
To: mcareyi@mindspring.com; barry.j@mindspring.com; vfoushee@co.orange.nc.us;
gordonam@mindspring.com; mikenelsonnc@aol.com; Iblackmon@co.orange.nc.us
Subject: Churton Grove
Hello,
I.am a resident of Orange County residing in Churton Grove and the purpose for my communication
with you is to share my concerns regarding the completion of the development. Milce Bucic presented to
you a collection of resident concerns regarding current projects, incomplete or faulty past projects, and
problematic future plans for Churton Grove. From personal interactions with the developers and county
planners I can say without a doubt that if these problems are to be rectified, phase 4 should not be
allowed to open or they will never be corrected. The county planners have failed to enforce the tenets of
the special permit, but by limiting expansion, the current developer will be motivated to correct current
problems, and more importantly, they will supply the needed influence on the past developer to finish
his contracted projects.
I would like to echo the concerns that Mike Buck raised and urge you to respond to his questions prior
to the sale of lots from the final phase of construction in the development (phase 4). Timing is of the
essence since the strongest motivator for the developers to complete past contracted projects is to require
their completion prior to moving forward with the last phase. The power of this influence was
recognized from the inception of the development and the reason for its requirement in the original
special use permit.
To date there are still many projects that remain unfinished from the first and second phases, which
demonstrates that if the projects are not completed before moving on to the next phase, they will not be
completed or move at a snails pace over years of prodding. I hold the county planners responsible to a
great extent for this by allowing many important and obvious safety issues to be overlooked and not
applying the pressure they have at their disposal to require contracted projects to be completed.
I have personally contacted Robert Davis and Craig Benedict at least a dozen times in the past 9 months
to ask that they require the developers past (Jim Moore) and present (Newland) to act on unfinished
contracted projects and obvious safety problems that were negligently overlooked during
Page 5 7
construction. They have failed to act despite promises to do so. They stated that if Jim Moore did not
finish his projects by the end of summer they would consider liquidating his bond money to pay to have
them done. Fall is in the air and nothing is done. When I contacted the developers they merely point the
fingers at one another. This reinforces the need to disallow phase 4 until projects are completed.
The safety issues I am speaking of are not minor. They include a 9ft retaining wall with just a split rail
fence prevented children from falling (in a development where split rail isn't allowed by any one else)
and the glaring deficit of having the highest pedestrian traffic area, the pool and clubhouse, not have a
crossing, sidewalk or even a clear and logical place to cross, yet it is the widest and busiest street in the
development. The excuse given was the path that starts out of nowhere and goes nowhere that is 50 feet
from the corner down a grade which is steep enough that the highway dept stated they would not paint a
crosswallc on it there because motorists would be unable to see the pedestrian until too late. After
arriving at the clubhouse residents can not see because of no lights despite a county code requiring such
lighting at recreation areas. The HOA has now had to purchase these lights for tens of thousand of
dollars that Jim Moore should have had placed there initially.
I appreciate your time and once again would encourage you to please use your influence to protect the
interests of the residents of Churton Grove by following the special use permit stipulation of not
allowing the next/last phase from going forward until these issues are resolved.
Sincerely,
Bryan Hampton
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! -their life, your story.
Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
Page 5 8
Robert Davis
From: John Michos-Yahoo [ncmichos@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 3:11 PM
To: editorial@newsoforange.com
Subject: Churton Grove Development
Being a Churton Grove resident, 1 have the following concerns about the development.
Since the developer is about to enter the last phase of building, I think it is important to
have all these issues addressed before further deveopment progresses. Promises were
made to the residents of Churton Grove and they need to be fulfilled. 1 hope as a county
representative, you look out for our interests and keep Orange County known for all
the good things it has done.
John Michos
618 Churton Grove Blvd., Hillsborough, NC
Sa, fety Concerns
1. Required lighting not provided in active recreation area
2. No Pedestrian cross walks across Churton Grove Boulevard near clubhouse
3. No Sidewalks on Clubhouse property
4. Unprotected tall retaining wall.
5. Open sewer pipes
6. CCA treated lumber at tot lot
7. Metal drainage grate in play area
Missing Amenities
l . Walking paths -only 1.05 miles of 2.35 miles of paths have been built in phases I, II and III
2. Creek trails--walking/riding paths along both sides of Nancy Hill Creek
3. Pedestrian bridges--two pedestrian bridges one at either end on Nancy Hill Creek
4. Waking paths--only 1.05 miles of the 2.35 miles of path have been built in phases I-III
5. Inadequate amount of open space and recreation area
6. Second tennis court
7. Picnic tables
8. Grills
9. Picnic shelter
10. Bicycle rack at clubhouse
11. Shade structure at tot lot
12. No play area for elementary and middle school children (to age 14)
13. Recreation facilities in Braddock Park
Landscaping
Page 5 9
1. Unsightly bare spots along St. Mary's Road
2. Unsightly bare spots along Churton Grove Blvd at St. Mary's
3. Irrigation never installed along Churton Grove Blvd at St. Mary's entrance
4. Braddock Park development
.................
5. Landscaping plan along North Scotswood Blvd
Phase IV Concerns
1. Site suitability of proposed recreation Parcel (i.e. high tension power lines and wetlands)
2. Inadequate acreage of proposed recreation parcel does not meet SUP requirements
3. Connecting paths as required when amenities are separated
4. Require cross walk locations on new streets (East and West Hatterleigh )
5. Lighting at Active Recreation Areas
6. Lighting Along Sidewallcs
7. Playground Equipment
8. Soccer field -ensure size, include goals, and require irrigation plan
Past Issues
1. Pool Inadequately Sized for Build Out of 800 Families
2. Poor quality and/or installation of pool equipment (i.e. $8000 pool pump and duct replacement)
3. Failure to complete phase elements prior to starting new phases
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Checlc it out.
Page 6 0
Robert Davis
From: redfred1@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:07 PM
To: mcarey1 @mindspring.com; barry.j@mindspring.com; Valerie Foushee;
gordonam@mindspring.com; mikenelsonnc@aol.com; Laura Blackmon; ggledhill@cghp-law.com;
Craig Benedict; Robert Davis
Subject: Violations of Orange County Municipal Codes and/or Special Use Permit Conditions
I hope there is some way that yorr can help rrs with these issues at our Churtorr Grove community
before the developer completes lais final phase arzd doesn't comply with the issues listed below.
Thank you for your time and consideratio~z...
Fredrick J. DeGroff
100 Cobalt Ridge
Claurton Grove
Violations of Orange County Municipal Codes and/or Special Use Permit Conditions
1. Sequencing and. Timing for Constructing Churton Grove and Braddock Park
2. Non Satisfactory Completion of Phase I, II, and III Elements
3. Inadequate Amount of Open Space
4. Use of Off Site Conservation Areas to Meet Open Space Requirements
5. Pool Inadequately Sized for Build Out of 800 Families
6. No Lighting In Active Recreation Area
7. No Lighting of Sidewallcs Along North Scotswood Boulevard
8. Incorrect Acreage Identified as Active Recreation
9. Existing Parking Spaces Encroach on Active Recreation Area Acreage
10. Insufficient Active Recreation Parking Spaces Provided
11. Incorrect Acreage Identified as Passive Recreation (As Currently Developed)
12. Designated Passive Recreation Parcel Not In Compliance (Special Use Permit)
13. No Pedestrian Crossing of Churton Grove Blvd
14. No Sidewalks On Active Recreation Area Parcel
15. Split Rail Fence At Top of Retaining Wall Is A Safety Hazard
16. No Shade Provided at Tot Lot
17. No Play Area for Elementary and Middle School Children Through Age 14
18. Playground Includes Lumber With Carcinogenic Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA)
19. Metal Drainage Grate In Play Area Is Safety Hazard
20. No Picnic Area In Churton Grove
21. No Recreation Facilities In Braddock Parlc
22. Developer Provided Asphalt Walking Paths Not To Code
23. Developer Provided Basketball Court Not To Code
24. Designated Pedestrian Open Space Parcel Not In Compliance (POSH)
25. Designated Pedestrian Open Space Parcel Not In Compliance (Acrive/Passive Recreational Area)
26. Designated Pedestrian Open Space Parcel Not In Compliance (Special Use Permit)
27. Inadequately Connected Open Space and Recreation Areas
28. No Pedestrian and Landscaped Common Areas Iu Commercial Area
29. Workmanship and/or Safety Concerns on Existing Walking and Biking Paths
30. Incomplete Wallcing and Biking Paths
31. Trash Receptacles Not Provided At Recreation Facilities
32. Non Compliant Developer Signage Along St. Mary's Road
33. Path Connections Between Braddock Park and Churton Grove
34. Voiding Special Use Permit
35. Approved Modifications Requiring Board Approval
10/17/2007
Page 61
Robert Davis
From: Mark S [svolander@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 6:18 PM
To: mcarey1 @mindspring.com; barry.j@mindspring.com; Valerie Foushee;
gordonam@mindspring.com; mikenelsonnc@aol.com; Craig Benedict; Robert Davis; Laura
Blackmon; ggledhill@cghp-law.com; mchael.buck@aperon.net; pamelabalance@yahoo.com
Subject: Developer Concerns at Churton Grove (Summary)
Moses Carey Jr.,
Below please find a list of concerns recently presented to the Board by Michael Buck, resident of Churton Grove
Community, in Hillsborough, NC.
I am writing to inquire as to the status of your response to these concems. I believe it is imperative that the developers
finish the elements of Phases I, II, and III before continuing with Phase IV. Please explain the timeframe you
are expecting the developers to adhere to regarding the resolution of these issues. It is also important for the
county to be vigilant regarding the amenities and safety issues in Phase IV as well. Prior to release of Phase IV is
the time to hold the developers accountable for the remedies that must be taken. At this moment there is financial
leverage. I trust the Board will take appropriate and timely action.
As a taxpayer, voter, resident, and active voice in the Churton Grove Community, I look forward to a response by
November 1st.
Thank you and best regards,
Mark Schultz
622 Churton Grove Blvd
Hillsborough, NC 27278
919-241-3468
SUMMARY OF CHURTON GROVE DEVELOPER CONCERNS
Safety Co~zcer~is
A. Required lighting not provided in active recreation area
B. No Pedestrian cross walks across Churton Grove Boulevard near clubhouse
C. No Sidewallcs on Clubhouse property
D. Unprotected tall retaining wall
E. Open sewer pipes
F. CCA treated lumber at tot lot
G. Metal drainage grate in play area
Missi~ag Ame~zities
A. Walking paths -only 1.05 miles of 2.35 miles of paths have been built in phases I, II and III
B. Creek trails -walking/riding paths along both sides of Nancy Hill Creek
C. Pedestrian bridges -two pedestrian bridges -one at either end of Nancy Hill Creek
D. Inadequate amount of open space and recreation area
E. Second tennis court
F. Picnic tables
G. Grills
10/17/2007
Page 6 2
H. Picnic shelter
I. Bicycle rack at clubhouse
J. Shade structure at tot lot
K. No play area for elementary and middle school children (to age 14)
L. Recreation facilities in Braddock Park
Larrdscapi
A. Unsightly bare spots along St. Mary's Road
B. Unsightly bare spots along Churton Grove Blvd at St. Mary's
C. Irrigation never installed along Churton Grove Blvd at St. Mary's entrance
D. Braddock Park development
E. Landscaping plan along North Scotswood Blvd
Phase IV Concerns
A. Site suitability of proposed recreation Parcel (i.e. high tension power lines and wetlands)
B. Inadequate acreage of proposed recreation parcel does not meet SUP requirements
C. Connecting paths as required when amenities are separated
D. Require cross walls locations on new streets (East and West Ilatterleigh)
E. Lighting at Active Recreation Areas
F. Lighting Along Sidewallcs
G. Playground Equipment
H. Soccer field -ensure size, include goals, and require irrigation plan
Past Isszres
A. Pool Inadequately Sized for Build Out of 800 Families
B. Poor quality and/or installation of pool equipment (i.e. $8000 pool pump and duct replacement) .
C. Failure to complete phase elements prior to starting new phases
Orange County Cornrrrissioners
Moses Carey, Jr. (Chair)
Barry Jacobs (Vice Chair)
Valerie Foushee
Alice Gordon
Mike Nelson
Orange County Manaser
Laura Blackmon
Orange County Attorney
Geoff Gledhill
mcareyl cr,mindspring.com
barry_ j ~mindspring.com
vfoushee(c~,co.oran eg nc.us
gordonam~nundspring com
mikene 1 s onnc ~ ao 1. c oin
lblackmon(a~co.oran eg nc.us
ggledhill(a,cahp-law.com
Orange County Planning Department
Craig Benedict cbeuedict a,co.orange.nc.us
10/17/2007
BO~t{ ~ i Oi:~ Ptil.t, ~O ~ 6 3
Return to: Geoff E. Gledhill @ Coleman, Gledhill & Hargrave
COUNTY OF ORANGE
ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned property ownerPs:OJohn
W. Graham et ux Elisabeth M. Graham and A.H. Graham, Jr. et ux Laura P. Graham,
Box 51579, Durham, North Carolina 27717-1579, having applied to Orange County for a
Special Use Permit for the use and de~nl~a e~t0o198~'Phe to ms of which are asbf Glows:
same was granted by Orange County y
NAME OF PROJECT: Scotswood
TYPE OF SPECIAL U5E: Class A Special Use Permit for a Planned Development
NAME OF DEVELOPERS: John W. Graham and A.H. Graham, Jr.
DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES
LOCATION: Along the north side of Highway 70 Bypass and St. Mary's Road (SR
1002) northeast of the Town of Hillsborough:
Tp~.~AP REFERENCE: Hillsborough Township, Tax Map 6, Block B, Lots 3 and 4
Hillsborough Township, Tax Map 22, Black A, Lot 17
AREA OF PROPERTY: 290 03acr s zoned PD H R52
10.43 acres zoned PD-C-GC4
DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES:
BEING all of those certain tracts or parcels of land located in Hillsborough Township, Orange
County, North Carolina, and being more particularly described as follows:
Tract No. 1: -.~ ~ , a ~. °~g 1S -~ ~ - ~,3 a2.
PIN 9875-52-3894 >~-,(~ ~.
TAX MAP NO. 4.6.B.3 '
-~r.3=~1B~y--~B-SSS
~, ate.. A • 1-1
~~
BEGINNING at a stake in the Northeast inteshown onr lat of 1Hillcrest as hereinafter refereed
Hillsborough County Road (Miller Road) as P
to, and running thence with East side of saidEast 146.40e a to a sta O„ o the East40de of ,
thence with said road North 07 deg. 08 00 ,
64
eooK~L~~9 ~;:r~~i~~
said road; thence leaving the road South 84 deg. 30' East 133 feet to a stake; thence South 76
deg. 55' 00" East 133.60 feet to a point near the branch; thence with the branch North 81 deg.
39' 28" East 400 feet to a cedar stake and pointers near the branch; thence South 3 deg. West
with the West line of A.H. Graham (formerly) 339.75 feet to a stake, Northeast corner of Lot
No. 48 in Block C as shown on said map; thence with the North line of Lot 48 South 88 deg.
25' 00" West 291.00 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 48 and on the East side of Greentree
Drive; thence with the East side of Greentree Drive North 01 deg. 35' 00" West 60 feet to a
point on the north side of Woodlawn Drive; thence with the North side of said Woodlawn
Drive South 88 deg. 25 00 West 360.00 feet to a~ stake at the Northeast intersection of
Woodlawn Drive and County Road (Miller Road), the place of BEGINNING, the abo 1956
description containing 4.16 acres, mare or less, conveyed by deed dated September 4,
from Henry C. Miller, Jr. and wife Ruth C. Miller, to T.O. Styers, recorded in Deed Book
160 at page 431, and a tract containing 12,000 square feet, more or less, conveyed by deed
dated August 1, 1956 from Henry C. Miller, Jr. and wife to R.A. Faucette, recorded in Deed
Book 159 at page 497, Orange County Registry.
The above described property being shown as the northern portion of Block C north of
Woodlawn Drive and East of County Road on the map of Hillcrest Subdivision as per survey
recorded in Plat Book 6 at page 43, and being the identical property conveyed to Thomas Foy
Styers, (now deceased), and wife el8le ~raH-e County Regedryom T. O. Styers et al
recorded in Deed Book 163 at pag g
Tract No. 2:
PIN 9875-71-6322
TAX MAP NO. 4.6.B.4
BEGINNING at an iron stake located at the intersection of the property line on the North side
of St. Mary's Road with the property line on the east side of Second Street as per plat and
survey hereinafter referred to, and running thence with the east line of Second Street North 16
deg. 54' 00".West 755.84 feet to a stake; thence with the property line on the north side of
Carolina Avenue as per said survey South 73 deg. 06' 00" West, 1470.00 feet to a stake, the
beginning of a curve; thence further with the property line on the northwesterly side of
Carolina Avenue as the same extends in a southwesterly direction along a counterclockwise
arc with radius of 464.96 feet, a distance of 426.58 feet to a stake; thence with the
northwesterly side of Carolina Avenue South 20 deg. 32' 00" West 724.62 feet to a stake, the
point of intersection of the northwest side of Carolina Avenue with the north side of St.
Mary's Road; thence with the north side of 5t. Mary's Road South 74 deg. 45' 00" West
48.80 feet to a stake in the northeasterly right of way line of U.S. Highway 70; thence with
the northwesterly right of way line of U.S. Highway 70 as the same extends in a
northwesterly direction, along a counterclockwise arc with radius of 5904.76 feet, a distance
of 759.36 feet to a concrete monument; thence North 03 deg. 32' 16" East 559.04 feet to a
concrete monument; thence North O1 deg. 42' 00" East 210.10 feet to an iron stake; thence
with the east line of "Hillcrest Subdivision," as per Plat Book 7 at page 32, Orange County
Registry, North 03 deg. 00 00 East 3149.07 feet to an iron on the bank of a creek; thence
along a marked line, the southwesterly line of Miller as per the plat hereinafter referred to,
South 63 deg. 34' 30" East, 2638.63 feet to an iron at or near the point of intersection of the
center lines of a creek and an old road; thence along and with the center line of said old road,
soon ~`~n9 p,:r~E ~~3 6 5
being an easterly line of Miller, North 32 deg. 02' 20" East 2156.02 feet to a motor scraper
blade in the center of said old road; thence slang a marked line South 81 deg. 40' 45" East,
967.55 feet to an iron stake, located immediately North of the north property line of State
Raad #1561; thence, crossing the State Raad 1561, South 02 deg. 53' S4" West 3506.34 feet
thence slang
to an iron stake in the property line on the northerly side of St. Mary's Road;
and with the northerly line of St. Mary's Raad the follawing caurses and distances: South 59
deg. 48' 00" West 336.62 feet to a stake, the beginning of a curve; thence further with said
northerly right of way line of St. Mary's Raad as the same extends in a southwesterly
direction slang a clockwise arc with radius of 1553.04 feet a distance of 285.51 feet to a
stake; thence with said road Sauth 70 deg. 20' 00" West, 928.43 feet to a stake, the beginning
of a curve; thence further with the northerly line of said St. Mary's Raad as the same extends
in a westerly direction slang a clockwise arc with radius of 4656.85 feet a distance of 199.13
feet to a stake; thence further with the nartherly side of said St. Mary's Raad South 72 deg.
47' 00" West 16.05 feet to the paint of Beginning, containing 326.50 acres, more or less, all
as shown with more particularity on plat and survey entitled "Property of A.H. Graham," by
Credle Engineering Company dated April 4, 1973, recorded in Plat Boak 21 at page 71,
Orange County Registry, together with. and including all right, title and interest which the
parties of the first part, or either of them, have or may have in or with respect to the areas
within the rights of way of Carolina Avenue, First Street, Second Street and State Road 1561,
all as shown on plat and survey of record in Plat Baak 21.at page 71. Reference is also
hereby made to survey of recard in Plat Baak 4 at page 64, Orange County Registry, entitled
"Eastwaad: '
Tract No. 3:
PIN 9874-68-5856
TAX MAP NO. 4.22.A.17
BEING all of that certain tract or parcel of land known as a part of Lat 10, according to plat
of survey entitled "Map Showing Bloc e 64f Oran e Caunty RegisCyetaewhE~h p atdreference
1948, and recorded in Plat Baak 4, Pag g
is hereby made for a more particular description.
5PECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The Baard of Commissioners of Orange County approved granting a CLASS A SPECIAL
USE PERMIT far a Planned Development a a da shown oS6the Scotswoad S to Plan prepared
SPECIAL USE PERMIT is desenhed shave
by The Jahn R. McAdams Company, Inc. dated October 1985 and revised January 2, 1986.
Scotswood proposed 410 single family latsrciale omDlex Ronedl PD CCGC4 i1 The terms herein
PD-H-RS and a 65,460 square toot eomme P
contained are binding on the present owners and lessees and their successors in title and in
interest, until such time as the praject herein described or the canditions herein are otherwise
changed by government action.
When this Special Use Permit was appraved an Ma `fie ~f~9ec~andition nu ber138 was added
unsure of its ability to provide water to the probe ,
600K ~~®~ PNGE ~~ 4
66
to the conditions of approval. "The rezoning and effective date of the special use permit shall
occur upon approval by the Water Resources Division of the N.C. Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development of a water allocation plan developed by and for the
Town of Hillsborough. Development of Scotswood shall occur pursuant to that plan."
The Eno River Management Plan Implementation Agreement was adopted on February 6,
1989 and on February 11, 1997, the Town of Hillsborough commenced its new reservoir
project by the recording of plats of the reservoir project.l9 ~ d Coinmen emen tt-y the Town
new reservoir project commenced on or about Apnl 25,
of Hillsborough of its new reservoir project together with the adoption of the Eno River
Management Plan Agreement satisfy condition number 38 and resolve the question of the
availability of water. The change in the zoning of the property and the special use permit
effective date are March 31, 1998, the date of recording of this special use permit.
The 410 single-family lots, the 216 multi-family units, and the 65,460 square foot commercial
complex shall be constructed in accordance with the Site Plan dated October 1985 and revised
January 2, 1986 and all commitments shall he as contained in the narrative statement of the
project all of which are incorporated herein da ~ ntation aref onlfi eP n the Orange County
Copies of the final site plan and supporting
Planning and Inspections Department. This Planned Development project is subject to the
following special conditions:
1. The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange County, in a form
acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the
cost of all public improvements plus 10%. The amount shall be determined on the
basis of fully executed construction contracts or certification by a registered engineer
employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit. Security for construction of the
improvements in this project may follow phasing in the project. Specifically, 'as
improvements are completed in each phase a corresponding amount of money may be
released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be re-negotiated
based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements.
2. Security shall be provided for the grading, paving and stabilization of all cleared areas,
streets and other vehicular travelways; sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways;
erection of street signs; utility installation and hookups; recreational facilities; and
landscaping.
3. All necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, telephone and cable television by
any cable television provider franchised by Orange County to serve this development)
installation, servicing and hookups to the development and to each unit within the
development shall be provided at no cost to the utility provider.
4. The grantee shall promulgate Articles of Incorporation governing tenancy in the
development and shall record a copy of the Articles of Incorporation and regulations
promulgated under this condition in the Orange County Registry of Deeds.
$. Roads, parking areas, walkways, street signs, utilities, recreation facilities and sites,
landscaping and mulching around multi-family units and commercial areas shall be
BOCK ~~~~ Pt;r,E ~~5
67
maintained as constructed. All such improvements and facilities shall further 'be
maintained and operated in a safe manner.
6. Left and right turn lanes shall be provided on St. Mary's Road at proposed Graham
Drive during the development of Phase I.
7. Graham Drive and Hamilton Way shall have a 60' right-of--way with a 41' paved cross
section.
8. Turn lanes to the east and west shall be constructed on Graham Drive at the
intersection with St. Mary's Road during the construction of Graham Drive during the
development of Phase L
9. Curb and gutter shall be provided along all street`s.
10. A sidewalk shall be provided o dicae ed at street intersect onsll streets in the PD-H-R2
zone with curb cuts for the han pp
11. Scotswood Boulevard shall have a 90 foot right-of-way, containing a 65 foot cross
section with 24 foot wide pavement widths and a 12 foot median.
12. Left turn lanes shall be installed on Scotswood Boulevard into the multi-family and
commercial areas during the development of Phase II-A:
13. The radii of the driveway off ScktSa cess aBnd shall be approved by the Zoning Officer
be reworked to allow easier truc
and shown on the revised site plan.
14. A cul-de-sac. shall be constructed at the southwestern end of Carolina Avenue during
the development of Phase I. The entrance on St. Mary's Road (SR 1002) shall be
closed by governmental action, which action shall be initiated upon the effective date
of this special use permit.
15.. A stubout to the western property line shall be prov~hed outhern cm'neroof Greentree
This stubout shall be located to connect drrectly to
Drive. The location of the stubout shall be approved by the Zoning Officer and shown
on the revised site plan.
16. Temporary turnarounds shall be provided at all stub-out streets.
17. A third turn lane shall be constructed along US 70 between St. Mary's Road and
Millcr Road (SR 1555) during the construction of Phase I.
18. Left turns onto or out of the southernmost entrancde to the commercial area shall be
restricted and only right turn movements permute
BODIt rL~~~ P~:[ ~ ~~ U
68
19 All rands shall be named and the names not duplicate any other names. within Orange
. County. Road name signs to Orange County standards shall be erected at all
intersections.
20 A 10-foot non-access easement shall be provided along the rear of the lots adjoining
. Carolina Avenue and Secand Street. This easement shall be labeled so as to prohibit
driveway or vehicular access anto Carolina Avenue and Secand Street.
21. Street lights approved by the Tawn of Hillsborough shall be installed throughout the
development as each phase develaps.
22 The lift station at the southeast section of the project (lift station #1) shall be of
. sufficient size, as determined by the Town of Hillsborough, to accommodate any
future connections by praperty awners along St. Mary's Road:
23 Prior to paving streets, utility service laterals shall be stubbed out to.the front property.
. lines of each lot. Sanitary sewer laterals shall be capped aff above ground.
24 All water and sewer lines shall be installed accarding to plans approved by the N.C.
. Department of Natural. Resources and Cammunity Development Division of
Environmental Management.
25. All water and sewer easements shall be shown on the site plan including easements to
ments shall be recorded before final
c
t d
u
a
adjoining praperty. All required easemen
plat approval.
26 The number and locatian of fire hydrants shall be approved by the Town of
. Hillsborough prior to the effective date of the special use permit.
21. The following recammendatians apply to the recreation area and facilities:
a. Provide a minimum
enispace area along Nancy HillThe
the o
d
l
i
p
e
u
nc
rea would
passive recreation a
Creek.
b, A minimum of seven (7) acres are to be developed for active recreational
purposes to include the following:
- Tat lodplaygraund area with play apparatus for children, ages
pre-Schaal to 14 (i.e., swings, slides, climber, whirl) and benches for
are to be provided within the tot
d
d
areas
e
adult supervision. Some sha
lat area.
- One full-length basketball caurt.
Picnic area which includes a small shelter with 3-4 tables, 5-7
individual picnic tables scattered throughout the woods with 1 trash
receptacle and 1 grill per 2 tables.
BDi1K ~ ~~~ o;'.GE 1~~ 69
Bicycle paths throughout.
- Open, grassed play area.
- Adequate night lights for safety and security reasons.
_ Appropriate landscaping.
c. Provide 10 parking spaces to serve the above activities within the 15 acre
recreation area.
d. Along either side of Nancy Hill Creek, designate 100 ft. as open space/passive
areas with walking and hiking paths. Provide public walkways (to be part of
the designated open space area") to these areas from both Graham Drive 'and
•Cameron Circle. Install bridges across the creek at either end and midway, in
conjunction with the public walkways. A pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle
easement shall be dedicated cote~7r-inous with the open space area.
e. Multi-family recreation facilities are to include an open grassed area and a
picnic area (i.e., tables, trash receptacles, grills).
f. Provide 13 parking spaces to serve the multi-family recreation facilities.
g. Install a fence around the pool for safety reasons:
h. Provide handicapped parking spaces and ramps within the parking facility for
the recreation area. The location of those spaces and ramps shall be approved
by the Zoning Officer and shown on the revised site plan. Construct all
walking and bicycle paths on slopes no greater than 5%n.
28. All plans for, drainage, sail erosion and sedimentation control shall be reviewed and
approved by Orange County and the site flan modified accordingly to satisfy the Soil
and Erosion specifications. In addition, Orange County shall inspect the installation of
control devices and the on-going work for the total project. The project shall at all
times meet the requirements of the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Ordinance.
29. Construct and maintain stormwater devices to control the peak rate of runoff from the
commercial and multi-family tract. The detention devices shall be designed and
constructed so that the pew aft 24-hourost arm and forostorms of grc terxintensit}, pre-
development rate fora 2~ ye
30. Grading on the site shall.be kept to a minimum. Existing vegetation shall be
maintained between units. Clearing shall only be conducted for purposes of installing
roads, utilities and other improvements until the improvements have been installed and
the developthree or fewer lot ~RPasonable care should beltpken to ~etain all existing
purchasing
aoox ~ ~~!9 PHrE 1~ ~ ~ o
vegetation. Appropriate temporary fencing should be erected at the dripline where
there are designated stream and perimeter buffers.
31. Final landscaping plans shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Officer prior to
the effective date of the special use permit.
32. A landscaping/screening plan for the designated 100' buffer area shall be prepared by a
landscape architect. The plan shall be prepared in consultation with adjacent property
owners and approved by the Zoning Officer. The plan shall be prepared following a
survey of the existing vegetation of the buffer area and must identify and specify the
retention of specimen trees twelve inches or more in diameter and specimen flowering
trees such as redbuds and dogwoods which do not ordinarily grow to twelve inches in
diameter, provide-for year round screening and include implementation details and
schedules. At a minimum the screening shall he opaque from ground to a height of at
least six (6) feet, with intermittent visual obstruction from the opaque portion to a
height of at least twenty (20) feet.
33. That all signs be erected in compliance with Article 9 Signs fol]owing issuance of a
building permit and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any unit.
No sign may be erected within the sight h•iangles for the entranceways to the
development.
34. That all structures be erected in compliance with applicable building codes following
application for and issuance of building permits.
3S. The commercial area shall be developed in conformance with the architectural design
plan far the Town of Hillsborough, if one exists at the time of development of Phase
II-C.
36. Developer shall coordinate mail service with the Hillsborough Postmaster prior to
construction of Phase I of the development.
37. The project shall be developed according to the following phasing schedule:
Phase I - Single-family lots #1-59
Phase II-A - Single-family lots #60-115, #120-
139 and #274-275
Phase II-B - (Entire) Multi-family area
Phase II-C - (Entire) Commercial area
Phase III - Single-family lots #116-119 .and
# ] 40-273
Phase IV - Single-family lots #276-423
Construction plans far each phase shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning
OCficer prior to the initiation of constwction activity for each phase.
eo~K ~.?~9 P~:r.E ~.~ 9
71
38. The rezoning and effective date of the special use permit shall occur no sooner than
the date of approval by the Water Resources Division of the N.C. Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development of a water allocation plan developed
by and far the Tawn of Hillsborough. Develapment of Scotswood shall occur
pursuant to that plan.
39. Development and construction of the residential units in Scotswood shall occur
pursuant to the water allacation plan approved by the N.C. Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development, but in na event shall more than 25% of the
total approved residential units be constructed in any 2.5 year period.
40. The applicant shall request annexation by the Town of Hillsborough for each phase of
the development fallowing the construction of required improvements.
41. A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be
recorded by the developer.
42. The final site plan and narrative of the project incorporating all changes, deletions and
additions through the final appraval of the project are incorporated herein and made a
part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. A cagy of the final site plan
and narrative are on file with the Orange County Planning Department. Grading and
building permits, upon application, will be issued after appraval and recordation of the
Special Use Permit.
43. The development shall be built and operated according. to the site plan and written
narrative supplied by the develaper and in compliance with or fulfillment of the above
conditions and the Orange County development regulations and ordinances.
44. The effective date of this special use permit and the effective date of the special use
zoning of the property described in this special use permit is March 31, 1998, the date
of recording of this special use permit. This special use permit and the special use
zoning of the property described in this special use permit was approved by action of
the Board of Commissioners of Orange Caunty on May 20, 1986. The delayed
effective date (until March 31, 1998) of the permit and the special use zoning is the
result of public water availability issues as described elsewhere in this permit. In
consideration of the March 31, 1998 effective date of this special use permit and the
effective date of the special use zoning of the property described in this permit, the
undersigned, all of the owners of and all persons having an interest in the property
described in this permit, hereby agree that construction of the Planned Development
per this permit and as approved on May 20, 198b, must commence, if at all, on or
before December 31, 1998 and proceed at a reasonable rate after commencement,
satisfying each and every one of the conditions of appraval contained herein and that
the construction commencement date specified herein is in lieu of the construction
commencement date stated in the Orange Caunty Zoning Ordinance as it existed on
May 20, 1986 and as it exists on March 31, 1998; the undersigned owners and persons
having an interest in the property described in this permit, in further consideration of
the March 31, 1998 effective date of this special use permit and the December 31,
1998 deadline far construction commencement, hereby waive any right they have, for
6DDx ~ ~Q~ p~cE ~~.~
72
themselves and their successors in title and interest, to make application for and to
receive extensions to the construction commencement date as otherwise authorized in
Sections 7.2.8 and $.4.11 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
45. If any of the above conditions shall be held invalid or void, then this Planned
Development Special Use Permit shall be void and of no effect. Any violation of a
term or condition of this Planned Development Special Use Permit shall render it void
as provided in Section 7.2.7 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Orange County has caused this instrument to be executed in its
name as evidence of the issuance of said permit, and the undersigned being all of the property
owners of the property above described, have executed this instrument in evidence of their
acceptance of said Special Use Permit as a covenant running with the land.
pL`;,~;;
ORANGE COUNTY
,a.; .
..~ •E~~ BEVERLY . BLYTHE JOHN M.
CLERK TO THE BOARD OF , ~UNTY
COMMISSIONERS
ACCEPTED:
L~(.. ~/(./ .
G~-~ )
.~~'uC~ AL
O~t1NER
c''
vv OWNS
c __ __ (SEAL)
OWNER '
aG4(~EAL)
C~wNER
~~
JR.
MANAGER
B~uN ~~~~ P~:GE ~.~'
NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
73
I, Lisa S . Gammon a Notary Public in and for said County and State do hereby
certify that John M. Link, Jr., County Manager of Orange County, and Beverly A. Blythe,
Clerk to the~Board of Commissioners, personally appeared before me and duly sworn says
each for himself/herself that he/she knows the corporate seal of the County of Orange and
that the seal of the County of Orange was affixed to the document by Beverly A. Blythe,
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners and that they subscribed their names thereto; that the
corporate seal of the County was affixed by virtue of a resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners, and that said instrument is the act and deed of the County of Orange.
IN WTI'NESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notarial Seal this the 2 5th day
of March , 19 9 8 .
r ~5 ...°e,ti ~.. ~:, I
~ ~°"~, ~ '~:. NOTARY PUBLIC
® ~ My Commission expires: 12-12-98
~.
~z~
6DOK ~ ~~~ P~:GE 1~~
NORTH CAROLINA
.~~~~- COUNTY
I, .Yl '~ .~ ~~-~ a N
certify iha ,~ ~' ,,~z
personally eared before me this ay and
instrument.
pp~~ ~~R~"'A V~~ t
6m1~ ~ `
~pTA q~ I-.z f~
~ ~(OFFI~I~
~~ ~\G ~r:
fitness my hand and official seal,
SEAL)
~~
Public far said County grid State, da hereby
~LJ~L
ged the due execution of the foregoing
the -~ day of _~"y,~A~~ , 19~
NOTARY PUBLIC
B M,,,r v r:
nm~` '~ i
~~ Cfll1N"~' .
~,,,,„,,,~~~ CAROLINA
COUNTY
_ _ i„
~~ _, a N
certify that ,~~ ~tir~, wi.
personally appeared beFar~this day and
instrument.
,,~~~i~ue~~ts~o,,
,.`~~~E $;..... .,a~~ss my hand and official seal, tF
;` NOTARY
(c~.~IAZf
s PuBUC
•,
. ,.
SPCCIAL USE PERMIT DRAFTED BY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Commission expires: MY Cotm~ial Expit~s 10-11.59
.~.__
Pub~r card County and State, do hereby
_~~I~swt
awledged the duc cxc:cution of the Foregoing
the day of ~'~/~-~ lip 19,~
NOTARY PUBLIC
Cotntnission expires:
'ward B. Kirk
tinge County Planning
Inspections Dcpartmenl
1
D ~TF ~ F I t_E D
NORTH CAROLINA -ORANGE COUNTY 31 f"IAF: 1 J'38, at i.~5: c_~~; c_~8
,[,/ z-~~_~~~~ E:: 17c:~~3, lea g e i i r 1 - 1 1
Theforegoingcertificate(s) of /.l~"~'rt-~--,,,,, F~etty June Hayes,
• a,, f~:egis•Ger ~_,f Deeds,
Orange ~;:~~~unty.. tV. ~_. __
Notaries) Public of the designated Governmental units ~ ( re) certified to be correct. Filed for registration
this the ~~J-~,~ day of ~~~t.~- 19 ~c~ ~ at `~~ o'clock
~'/yI .
in Record t3ook Page . / ~ / J ne , Re 'ter of eeds
Retum: By:
puty
. ~ 7 5 !,
;`'.~
=:A~~~' .ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
~~~' Craig N. Benedict, AfCP, Director
Current Planning
(919) 245-2575
(919} 644-3002 (FAX)
www.co.orange.nc.us
306E Revere Road
P O.Box 8181
Hillsborough,
North Carolina, 27278
May 22, 2002
Mr. James Moore
Mr. Patrick ONeal
c/o Churton Grove LLC
209 Churton Grove Boulevard
Hillsborough, NC 27278
RE: Churton Grove
Deaz Mr. Moore & Mr. O'Neal:
This letter serves as a follow up to our meeting of April 3, 2002 and further clazification
of condition numbers 37 and 39 of the Planned Development Special Use Permit (SUP), Class A.
Correspondence on these issues and m X002 from th OrangeeCounty Plannin Dep 9artment~ 6,
1999, June 28, 2001 and on March 1 S,
Please also note that any condition of the Special Use Pe ~t a B ~d of County ed by re-
processing of the Special Use Permit through our Planning Boazd
Commissioners. The next available rezoning SpecialUse Permit application submittal period is
June 24, 2002. The application procedures and timelines aze attached (attachment 1- 3 pages).
This letter will focus on conditions 37 and 39 with additional notes on other subjects.
1. Condition number 37 is a project `sequencing' element which requires each phase to be
platted, constructed or bonded in the phasing order as listed. Also, construction plans for
the public infrastructure must be approved in order. The limit of each phase and related
lots is noted (see map - attachrent 2).
2. Condition number 39 is a project `timing' element which restricts development and
construction of the residential units in the development to no more than ZS% of the total
residential units in any 21/2 year period. Sa, even though you can plat, construct ancUor
bond development infrastructure in all phases of the development in sequence pursuant to
condition 37 you cannot skip a phase in the development and construction. And, building
permits for residential units can only be obtained in accordance with the phasing plan as
G:\CassielMisc\D521D2 Chu~ton Grove
..
Mr. James Moore
'~.'~:
~~s°' ` ~' Mr. Patrick ONeal
-~ ~ ~ c/o Churton Grove LLC
May 22, 2002
limited by the timing plan. Since your firm.often sells Tats to builders after platting, we
recommend that you notify the buyers concerning the phasing plan and the timing of their
receiving building permits to avoid people buying lots that they cannot build upon for a
few years unless they know about this restriction. (Please see attachment 3 labeled
condition 39 -Project Timing Program.}
3. The commercial phase is unaffected by condition 39 (timing) but is affected by condition
37 (sequencing). ,The platting and infrastructure bonding or constructing in phases is
.progressing in order. Phase I (single-family) and Phase IIA (single-family) have been
,' bonded or constructed. Phase lTB (multi-family) must be platted, bonded/constructed
prior to the development of Phase IIC.
T,'hank you far your cooperation in this complex development program. If you have
questions please contact one of us.
very truly yours,
M. Jr.
ounty Manager
eo ed 1
Co orney
raig Be diet, AIC
Plannin Director
ccs:. Robert P. Davis, Current Planning Supervisor
Churton Grove Fite
Correspondence File
Attachment 1 -Application Procedures and Timelines
Attachment 2 - Map of Churton Grave
Attachment 3 -Condition 39 -Project Timing Program
76
G:1CassleWNsct052102 ChurtonGrove
$~,;.
r~
~i ' ~ N M
~ ~ C~ y r~A
y y ~ C~ ~
• ~ ~ a
~ a a
0
0
N ~---~~.
II
y 11
~'~ II
11
. II .
N
II
~~. II
_ ._.._ ,
N ~ b i ~
~'a
b ~
~ II o ~
v ~ 11 .~ ,~ °' , M
r-+ ai
o II •. ~ ° '
i
,~ II z ,
II
o I~
0
N ...-.-
"~_. i d
-V 11 i ~H
~ y
II ~.
b ; :~
III ,, ~G;~ ~
.-+ ~ ~ ~ ~
III ~~ ~~~
II o N b
~D ~ w Z i w ~
II ~ ~~ ~ ..
~.~, ..
0 11 ~ ~ ~~
. II ~ z
N _
"'.'... ~ ~ ~ i
i ~
~, II ~' '
II
1 ~
1 ~
~ ~ i~-+
1
II
,II o ; ~
O j .~ y N j C`~
~~ II bN ~~ ~~'
Na II bM ; ~ ~~
a ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ti
r~`n °'~ =
••-~ ~-••~~NumK~cnurtongrove\6-19-021dg
~„
et
d
y
C~
•~
w
b ~
a~
~ ~ ~
w
~~
77
M M ~
d o ~
•~ b
u b •~
ea p H
~ U *'
'd d
ti°.
a
,~.~._,,._ ~ 4
~. iA ~ q~`
~<« ~ ~~