HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20080225 APPROVED 5120/2008
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
February 25, 2008
7:30 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a
Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle
Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses
Carey, Jr., Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geof Gledhill and Brian Ferrell
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Manager Willie Best, and Clerk to the
Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
COUNTY STAFF ABSENT: Laura Blackmon
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Jay Bryan and Members Craufurd
Goodwin, Sam Lasris, Renee Price, Judith Wegner, Michelle Kempinski, Bernadette Pelissier,
Sandra Johnson-Quinn, Jeffrey Schmitt, Brian Crawford
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Joel Knight
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair Jacobs reminded the public to keep their comments to three minutes.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. Buckhorn Village Planned Development: Request by Buckhorn Road Associates to
rezone approximately 130 acres along Buckhorn Road from l-85/Buckhorn Road
Economic Development District (EDD) to Buckhorn Village Planned Development EDD.
Planning Director Craig Benedict said that since this is both a legislative and quasi-
judicial hearing on these two items, the first part of the meeting will require that all people giving
testimony or credible evidence be sworn in. The Clerk swore in these individuals as a group.
Craig Benedict and Michael Harvey made a PowerPoint presentation. Craig Benedict
said that copies of this presentation would be made available to the public.
BUCKHORN VILLAGE
Applicant:
Buckhorn Road Associates LLC
•Planned Development Rezoning
Buckhorn Economic Development to
Planned Development Economic Development
• Class A Special Use Permit
BUCKHORN EDD (map)
• Proposed Buckhorn Village Planned Development
• 1.14 Million s.f. Mixed Use Retail Development
• 134 ± acres
• Limited Multi-Family Residential
LAND USE CONTEXT
• Within Commercial Land Use since 1981
• Designated urban transition growth area since 1981
• Within Economic Development District Land Use since 1994
• Within Water & Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement since 2001
• Within Growth Management System Map since 2003
APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS
• Section 6.29 Development Standards and Processes for Economic Development (ED)
Districts (i.e. the Economic Development District Design Manual),
• Article Seven (7) Planned Developments
• Article Eight (8) Special Use Permits, and
• Article Twenty (20) Amendments
REVIEW PROCESS
• Planned DevelopmentlSpecial Use Permit project requires action from the BOCC on:
• Rezoning request
➢ Legislative decision FROM: l-85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development (ED) District
and/or Rural Residential One (R-1)
TO: Buckhorn Village Planned Development Economic Development District (BVPD-
ED).
• Planned Development 1 Special Use Permit application
➢ Quasi-judicial decision
• Master Planned Mixed-use Project with
Findings of Fact and Special Conditions
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
• Legal advertisement in newspaper
• Mailings to Property Owners within 500 feet of Property
• Herein certified by Zoning Officer
• Posting of signs on Property
Planned Development/Special Use Permit Application Outline
• Land Use Management— Chapter 2
• Traffic/Access Management—Chapter 3
• Utilities/Public Services —Chapter 4
• Open Space —Chapter 5
• Planned Development Ownership— Chapter 6
LAND USE MANAGEMENT - 2
• Development Districts:
• District One: Large Retail Tenants
• 41 ± acres / 185,000 s.f. Floor Area
• District Two: Mixed Use Development
• 45 ± acres / 522,000 s.f. Floor Area
• District Three: Large-scale Retail, Mixed Use
• 48 ± acres / 606,000 s.f. Floor area
TRAFFIC/ACCESS MANAGEMENT - 3
• 3 Driveway entrances along Buckhorn Rd
• 2 Driveway entrances along West Ten Rd
• 1-85/1-40 bridge widening
• Access ramp widening, Auxiliary Lanes
• 4 Bus Stops, Internal and external
• Bicycle Lanes
• Pedestrian sidewalks
UTILITY/PUBLIC SERVICE MANAGEMENT -4
• Proposal to upgrade existing infrastructure and construct major offsite district utility
extensions to support this project and adjacent properties including:
• Water
• Sewer
• Stormwater/drainage
• Fire,EMS, Police Site
• Buckhorn Road Area Improvements (North and South of Interstate)
OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT -5
• Comprehensive Open Space Management Plan that includes:
• Preservation of existing woodlands
• Interior parking lot plantings
• Streetscape plantings
• Stream corridor preservation
• Aquifer recharge
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OWNERSHIP MANAGEMENT - 6
• Ensures long term consistency
• Adherence to Special Conditions
• Master Planning
BUCKHORN VILLAGE —Special Use Permit
• Findings of Fact— General and Specific on Multiple Issues
• If findings are favorable there will be a Class A Special Use Permit (SUP) identifying
conditions of approval
. The conditions/standards will be agreed to by both the County and the Applicant that will
govern the development of the project in perpetuity,
• Concurrent with the next public meeting
. These standards will include regulations designed to:
• Regulate permitted uses for the project,
• Establish design standards and architectural requirements,
• Establish standards for open space management and upkeep,
• Establish timelines for the implementation of necessary infrastructure improvements
(i.e. utilities, transportation, etc)
BUCKHORN VILLAGE — Design Standards and Solutions
• The application demonstrates or indicates adherence approx. ninety (90) of the existing
standards in ED Design Manual,
• The applicant is proposing fourteen (14) Design Solutions that are 'equal to or better than
what can be achieved through the strict adherence to the Design Manual' per Section 7.21.1
of the Zoning Ordinance.
With respect to these Design Solutions, staff has found at this time that:
• Design Solutions One (1), Eight (8), and Nine (9) are considered reasonable by staff as
presenting a standards that is equal to or exceeds elements of the Design Manual,
• Design Solutions Three (3), Four (4), Five (5), Six (6), Seven (7), Ten (10), are reasonable
but ought to be conditioned on the approval of site-specific development plans, and
• Design Solutions Two (2), Eleven (11), Twelve (12), Thirteen (13), and Fourteen (14)
require the submittal of additional information by the applicant before staff can make a
finding
• These findings will be developed conclusively before the next public hearing.
History of Economic Development Planning in Orange County
• 1975 - "Growth Options for Orange County"
• 125 citizens held a 2-day conference to map out a strategy
• 1981 - Land Use Element and Map of Orange County Comprehensive Plan
• Goal Five —Growth
• Goal Six — Economic Development
• 1982 - "Policy Memorandum on Recommendations for Economic Development in Orange
County"
• Dr. Ed Bergman led an effort to compile information and make recommendations
• 1988 - "Preliminary Economic Development Study"
• Sarah Rubin prepared 3 reports to start the strategic planning process
• 1989 - "Orange County Tomorrow" Economic Development Strategic Plan
• A 33-citizen Executive Committee prepares a plan which wins NACo awards and
directs the EDC work plan
• 1994 - Orange County Economic Development District Design Manual
• Approved Process and Design
• 1995 - The Strategic Plan Update Begins
• 2001 - Economic Development District Hillsborough Area Amendments
• 2005 - Economic Development Commission Strategic Plan
• 2008 - Comprehensive Plan Update including a New Economic Development Element
Gross Retail Sales by County (graph)
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
• CONDITIONS (Regional):
• Second highest per capita incomes
• Highest per capita retail sales dollars spent
• 53% of retail dollars are spent outside of the county
• RESULTS
• Residents shop and drive outside of the county to meet their retail demands
• Loss of substantial Orange County sales tax revenue
• Difficult to 'Shop Orange'
Expenditures on Retail Goods (graph)
• Retail Dollar 'Leakage' (STRIPED)
• Spent by County Residents in Same County (DARK BLUE)
• Purchases by Non-County Residents (LIGHT BLUE)
Retail Sales and Income Comparisons (table)
Buckhorn Village
Potential Tax Benefits
• BUCKHORN VILLAGE
• 1.14 million s.f. commercial development
• $140 million property value and economic development multiplier
• $1.3 million in property tax value
• Currently commercial property tax is minimal
• Positive Cost/Benefit Analysis * (See Study)
• $5+ Million in Sales Tax Revenues
• Will slow the leakage of more than 10 million in sales tax revenues currently flowing
outside the county
Benefits
• As many as 70% of Orange County residents surveyed said they shopped outside of the
county over the past 30 days*
• Buckhorn Village will provide:
• Convenient opportunities to shop locally
• Reduced out of county trips and air pollution
• Increased local job opportunities
• Greater share of tax dollars remaining in County
Tax Revenues vs. Expenditures
Orange County (graph)
• For every $1 of revenue from Residential uses, the County spends $1.31 to provide public
services to that sector
• Commercial uses generate 4 x's the revenue than they use in public services.
Buckhorn Village Location Analysis
• CURRENT CONDITIONS:
• Two large retail centers in Alamance and Durham County located along the interstate
approximately 40 miles apart
• Buckhorn Village will be located half-way between these two developments
• RESULTS:
• Drive time and distance to shopping will be reduced
• Most customers will be driving less than 12 miles
• More customers driving shorter distances
Population inside Mass service areas map 1 (map)
Distance to Current Retail Centers (map)
Sustainability
• Sustainability is a balance of community goals.
• Public actions at times have different emphases around the intersection of the three goals.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Receive the applications of Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use
Permit
• Receive the Zoning Officer's assessment report/recommendation on the applications
• Conduct a Public Hearing on the applications
• Adjourn the Joint Public Hearing (both boards) to a specific date , time , and
place
. (See the Process Timeline Options)
• Refer to the Planning Board to allow additional written comments as appropriate prior to
the reconvening of the Joint Public Hearing as decided above.
Chair Jacobs asked for an update on the water and sewer analysis for the Buckhorn
Road area and the zoning outside of the EDD. He asked if this development would affect the
zoning outside of this area.
Craig Benedict said that there was a presentation on February 19th given to the Board of
County Commissioners by the County Engineer on the Northern Buckhorn/Central Efland Sewer
Project. This design is complete and going through the review process at the State level. This
will go out to bid later this year. The construction is a 12-month timeline. The Board asked the
County Engineer and the Manager's office to be diligent in monitoring the timeframe on this
project.
Regarding the second question, Craig Benedict said that the EDD was designated on
the land use map, the zoning map, the water and sewer boundary map, and the growth
management map in the 90's and into the 2000's. It is a very specific plan that limits economic
development-type activities to particular boundaries. The Orange County land use and zoning
maps have been specific over the years with these limitations, and staff has held to these
limitations. There will be no spillage of these areas over into adjacent areas.
Craig Benedict asked the applicants to state their names and tell the Clerk if they have
been sworn in. Staff will write down any questions that the public or boards have and will
accept written comments.
APPLICANTS:
Bill Hutchinson: I represent the applicant. My client has a presentation, so before we get to
the formalities associated with the quasi-judicial part of it, I would respectfully request that you
allow a couple of people speak just to the rezoning request. With that said, I'd like to introduce
Ms. Rosemary Waldorf.
Rosemary Waldorf: I have been sworn. We really appreciate this opportunity to present to
you the details of the proposal for this mixed-use development. Several members of our team
area going to be speaking to our proposal this evening as will planning, engineering, and other
design experts. We look forward to your questions. I'd like to begin by saying who we are and
how we got involved. We are an Orange County team. The partners in Buckhorn Associates
are three established local development groups. East/West Partners Management Company,
which is represented here by Roger Perry and Ben Perry is a developer of residential and
mixed-use projects. Examples include Meadowmont and East 54 in Chapel Hill, Cary Park in
Cary, and Davis Park in Research Triangle Park. Tryon Investment Group is another part of
Buckhorn Associates, and it is owned and managed by George Horton. George has developed
residential and mixed-use projects in Orange County, including Meadowlands and the Gateway
Center in Hillsborough. Montgomery Development is a commercial construction firm that has
built retail space in 45 states and is owned and managed by John Fugo, who is here this
evening. John also has been a partner in the design and construction of The Village Center in
Southern Village, and I've worked with John for several years and am working with him on this
project.
How did we get here? In March of 2007, the County's Economic Development Director,
Dianne Reid asked us to consider a destination retail project for the Buckhorn Road EDD. The
County had received indications from national destination retail companies that they were very
interested in this site. In response to Dianne's inquiry, our group researched the site and we
formed Buckhorn Associates, with the intent of creating a predominantly retail development, and
gained control of key pieces of property. That makes it sound a lot faster and easier than it was,
but that's what we did. We've tried very hard to pursue what we perceive to be the County's
goals by proposing a project that is in the EDD. The County went through a very careful public
process to establish its desire that development occur here. If successful, I think Buckhorn
Village could potentially accomplish one of your economic development goals of adding $125
million worth of commercial space in Orange County and adding new private sector jobs. If
successful, we think that Buckhorn Village could provide many new shops and services to
Orange County citizens and would help stem that exodus of retail dollars. We'd like to thank
Craig Benedict and Mike Harvey for their professionalism. They've helped us get through what
is a difficult preparation process. We'd also like to thank the Town of Mebane. At their request,
we met with neighbors of the Clearview subdivision and members of the People for Progress.
It's important to state, I think, that the success of Buckhorn Village will depend on our ability to
attract a variety of stores and restaurants. We would work hard, if approved, to bring national,
regional, and local businesses to this center. I know that a lot of people are curious about
potential tenants, particularly a potential anchor tenant. There has been lots of speculation, but
at this time, we have nothing to report. Our leasing agents can't really conclude any
negotiations until we finish the review process with the County. We also view Buckhorn Village
as an opportunity for local businesses, and we will recruit existing local businesses that wish to
expand and new ones that are considering a store. Thanks again for your time, care, and
consideration. I'd like to introduce Jim Parker of Summit Consulting, which is a Hillsborough
consulting engineering firm that has taken primary responsibility for preparation of our
application.
Jim Parker: I have been sworn in. I again also want to commend your Planning staff, which
has been very professional, tremendously helpful, and we could not be here without their
professional guidance. Summit has also worked closely with Scott Murray, who has sub-
consulted on this project, and Scott will be up to speak in a few minutes. He's done a
tremendous amount of work on this project as well. The map before you and the slides before
you show the three EDDs in the County— one on the eastern side, one on the central part, and
one on the western part of the County. As Craig had mentioned earlier, there has been no
significant activity in this area since its inception. He showed some maps of the Buckhorn EDD.
The PowerPoint presentation is shown below:
BUCKHORN VILLAGE
Planned Development
Economic Development
(BUCKHORN VILLAGE PD-ED)
Development Team: Buckhorn Road Associates, LLC (East West Partners Management
Company, Inc., Montgomery Development Carolina Corp., and Tryon Investment Group, LLC)
The purpose of Economic Development Districts is to provide locations for a wide range
of light industrial, distribution, flex space, office, service, retail, and residential uses."
— Economic Development Districts Design Manual, Sec. 2.1
REZONING REQUEST
SUBJECT PROPERTY
• Located in the Southeast Quadrant of the Intersection of I - 85 North/ 40 East and
Buckhorn Rd.
• Existing Location of Jockey Lot 1 Flea Market
• Road Frontage on Buckhorn Road, West Ten Road, and 1-85140
• Approximately 130 Acres to be Rezoned
• Requesting Rezoning From EDD to BV-PD-ED
JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING
PD Districts Shall Be Appropriately located with respect to:
1. Intended Functions
2. Pattern and Timing of Existing or Proposed Development in the Comprehensive Plan
3. Public & Private Facilities Existing or will be available by the time needed for the PD
4. Interstate Highways, Arterial, and Collector Streets
5. A site Suitable for Development in the Manner Proposed wlout Hazards to Persons or
Property, on or off the tract
6. Permitting Unified Planning & Development
-- 7.4 to 7.4.3
Buckhorn Village PD-ED is:
1. In an EDD that was Created for Intended 1 Proposed Uses and is Adjacent to a
Commercial Node
2. Fully Compliant wl Orange Co. Comprehensive, Land Use Intensity, & Five (5) Year
Strategic Plans
3. Within Area Under Orange Co. Water& Sewer Management Planning Boundary
Agreement.
4. Adjacent to 1-85/40 & Buckhorn Rd.
5. Located in Area Adopted by Orange Co. as "Urbanizing" under the Growth Management
System
6. Governed by Proposed Architectural Review Board and Design Elements to Ensure ALL
Development will be Consistent and Unified
JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING
Development Plans to be Considered for Approval When Plans Do Not:
1. Meet Criteria for Site Plan Approval listed in Article 14.3
2. Address Agency Comments Solicited during the Site Plan Review Process; and/or
3. Adhere to the Design Standards applicable within EDD's as set forth in Article 6.29 of
the ordinance.
And which Propose a "Design Solution" equal to or better than the Design Manual.
-- 7.21 PD-ED
Due to `Master Plan' Concept and Nature of Project, Development Plans Can Not:
1. Provide Specificity& Detail required in Article 14.3
2. Address Agency Comments because Comments are Limited Until further Detail is
provided, Which will come as the Planned Development transitions into Site Plans & Site
Development.
3. Adhere to ALL Design standards in the EDD Manual
And have Proposed I Provided 14 "Design Solutions" from the Existing 90 and currently noted
as "Waivers/Value Substitutes" to Allow for an More Efficient & Higher Quality End Product
Within a PD no use shall be permitted except pursuant to a Special Use Permit
authorized by the County Commissioners which shall specify the use or uses
authorized "
— Orange Co. Zoning Ordinance, Sec 7.2.5
Bill Hutchins, Attorney representative of the applicant, continued at this point.
Bill Hutchins: If there's no objection, I'm going to call several witnesses from several
professional groups that have helped in this project, ask them to state their names and
qualifications, and I'll encourage all of the witnesses to be as brief as you can. If there's no
objection, I'd like to call Mr. Tracy Parrott.
Tracy Parrott: I'm the Civil Site Manager for Summit Consulting in Hillsborough, and I'm a
licensed professional engineer in North Carolina and have roughly 19 years experience in civil
engineering and construction, both in the private and public sector. I've worked a number of
years with the North Carolina Department of Transportation. I am hear to speak about the
special use permit process. As indicated earlier by Mr. Benedict, there are two actions required
here, and I'm speaking to the special use permit process. He continued with the PowerPoint.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
CIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIPAIII SPECIAL USE REQUIREMENTS
If Located Where Proposed and Developed According to Plans Submitted, the Special Use
Will:
1. Maintain or Promote the Public Health, Safety and General Welfare
2. Maintain or Enhance the Value of Contiguous Property
3. Be in Harmony with the Area in which it is Located and in Compliance wl
Comprehensive Plan
-- Special Uses 8.2.1
Buckhorn Village PD-ED, being located in the Buckhorn / 1-85 EDD and being Developed by
the Proposed Guidelines will:
1. Provide a Safe, Sustainable Development that also Encourages Pedestrian Movement
contributing to the Health of the General Public as well as Allow for a Government
Services Site to Aid in Safety Needs
2. Maintain or Enhance Adjacent Property Values through the Quality of the Overall
Development and the Nature of Tenants Recruited
3. Comply w/the Comprehensive Plan and All other Plans or Future Visions of Orange Co.
for this Area. Will also set the Tone and Standard for Future Development that will Spur
from BV-PD-ED.
III'�IIIIIIIIIII IIIIW'' III '; SPECIAL USE REQUIREMENTS
Before Issuance of Special Use Permit, Specific Standards to Be Addressed Are the Method
and Adequacy of :
1. Provision of Water, Waste Water, and Solid Waste
2. Police, Fire, and Rescue Squad Protection
3. Vehicular Access to the Site and Traffic Conditions Around the Site
4. Other Use Specific Standards are set forth in Section 8.8
-- Special Uses 8.2.4 a-d
Geof Gledhill asked if Tracy Parrott confirmed that he was sworn. Mr. Parrott confirmed that he
had been sworn in.
The Buckhorn Village PD-ED, has proposed and as shown on the following slides :
1. A Phased Utility Plan to Water and Waste Water Services through the Town of Mebane.
Solid Waste will be handled through Orange County and the Solid Waste Ordinance.
2. Fire or Rescue Station SITE may be located wl in the Development and Police I Sheriff
Patrols to be Coordinated Through the Town of Mebane and Orange County.
3. A Phased Traffic Improvement Plan to follow Recommendations of a Final DOT
Approved Traffic Impact Analysis by Arcadis.
4. Other standards in Section 8.8.23 — Planned Developments defers to the Requirements
of Article 7 — Planned Developments.
Mr. Hutchins introduced Bob Miller, who continued with the presentation.
Bob Miller: I have been sworn. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the State of North
Carolina and have been an environmental consultant for 23 years, 19 of those years here in
North Carolina. I have performed an environmental site assessment on the land in question.
The site assessment was performed in accordance with the ASTM Standard E 1527-05, which
is the accepted industry standard for performing environmental assessments.
The environmental assessment included several parts. One was the physical site
inspection; one was a review of available computer databases for federal, state, and local
environmental regulations.
In a phase I environmental assessment, you are looking to identify what are called
recognized environmental conditions. These are defined as the presence of a hazardous
substance such as petroleum, when conditions indicate an existing release, past release, or the
material threat of release of these materials. In performing the environmental investigation, we
found none of these things in the property in question. We did find one recognized
environmental condition on an adjacent property, which has an existing gasoline station at the
intersection of Buckhorn Road and 1-85.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Phase I EA per ASTM Standard E 1527-05 Performed by GEL Engineering of NC, Inc.
1 Off-Site Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) — Buckhorn Amoco
Mr. Hutchins recalled Tracy Parrott, who continued with the presentation on the comprehensive
use plan and land use plan.
Tracy Parrott: I would like to add to the environmental assessment aspect of this, that in
addition to the phase I assessment that was done; Orange County staff did assist with some
determinations on the site of present streams and wetlands. There were two buffered streams
that fall within the Neuse River Basin identified on Site I parallel to 1-85/40, and the other stream
comes from the corner of the property and extends back to the middle of the property. There
was one wetland that was somewhere in this vicinity just off of the existing Jockey lot.
COMPREHENSIVE USE PLAN
144 Million SF of Building Footprint
LAND USE FOR DISTRICT I
LAND USE APPROX. SF/Seats)
BLDG. # Rooms/Units
Retail Trade, multiple use 1-2 25,000 sf
Retail Trade, free 1-2 160,000 sf
standing building
FinancellnsurancelReal 0 0
Estate
Services - Hotel 0 0
Services -
TheaterlEntertainment 0 0
Center
Services, free standing 0 0
building
Residential, multi-family 0 0
LAND USE FOR DISTRICT II
LAND USE APPROX. SF/Seats/
Retail Trade, multiple use BLDG. # Rooms/Units
Retail Trade, free 2-10 273,000 sf
standing building 6-7 68,000 sf
FinancellnsurancelReal 1-2 4,000 sf
Estate
Services - Hotel 1-3 200 rooms
Services -
TheaterlEntertainment 1-2 500 seats
Center
Services, free standing 2-3 8,000 sf
building
Residential,multi- 0 200 units
family(above other use)
LAND USE FOR DISTRICT III
LAND USE APPROX. SF/Seats!
BLDG. # Rooms/Units
Retail Trade, multiple use 4-6 81,000 sf
Retail Trade, free standing 2-8 338,000 sf
building
Finance/Insurance/Real 1-3 8,000 sf
Estate
Services - Hotel 0 0
Services -
TheaterlEntertainment 1-2 500 seats
Center
Services, free standing 2-3 10,000 sf
building
Residential,multi- 1-6 200 units
family(free standing
Government— 1 TBD
Police/Fire/Emergency
LAND USE PLAN
Use Equivalent to Conversion
30,000 sf Retail Factor
Condos 200 units .0067 units/ sf retail
Theatre 385 seats .0128 seats 1 sf retail
Hotel 160 rooms .0053 rooms/ sf retail
Tracy Parrott: It is fully the intent in setting up or identifying these conversion factors to
establish a process by which specific land uses can be identified for the site and the
conversions be determined for them such that the overall development and makeup of
Buckhorn Village will stay consistent with the accesses that are being considered for the site
that you will see in the transportation section. A traffic impact analysis has been performed with
those land uses. So, by having the conversion factors, it allows for potential changes in land
use to keep the development consistent with the analysis that's been done on the traffic side.
Mr. Hutchins then introduced Scott Murray, who presented on the landscape, signage, and
general design of the project.
Scott Murray: I have been sworn. My role in the Buckhorn development is that of landscape
architect. I've been practicing landscape architecture for 22 years in the state of North Carolina.
I'm also accredited by the U. S. Green Building Council. I've been asked to speak with you on
the open space, buffer plan, and landscape standards proposed for Buckhorn Village. The area
that comprises Buckhorn Village is identified in the EDD district as primary development area
with a maximum of 70% impervious surface. That is to say that the remaining 30% would either
be landscape buffers, open space, and other landscape features or islands. While merely a
third of this area is in the perimeter buffers identified in the landscape plan on the wall, the
remaining two-thirds would be in various landscape areas throughout the site, and it is
anticipated that it would be generally pretty evenly distributed among the three districts. The
landscape and buffer plan standards included in the PD text illustrates the buffer areas as well
as the NTC buffer along Interstate 85. It is proposed that the buffer along Interstate 85, which is
100 feet in width, would be subject to one of our alternate design solutions that are proposed
here. We are proposing up to 60% of a vegetated area would be allowed to be cleared to
accommodate the stormwater pond facility that is anticipated for that area. If you notice on the
site, the actual grade falls right along the boundary line between the Interstate property and the
site. This pond is designed for water quality, infiltration, and also for retention for irrigation
needs. Both aquatic vegetation as well as specimen trees and other types of landscaping that
is conducive to that type of facility are proposed in that area. This is an important component of
our stormwater quality program for Buckhorn Village.
The plan on the wall also illustrates the various landscape standards that have been
developed to respond to design issues that are unique to the proposed development.
Specifically, the entrance drives, parking lot landscaping, building perimeter landscaping,
screen-in and service areas, and landscaping for streets along shop-front areas are proposed
and are detailed.
These landscape standards, along with the proposed maximum floor areas and
building heights, are planned as an alternate design solution to the intensity standards that are
identified in the EDD Design Manual. The existing intensity standards include the building
volume ratio (BVR), the landscape volume ratio (LVR), and also the site volume ratio (SVR).
While those are more exacting in their measurement of development bulk, they do not easily
lend themselves to measuring development intensity in this stage of master planning, mainly
because we don't have the specific locations —dumpsters, building heights, parking lot layouts,
things of that nature. These standards are not easily understood in marketplace, primarily
because of the complexity of the mathematics that it takes to quantify all of the various ratios.
Most importantly, the existing intensity standards do not ensure a more attractive, necessarily
more sustainable development. For these reasons, our alternate design solution proposed
establishes the maximum floor area for Buckhorn Village of 23 and a maximum building height
of six stories. These measures of intensity represent a common language in the marketplace.
The following four slides represent various development patterns. Once specific tenants
are decided upon and their specific needs emerge, these four development patterns will be
woven into a site plan that will be subject to the final site plan approval. Each of these
development patterns represents a specific use type or character, and they all fulfill a distinct
purpose. He pointed out each pattern— Main Street, Commons, Anchor, and Independent
Retail Establishments.
Bear in mind that all final site plans would be subject to the review and approval of the
Planning Director and staff to ensure that the all standards are met.
The Buckhorn development proposes to utilize lighting that is in keeping with the
standards established in the EDD Design Manual. These include shielding as well as minimum
light levels necessary to protect the adjacent properties. We're also committed to working with
tenants in reducing lighting levels during non-business hours and utilizing more efficient, more
uniform light design patterns.
The standards for signage at Buckhorn describe the intent of those established in the
EDD Design Manual, while also balancing the needs of retailers, recognizing that the EDD
focuses on some retail, but also manufacturing and light industrial. This is more geared towards
what the demands and needs are for major retailers. Our alternate design solution identifies
five different signage types that are specific to situations, keeping in mind the scale of the
surrounding roadways. The comprehensive signage plan displayed on the wall shows 2
locations for primary project identification. Two locations are shown, and one is an alternate. It
also shows locations for entry portals as well as direction signage within the project.
Mr. Hutchins called Tyson Graves to speak about transportation.
Tyson Graves: I have been sworn in. I'm a registered professional engineer in the state of
North Carolina, and have been doing traffic engineering for 18 years. I work with Arcadis.
Basically, the traffic impact study was to be done at certain standards, and that means
that we need to achieve a level of service C for the development in order to keep the traffic
flowing. In order to do that, a widening would need to be done on the bridge at Buckhorn Road
over 1-85. There would need to be an auxiliary lane added from the weigh stations east of the
interchange all the way to Buckhorn Road's on-ramp, just as it is now on the other side of 1-85.
There would be three entrances to the development just south of the interchange. The first one
is a right in/right out, the second is the main entrance, which would be full access, and the third
one is a right out/left out. At West Ten Road, there would be another main entrance. Signals
would be added to the ramps on both the north and south side of 1-85, a signal would be added
to the main entrance, and at West Ten Road.
Bill Hutchins: At this time, I would like to enter into the record a letter from Robert Wilson, City
Manager of the City of Mebane, dated today, which provides some information as to the utility
service allocation, etc. This letter is shown below.
February 25, 2008
Mr. Craig Benedict, Director of Planning
Orange County
306-F Revere Rd.
P. O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, N. C. 27278
Subject: Buckhorn Village
Dear Mr. Benedict:
As requested, we are pleased to provide the following information in regard to the subject
project:
1. Utility Service Agreement between Mebane and Orange County
By Agreement dated March 1, 2004, the City of Mebane and Orange County entered
into a Utility Service Agreement providing for the extension of water and sewer service to
I-85/Buckhorn Rd. Economic Development District. The agreement indicates that water
and sewer extensions will be made at the expense of Orange County with approvals by
the City of Mebane. The agreement has worked successfully with the recent extension
of water and sewer service to the new Gravelly School on West Ten Road.
2. Allocation and treatment capacity
The City of Mebane has a 2.5 MGD wastewater treatment plant (with existing flows in
the 1.0 MGD range) and our plant has capacity available for approved users. Based on
our understanding of the Gravelly School project, the city approved a design flow of
100,000 gallons per day (average flow) when the Gravelly pump station was designed
for that service area. The school is currently only using approximately 3,000 gallons per
day; therefore, the Gravelly pump station appears to have sufficient capacity available to
accommodate the first phase of the project. The project engineer has provided some
preliminary estimates that indicate the project may generate approximately 200,000
gallons per day at full project buildout; therefore, it appears that future upgrades will be
needed to the infrastructure to accept the buildout flows.
In terms of water availability, the City has a 4.0 MGD allocation in the GrahamlMebane
water plant and our usage currently averages 1.1 MGD. The project engineer has
provided preliminary water usage required for fire flows, and it appears that some pipe
line extensions will be needed to accommodate these estimated fire flows.
3. Utility Extension Agreement
Based on the preliminary engineering information provided by the project engineer, it
appears that some utility extensions and system upgrades will be needed to serve this
project. The City of Mebane looks forward to working with Orange County in developing
a Utility Extension Agreement to address the infrastructure needs in this area should this
project move forward.
Should you have any questions concerning these issues, please contact me at 919-563-5901.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Wilson, City Manager
Bill Hutchins called Jim Parker to provide testimony regarding the utility plan.
Jim Parker: I'm with Summit Consulting, and I have been sworn. I'm a professional engineer
in North Carolina, with 25 years experience. Thirteen of those were with NCDOT. The
remainder has been private industry. I want to go back to the transportation plan. To piggyback
on what Tyson testified to, the internal circulation of the Buckhorn development is...he pointed
this out on the presentation. Again, sensitivity would be given to users and tenants. In relation
to the testimony you've heard from Scott in regards to the different areas and the different looks
and feel, those internal drives and roads may be somewhat flexible, but most importantly is all of
the access points along Buckhorn Road and along West Ten Road that Tyson testified to will
remain consistent, therefore remaining consistent with the TIA that has been submitted. In
addition to that, there are bus drop-off locations identified inside the project, and we welcome
input from committees or groups that are working with mass transit plans within the area to try
and coordinate with those strategic plans.
This is the main entrance here, this is a full access entrance — lefts in and out and rights
in and out— it is signalized, and it will be the main artery into the development. From that point,
we would anticipate that there will be a left or right movement into District I I or District III.
Certainly, the size of this main road in is more than likely as depicted in the sections that are in
your report, a four-lane section with a median, bike lanes, and crossovers. At some point that
will probably be narrowed down to a two-lane facility as it reaches the back. We've shown a
proposed stub-out and connectivity to the next parcel there at the easternmost point of the
project. The drive just to the north of the main entrance at Buckhorn is a right in/right out. We
envision that there would be a divided median on Buckhorn Road for some distance from the
interchange. That right in/right out driveway will obviously only allow the outward movement to
the north or an inward to the site coming from the south. We anticipate connectivity or
alignment in some fashion with the Petro driveways, which we will investigate as we go forward.
The southernmost entrance is, like Tyson indicated earlier, left out/right out and potentially just a
right in, no left in. That also is probably a three-lane section, which is in your report. As far as
further circulation, we're just showing driveways and streets that somewhat traverse throughout
each district to provide access. Those are things that I alluded to earlier that may or may not be
exactly in the same location as the site plan.
UTILITY PLAN
Mr. Hutchins introduced the letter from the City of Mebane earlier. We met with the City
of Mebane as well as County staff and the County Engineer. As I alluded to earlier, the master
plan for water and sewer infrastructure in this area, we are complying with the future buildout of
that infrastructure. We have a phased utility plan in respect to the potentially phased
development, which means that we will step into the full buildout of the water and sewer. We
will initially probably work off a temporary pump station for up to about 165-185,000 square feet.
That temporary pump station would pump to an outfall just west of Buckhorn Road. At some
point in time after that, upon development of the next stages, we would install the ten-inch
gravity main that crosses from the Buckhorn property cross-country to the Gravelly School
pump station. That is in compliance with the master plan that is referred to in the design
manual. That ten-inch line will be a gravity line that will serve the entire buildout of Buckhorn
Village. The Gravelly pump station will have moderate upgrades to allow that station to facilitate
what we anticipate being 180,000 to 200,000 gallons per day of wastewater. That full capacity
will be pumped up an existing six-inch force main that is along West Ten Road at this point in
time, and will be further extended from West TenlBuckhorn to a regional pump station that is
just west of the site on Bowman Road. The City of Mebane is, I believe, finishing that project
within the next month or so. It is a large regional pump station that would handle this and much
more capacity. Water line service for predominantly fire flow is the problem with the site. We
need to have probably around 2,500 gallons per minute for fire flow service. In discussion with
Daryl Russell and the City of Mebane, we will extend an approximately 16-inch water line from
the northern side of 1-85 coming from the Washington Street area, and it will be taken down
Buckhorn Road, crossing over 1-85, and connecting in to an existing 12-inch line just adjacent to
the site. That should provide sufficient fire flow and water capacity.
Mr. Hutchins called Roger Perry to provide testimony on sustainability, site selection, etc.
Roger Perry: I'm with East West Partners, I have been in Orange County approximately 25
years. I have been sworn in. He continued with the presentation as shown below.
SUSTAINABILITY
• Site Selection & Design
• Water Efficiency
• Energy and Atmosphere
• Materials and Resources
• Indoor Environmental Quality
Site Selection and Design
• Site Designated as Economic Development District
• Previously Developed Site (flea market & farmed timber)
• Multi-Use Development Program reduces trips
• Provide CarpoollVanpool Information (kiosk, bulletins, etc.)
• Provide Bus Loading Stations and Bus Route Information
• Comply with EPA and NPDES Standards for Pollutant Discharge (including bio-swales
for infiltration, etc.)
• Storm Water Retention for BOTH 1 yr. and 2yr. Design
• Plan for "Walkability" in Site Design
Water Efficiency
• Plan for Water Efficient Landscaping
• Use ONLY Reclaimed Stormwater for Irrigation
• Use Low Flow Water Fixtures
• Make available Reclaimed Stormwater for Tenants HVAC Needs
Energy & Atmosphere
• Reducing Energy Needs by Use of Day-Lighting in Architectural Design
• Engage in 2 yr. Contract for 35% of Energy from Renewable Sources
• Work with Tenants on Requiring
• Commissioning of Building Energy
• Enhanced Energy Performance
• Refrigerant Management
• Use High Reflective Roofing Materials in Architectural Design
Materials & Resources
• Comply with Orange County Solid Waste Management to Provide a Waste Stream Audit
• Provide easily Accessible Areas for Recycling & Waste Collection
• Include Individual Waste and Recycling Collection Points for Use by Patrons
• Work in Collaboration with Orange County in helping Tenants on Diverting Construction
Waste
Indoor Environmental Quality
• Work with Tenants on Meeting Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Standards
• Work with Tenants on the Use of LOW VOC Emitting Adhesives, Paints, and Other
Construction Materials
o Other
• Retain LEED Accredited Professional on Development Team
FINANCIAL IMPACT INFORMATION
Projected Annual Revenue to Orange County Upon Project Completion
$1.3 million in Ad Valorem Taxes
$100,000 in Lodging Fees
$6 Million in Retail Sales Taxes
Roger Perry: There are 84,000 cars going up and down this road (1-85) per day. This will be a
method for Orange County to, without degradation to the rest of the County, to capture those
people, bring them into an economic development district in Orange County, and cajole them
and convince them to spend money. In terms of social equity, we will probably create
somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000-1,500 jobs during the construction period, and then
ongoing permanent jobs within the community of approximately 1,500-2,000.
Bill Hutchins called George Horton to provide a summary of the project.
George Horton: I have been sworn in. I thank you again for your time and careful attention to
this presentation tonight. I just have a few remarks. We made every effort in our proposal to
respond to the economic development goals of Orange County. We believe those are
reasonable goals and we are pleased to be part of the public input process, helping to alter what
has historically been unfavorable ratios of residential to commercial properties in Orange
County. As you have heard tonight, we propose to go beyond Orange County's Economic
Development District standards, with a number of design solutions that would create a better
looking, better functioning, and more attractive mixed-use community. We want a walkable
retail and entertainment district with a pleasant and safe atmosphere both day and night. We
are committed to a project of exceptional quality in land planning, architecture, signage,
landscaping, and street-scaping. We are committed to the aggressive pursuit of sustainable
goals, sharing parking and other strategies to reduce impervious surfaces; water conservation
and reuse; use of daylighting; energy efficient designs; and green building materials. Finally, I
want to emphasize how positive I am about this development team. We have good chemistry
and complimentary ability. We all have been part of the landscape of Orange County for many,
many years. This is a powerful motivation for us to make Buckhorn Village a great destination
location, and a development that we will set high standards for future developments to come.
Bill Hutchins: In closing, I hope and think that we have provided evidence sufficient to allow
the issuance of the SUP.
Craig Benedict said that the County Commissioners could ask questions of the
applicants or staff, or turn it over to the public for comments and questions.
Chair Jacobs said that he consulted with the attorney about what is desirable for the
Board of County Commissioners to do now, since there are 39 people signed up to speak.
Geof Gledhill said that if the staff recommendation is followed, this matter will not be
concluded tonight, and thus the County Commissioners can hear public comment tonight and
then save the Board of County Commissioners' comments to the next meeting. The Board can
also ask questions of the developer.
The Board agreed to hear from the public and then reconvene at a later date for
discussion. There will not be a recommendation from the Planning Board until the Board of
County Commissioners has had a chance to discuss this matter.
Bill Hutchins asked how they would know if the speakers are providing comments on the
SUP or on the legislative portion of this. Geof Gledhill said that each person could state their
intention. If they are providing comments on the legislative portion of this, then they will have to
be sworn in.
Chair Jacobs said that it would be easier to go ahead and swear in everyone that wants
to speak.
Bill Hutchins said that he would like to provide cross—examination of the witnesses on
the legislative portion.
Public Comment:
Jack Adams: I have been sworn in. I am on the Board of Directors on the Efland Fire
Department, and have been a volunteer firefighter for 24 years, and have served as Captain
and Assistant Chief of the department. I am now the Safety Officer. While the growth of new
business in the economic development zone in Efland balances out the County's tax load
between residential and businesses, the Efland Fire Department would like to make the
Commissioners aware of some of the ramifications of these decisions. In the past decade, the
City of Mebane has annexed the majority of the businesses in the Efland Fire Tax District. The
results of this are that the fire department is being funded primarily by the fire tax levied on the
homeowners. So while these developments are benefiting the County's tax base, Efland
residents will have to pay more taxes for fire protection. Since the businesses in the economic
development zone are in the City of Mebane, the response that Efland provides to these areas
is one engine and two volunteer firemen. We would like the County to be aware of this, and its
impact on including business through this area. The Efland Fire Department has had a contract
with the City of Mebane where we pay Mebane to respond to calls in our tax district. They
respond in these areas where they would have a quicker response time. The cost of this
contract has gone up every time it has been brought up for renewal. This puts a further strain
on our budget. We would like the opportunity to work with the County and Mebane on an
interlocal agreement that balances out local tax revenues and the County's need for economic
development. Our new substation near Buckhorn Road changes our response time and would
factor into these discussions. Efland has enjoyed a big surge in houses over the last decade
because it is such an affordable area. Many firefighters who work in municipalities elsewhere in
the County live in Efland. It is our hope that as the economic development zone grows, that the
Efland Fire Department can be included in the process to avoid having the homeowners bear a
disproportionate amount of the burden in this growth.
Norman Umstead: I have been sworn in. I am the Pastor of Mt. Moriah Missionary Baptist
Church located on Buckhorn Road, and I also Chair the People for Progress. First, I'd like to
say that we are happy to hear that the water and sewer project is gaining some attention again.
It certainly has been a long process and we are happy to hear that something is being done.
Secondly, I've heard from many citizens in our area who are happy about the idea of being able
to shop close to home. But our churches, we have two churches located on Buckhorn Road,
and we are not so happy or so thrilled about the idea of invading some of our churches'
properties— maybe siphoned away in order to accommodate the traffic that this particular
project is going to bring. One church in particular is situated very close to Buckhorn Road, and
the traffic analysis says that they are going to widen Buckhorn, but he didn't say how far up
Buckhorn, nor did he include Highway 70, or I didn't hear Highway 70 mentioned, which is also
going to have an impact. Currently, we face some problems in our church on Sunday mornings
with our members who live in the Graham area or Mebane area who travel Interstate 85 going in
the northern direction, being able to get off the interstate and make a left turn onto Buckhorn
Road because of the existing traffic there already. And then we have people who are coming
south, going toward Burlington, who are getting off the interstate, coming up and turning around
in our church's parking lot, in order to get back in line to go back toward the flea market. And
we have had some of our members pause to be hit in the parking lot because some people are
in such a haste to get back in line. I think this project would be a benefit to Orange County, but
we are concerned about the churches and roads.
Naola Fearrington: I have been sworn in. I live at 710 Buckhorn Road. I'm a member of
People for Progress. The question that I have, at our last People for Progress meeting, we had
several questions, and I think you answered two of those in the presentations that were made
tonight. But there's one thing that, in addition to what Rev. Umstead has said, the other thing
that concerns us, in our area, the residents are concerned about property taxes—tax values,
County tax increases, and the possibility of Mebane City taxes if they are annexed.
Chair Jacobs: Just so you know, the Northern Buckhorn/Central Efland Sewer project will go
to public hearing in this room on April 1St
David Permar: I have been sworn. I'm an attorney from Raleigh. I'm here representing
McLeod Oil Company. McLeod Oil Company operates the BP Buckhorn station right at the
southeast corner of this interchange. McLeod is headquartered in Mebane, it is a petroleum
marketing and distribution company, it has been in existence since the 1940's. The Thompkins
family has owned and operated it since the 1970's. It has approximately 70 employees. It
distributes and sells petroleum products to the retail public through approximately 30-40 outlets
in the central Piedmont area of North Carolina. They have owned and operated what I call the
Buckhorn BP station since the 1980's. It is one of McLeod's best outlets in terms of volume.
The retail gasoline business is highly competitive. Price is an important factor. Higher volumes
mean lower margins and lower prices. But access in and out of a station is even more
important than price - ease of access in and ease of access out. At the Buckhorn BP, 99% of
the business comes right off the interstate and returns immediately to the interstate. All of those
customers must make a left turn into the Buckhorn BP. Currently, that left turn is very easily
accommodated, it's good access in and it's good access out. If, however, our customers and
the motoring public lose the ability to make a left turn into that site, it will be devastating to the
Buckhorn BP business. It is no exaggeration to expect a loss of 50% in sales if that were to
occur. Traffic impact analysis indicates that Buckhorn Road would need to be expanded to four
lanes, with a turn lane in the center. The second concern for us is whether or not additional
rights-of-way will need to be taken in order to accommodate the four lanes plus the turn lane. I
urge you not to take any additional right-of-way from the Buckhorn BP site. If very little
additional right-of-way being taken would require that the pump islands be moved, if the pump
islands are moved, the entire UST system must be replaced, and if you're going through all of
that, you're likely going to have to replace everything on the site. That becomes a very
expensive process. I'm really sure that the developer or the Department of Transportation
doesn't want to take on that expense. I urge you to do two things. First, keep the current traffic
patterns on the site and keep the left turn into the BP site open. Second, keep all of the
improvements in the current right-of-way. If all of that can be accomplished, we have no
objection to this proposed development. We look forward to working with the DOT, the
developer, and Orange County to see if we can accomplish all of our goals and let the project
move forward.
Michael Collins: He gave his handout to the Clerk. I have been sworn. Tonight I'm speaking
on behalf of the Intercity Visit Sustainability Workgroup. We are a group of concerned citizens
that grew out of meetings with progressive community groups and leaders during the Chamber
of Commerce's trip to Madison, WI in the fall of 2006. We have remained active since then in
an effort to find better ways to implement the concept of economic sustainability at the local
level.
Our research and activities have convinced us that the key to a thriving and sustainable local
economy is to focus economic development efforts on supporting local business,
entrepreneurship, and a culture of"think local first."
This idea was recently captured by Senate candidate Jim Neal. Neal wrote about the
importance "...of creating not just jobs, but careers. Not just jobs, but jobs that pay good
wages. Not just jobs, but jobs that add value. In short, quality, sustainable jobs that are
grounded in entrepreneurship. North Carolina's future depends on building and enabling
'homegrown wealth': businesses formed by entrepreneurs in the State which create both lasting
economic wealth and employment opportunities."
What's true for the state is just as true for Orange County. In last week's issue of Newsweek,
Daniel Gross reported on the extreme glut in retail space across the country. Numerous chains
and big-box retailers are closing hundreds of storefronts —with all the associated effects on
local employment. Even if this development is able to bring in large retailers from outside, the
jobs created are likely to be low-wage and ephemeral. Hardly a recipe for sustainability.
If that is the case, then the proposed development for the Buckhorn Road site is 180 in the
wrong direction. Here in Orange County, we are used to seeing our local governments lead, not
follow. We urge the County to insist on a project that is worthy of the future, not a blast from the
past. A mixed-use, transit-friendly development instead of just another strip mall. A home to
locally-based entrepreneurs and forward-thinking residents and business owners, not to
exploitative outside retailers. A project that makes a statement about where Orange County's
priorities lie, and resists the temptation to follow the retail gold which is, as James Carnahan
recently pointed out in the Chapel Hill News, more often than not, Fool's Gold.
Last time I looked, the unemployment rate for Orange County was well below the state and
national average. This would seem to indicate that the issue to address regarding jobs in
Orange County is quality, not quantity. So, if this development does proceed, we propose the
following stipulations be attached to it:
1. That the county requires a commitment to bring in tenants who pay living wages and
whose employees will not create a burden for county services because of inadequate
employee pay and/or benefits.
2. That the county include a 'local first' mandate stipulating a specific and aggressive
level of local tenancy and ownership.
2. That the county establishes and provides incentives for local entrepreneurs to
encourage the rise of locally-owned businesses, for exmple in the form of a revolving
loan fund.
4. That the county seek, to the extent feasible, to have the development adhere to
Orange County's new Comprehensive Plan, or, failing that, to adhere to specific
principles of sustainability as agreed on in the near term by the county's boards and
commissions.
A project that does nothing but add to our environmental burden, increase traffic, and create
low-wage jobs, all in the name of sales tax revenues that evaporate in additional public service
costs, is not worth having in Orange County. If this project is just to be Orange County's version
of our neighbors' shopping malls, then we urge you to reject this proposal and to join the
growing number of citizens who understand that a sustainable economy is one moored in the
local community and one that starts from the perspective of"think local first."
Remarks prepared by Mike Collins, 967-4119, mmcc.collinsamindsprinci.com
Anthony Corbett: I do confirm that I have been sworn. I am a property owner of 104 Frazier
Road in Mebane, N. C. 27302. I would like to have some questions addressed and answered
hopefully at this meeting. If this application is approved, what are the expected and/or desired
timeline and target dates for start and completion of the proposed Buckhorn Village
development and the East mixed use development at the railroad track location? If the quasi-
judicial application is approved and the existing residents experience the traffic patterns that
would affect them adversely, who would pay for the traffic engineer? I have heard that a traffic
engineer would have to be paid by the residents. It was my understanding that the traffic
engineer would have to be paid by a resident to survey the traffic, if the traffic was affecting the
public adversely. So, who would have to pay for that? I also heard something in regards to the
woodlands. What woodlands do you plan to preserve in the proposed Buckhorn Road phase I
and subsequent commercial developments. There are woodlands located on the east side of
Buckhorn Village. Could I get the specific locations of district I, II, and III? We had a map up
there, but I did not see the specific locations of the proposed districts.
Chair Jacobs: We can provide a map as part of the public record. The plan also has, as I
recall, the instances regarding what woodlands are going to be protected. I think the Planning
Director said that in order to provide credible evidence on the adverse impact of traffic, that one
(a community or a person) has to hire a traffic engineer after the project is done, and then we
have to work with the NCDOT. As far as the timeline, I don't know that anybody has addressed
that, but the developer could just state what the timeline is projected for the different phases.
John Fugo: I have been sworn and I am one of the development partners. The timeline as we
have it now is groundbreaking mid-2010, and completion 4 % to 5 years later. That is about as
specific as we can get at this time.
Debra Elmore: I have been sworn in. It seems that numbers are very important to this
committee and to everybody on the Planning Board and this organization. I just wanted to state
that I have been living in Orange County 41 years, and have been living on the property that I
now live on, which is at 1015 Buckhorn Road, a stone's throw from this development. This has
not been a consideration because we are further down the road from the development. I would
have to go past the development to get to my home. I've lived in the home where I'm at right
now for 41 years. It was passed down to me from my mother and it was bought by my
grandmother in 1938 from, ironically Orange County Board of Education. This development is
going to be detrimental to my property. I know that my taxes are going to go through the roof
when this development goes in beside my property. Guess what, nobody's going to want to buy
my land because it's right beside a mall. I just want this Commission to know that this township
where we're located has always been like the stepchild of Orange County because we don't
really belong to Mebane, we're in Orange County, so all of a sudden all of these developers are
coming in and now we're the golden child of the County because we live in the 1-85 corridor.
This just upsets me. I want everyone on this committee to know that people's lives are going to
change in that community, not just on that corner, but ones that live down the road, on the other
side of the road, up the road, and they're all going to change. And I just want you to keep that in
consideration when making these decisions.
James Carnahan: I have been sworn in. I'm a resident of Carrboro and a designer. I'm going
to briefly talk about some more lengthy comments and analysis, and I'm going to give to you two
documents. The first one is an Op Ad written and endorsed by the Board of Directors of The
Village Project, a non-profit in Carrboro, North Carolina. The remainder of material is entitled,
"Assessing Buckhorn Village in the Context of Global Warming." Basically, this is asking you all
first to find out, either from staff or from the applicant what will be the vehicle miles traveled,
what will be the carbon emissions impact of this project. I think that is fairly easy to determine
with GIS and other data. The applicant estimates something like 46,000 daily trips in and out of
this development. We are being asked to consider and build this kind of a project that would be
primarily automobile dependent, because we don't have any public transportation down by 1-85,
at a time when the message about global warming and climate change is becoming more and
more ominous. So, the bulk of the material that I have prepared here, first of all talks about
some of the consequences of global warming, and second, talks about the fact that many of
these consequences are accelerating to the extent that James Hanson, who is the NASA
scientist who first started talking about wanting to establish an upper limit for concentrations of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, recently wrote that the limit needs to be reduced to 350 parts
per million. We are already at 380 parts per million. We need to have this information A and B.
I think it is a concern that we're being asked to approve this based on a pretty outdated
comprehensive plan, very outdated guidelines for the economic development districts, and also
we have not completed the carbon inventory for the County much less established guidelines
and standards for achieving some kind of carbon reduction in the County. Given the gravity of
what former U. S. Vice President Al Gore calls the Global Climate Emergency, and given that
the County's planning ordinances do not now effectively address the urgent need to reduce
CO2 emissions, approval of the Buckhorn Village application at this time is not in the County's
interest. The accumulation of knowledge about CO2 and climate change in conjunction with the
significant increase in CO2 that Buckhorn Village would produce indicates that this project
would pose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare to the people of Orange County and
beyond."
Glendel Stephenson (Mayor of Mebane): I have been sworn in. I am here tonight to support
the proposal that was presented by your applicant concerning the property at the Buckhorn
location. About two and a half or three years ago, the officials of the City of Mebane and
Orange County met to talk about the need to supply water and sewer for the new Gravelly Hill
Middle School that needed to be built in western Orange County. The City agreed to do that,
and at that particular time, we also talked about what might take place over the next number of
years with the properties on both sides of the interstate, particularly, that property that was
occupied by the Jockey Lot. You asked us at that time if we could also make an allocation of
water and sewer in each of those properties and we agreed to do that. I think we gave you a
letter along that line. In the course of the conversation there, we said that this is not an open-
ended deal, but a limited amount of uses that you can get from the City of Mebane, but it was
far in excess of anything that's been described here tonight that would be needed on this
development. We also said in our conversation, and I'd like to emphasize a few things, that the
tenants going into that area would not be large users, and we're talking about industrial type
users, of either water or sewage. That they would provide good employment opportunities, and
we've heard something about the number of employees that might be involved here. That they
would be a good addition to the tax bases of both Orange County and Mebane. In addition to
that, that any development that takes place there should be to the benefit of the surrounding
neighborhood. We have been approached by a number of people who live along Buckhorn
about their septic tank problems and other things and asking that we provide some help, and
that was part of the conversation we had with the Orange County officials. Mebane has
provided water and sewage for Gravelly Hill and we are now ready to provide both of those
services to the area. We are and we have been making an investment in the Southeast Pump
Station just off Mebane-Oaks Road. I just spoke to our City Manager, and he tells me that it's
going to have a capacity of a million gallons, far larger than anything needed here. We
anticipate that this is going to be large enough to handle all future development between
Mebane-Oaks and Buckhorn Road, as it might development over the next 20 years or so. We
are in a position to do that, and we do have adequate facilities and adequate capacity to take
care of both of those needs. I think that this presentation is one of the most comprehensive that
I've ever heard in the time that I have served as Mayor. I would urge the committee, and I know
this is a volatile situation that you're into, and it's not going to be decided tonight; but I would
urge both of the committees to approve the request and that you do all you can to assist in the
implementation of the project. We feel in our direction that it's a good thing. I think it's going to
be good for the neighborhood, I think it's going to be good for both communities and both
counties. I look forward to being one of the customers in that part of the County. I offer my
support for the applicant tonight.
Allan Rosen: I affirm that I have been sworn in. I want to start off by saying, generally
speaking, that I am definitely in favor of economic development. As a taxpayer in Orange
County since 1994, I think it's fair to say that the timeline that Craig Benedict presented with this
being an economic development district in 1994, a water and sewer agreement in 2001, I think
it's fair to say that this project is at least seven years too late, perhaps more than that. If it does
happen to go forward, I hope the County officials will be modest in their taking credit for it,
because it's really been a long time coming. I also think the elected officials need to show some
leadership to build some bridges with the adjacent community members. I think it's good that
the applicant definitely has the roots, I think that's to their credit; I think the work that they have
done definitely speaks well of their efforts, probably better than the industry standard, although it
will be a challenge. I would like to mention tonight, that if it does go forward, I have particular
concerns with the application. One, with respect to the social equity dimension of sustainability.
You know, 1.14 million square feet of non-residential space and 200 residential units that seem
to me to be a pretty unsustainable ratio. I don't know if it is on this 140-acre parcel or adjacent
parcels, but speaking as a former member of the General Housing Advisory Board, I think
additional housing would be good and would certainly make a more sustainable project. Also,
to the extent that before the property ages out, commercially speaking, which a lot of
developments eventually do, if climate change issues really impact our land use patterns, if the
cost of fuel really impacts our land use patterns, I think it should be incumbent upon the
applicant during this approval stage to submit sort of a plan B site plan, so that if the property
needs to be re-zoned, due to sort of these outside factors, which really call for concentrated
development, there should be an alternative site plan that emphasizes a definite pedestrian-
friendly street grid; vertically mixed use buildings, including residential; the ability to infill the
currently planned parking lots with buildings in a way that integrate with a pedestrian-friendly
street grid; the minimization of wide roads. Those are my concerns and I certainly think that as
the County moves forward with the comprehensive plan update that there will be a synergistic
impact between this project and the comprehensive plan update, particularly with respect to
bringing the aspect of housing into the sustainability equation. Thank you.
Sally Goerner: I have been sworn in. I'm an engineer and a systems theorist and a 25-year
resident of Orange County. I'm also the Director of the Integral Science Institute, an
international scientific consulting firm. I just spent six years researching and writing a book on
the causes of long-term economic vitality and its implications for current economic development
theory and what the alternatives are. I can shorten my speech to say that I agree
wholeheartedly with what Mike Collins said earlier. So a lot of what I will say is in support of
many of the kinds of things that he was talking about in terms of the benefits of developing local
economies as opposed to importing big guys. I was deeply impressed by the quality of your
presentation, particularly along the sustainability lines; I think his four suggestions or
modifications to encourage the local businesses would make a big difference. I previously
submitted a document that has a summary of my concerns, plus some of the evidence. So I
hope that will get into your packet. I would say that I see Buckhorn as an important issue
because it highlights the tough choices we're facing as how to best build long-term economic
vitality for all regions of Orange County and all its constituencies, both rural and town. The
question for me is less how many shoppers are we going to get into Orange County, but how
many kinds of things is Orange County going to be producing, what kind of services we're going
to be adding that we can sell to other people and exchange among ourselves. I am very
impressed with how thoughtfully this project has been developed and researched, but I also
have to say that, unfortunately, there is good reason to believe that this research is based on an
economic development model that is in the process of failing nationally and globally, and
certainly at locations across this country. I see it as a terrible mistake to try to apply it here,
especially in light of the increasing problems of peak oil, of drought, and of global warming. So,
the evidence, as I see it, suggests that Buckhorn Village is likely to do more economic harm
than good. Current economic theory places a huge emphasis on GDP growth and the large
corporation and development projects that increase it most. About 30 years ago this emphasis
spawned an economic development strategy that has been irreverently named "The Big Game
Hunting Project." That is, using incentives to lure big manufacturers, retailers, and other large
corporations, which officials hope will bring in jobs and tax revenues. Unfortunately, while this
strategy may increase tax revenues in the short-term, research shows that it erodes the
surrounding local economic networks, siphons away local dollars, and costs more in tax dollars
infrastructure overhead, increased pollution, and lost jobs than the local businesses that it
destroys. Unless we can make allowances for creating local enterprise networks I suspect that
Buckhorn is less an advantage than a detriment.
Bill Bunch: I have been sworn in. I'm here tonight as a resident of Orange County and also as
a Certified Public Accountant and a local business owner. I'm also Chair of the Chapel Hill-
Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. I'd like to applaud the Commissioners for your foresight in
putting an economic development district right beside a major transportation artery many years
ago. The projected sales tax revenue, $5 or $6 million, from this project will materially increase
the County sales tax base. And the projected $125 million in commercial property value will
materially increase the projected property tax revenue. These funds can be used to pay for
school teachers. There is significant pressure from the two school boards for the County to fund
schools at a regional level, and this project would bring more revenue that would fund a lot of
school teachers. We're using local developers, and I applaud Buckhorn Associates. The
project is being developed by some of the best and brightest developers in the area who are
sensitive to the culture and desires of the citizens, they have experience doing very high-quality
mixed-use projects. This isn't outside developers coming into town, these are our local Orange
County developers, and we support that. We encourage proactive collaboration with the County
and also the local neighbors —with Efland, with Mebane, with the Town of Chapel Hill, with
Carrboro, with Hillsborough, the Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce, and the Chapel Hill-
Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. We think that if we work together and collaborate, we can
attract the type of local business that will be the right mix for our community. On behalf of the
950 members of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, we enthusiastically endorse
this project.
Jim Stock: I have been sworn in. I am a Carrboro resident. I own a small business that would
in all likelihood benefit financially from a large-scale commercial development at Buckhorn, yet I
am almost appalled that the vision for the future of Orange County is a mall. This is not why we
live in Orange County. We would live in Charlotte or Cary, and I just think that there is such a
lack of leadership that people are being led by their noses by developers who are telling us that
big box stores for the future. They're already the past, they're already failed, they're already
abandoned and empty and scars on the landscape. I just think that, with more Ph. D's per
square foot than you can shake a stick at, this County ought to be able to come up with
something beneficial to the future. He said big boxes are part of history and he said this county
ought to come up with something that is beneficial for the future. I just don't think we're trying. I
think the sales tax revenue is great, but it's going to cost a lot of money. I read in the paper
today, $314,000 for three firemen in Carrboro for three years. That's not trucks, that's not a
building, that's not equipment. And three firemen aren't going to do it; I believe the first
gentleman that spoke was a fireman. My father always told me, there's two kinds of wealth in
the world —what you can make and what you can dig out of the ground. This spends wealth
rather than produces wealth. It spends wealth on credit cards. We're already hopelessly
indebted in this country. It produces jobs that are low-wage. I don't want my child cooking
burgers at Red Robin. With all the Ph. D's here, I know we can find something better. I'm trying
to think of ideas, I'm a college dropout, I'm a small business guy, but I know that there's going to
be a lot of money, especially if the Democrats win, for green technologies. The people that
thought of RTP could have put a mall there. Why can't Orange County be known for something,
why can't we create a green technology center that trains new trades people that creates new
jobs and new technologies. I just think it's very short-sighted, and we have enough malls.
There's one 17 miles that way and 20 miles that way. That's all the shopping I need to do, and I
just think it's short-sighted. We can say no to this, I think. I have not paid enough attention to
local politics, but I'm going to start counting who votes for what, and elections are close by. I
think that people are concerned about this as whether this is the direction we want the County to
go.
Anita Badrock: I have been sworn in. I currently serve as the Chairman of the Economic
Development Committee for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, and I also serve
on the citizen's advisory committee for the Orange County Economic Development
Commission, which is not taking a position tonight on this particular project. I would like to
come to you as a 30-year resident of Orange County, as a small business owner, who has
owned a small, local business in Orange County for a long time, and as a partial owner of
another business, to encourage you to support this project for a couple of reasons. First of all, I
know that for the last 15 years, we've had that economic development district identified through
a process that involved a lot of public input, a lot of hearings around the area, and we came up
with three economic development districts. But I didn't know until I came tonight that we've
actually been looking at that particular site for economic development for 25 years. So we have
for a long time been waiting for the right thing to go into this district. The current proposal
proposes 130 acres out of a 900-acre piece of land for development to fill what we have
identified as a gap in Orange County, which is retail services. The stuff that your own staff
showed you tonight showed you clearly that we have retail leakage that's going into other
counties. Our residents are spending money elsewhere, and I'd like to see them spend that
money here, because I'd like to see those voluntary tax contributions go to give my son's
teachers a raise. And I'd like to see it used for Sheriffs Deputies and for emergency personnel,
and to provide and mental health services to residents who need it. It is consistent with the
County's Economic Development Strategic Plan in terms of promoting non-residential
development for the taxbase. It is part of the identified gap, as I mentioned earlier, and most
importantly, I think this project allows for the rest of that property to be considered for other uses
down the road. As a local business owner, I know that my business, when I've had a retail
outlet, has done better when good, high-quality regional and national retail has been around it.
So, I think that the developers have stated that that's their goal. We're fortunate that these are
not people that we've never seen or heard of before, these are people who live and work in
Orange County, and have done other developments in Orange County, and we see that in the
way that they lease and use their property that that's what they're trying to achieve is a mix of
national, local, and regional business owners. I hope that you will consider this as part of a
jumpstart of an overall economic development strategy for Orange County. Thank you.
Ben Lloyd: I have been sworn in. I'm a longtime resident of Efland. In 1981 Ken Thompson
came to Orange County as the County Manager. He didn't have enough money to pay the bills
from July to December when the new tax money came in. He created what he referred to as an
11-point plan, which was nothing more than to rob Peter to pay Paul. He kept moving money
around and kept us afloat. The following year, I became a member of that Board of County
Commissioners. We were in the same predicament. I became partially responsible to provide
for the needs of Orange County. Relative to this, I contacted the North Carolina Department of
Commerce. Three of them visited with me, one being their chief environmentalist. I rode them
from Durham County to Alamance County, up and down 70, 85, came back and sat down and
they looked at me and told me that I didn't need to show them anything. "With this US
70/Southern Railway/Interstate 85 corridor, you have the most potential area in the state of
North Carolina and any surrounding state that we're aware of to attract good, clean, high-
paying, low water using, non-polluting, economic growth." But due to the lack of interest and
cooperation from Orange County over the prior 15 years, when economic development interests
come to Raleigh looking at North Carolina, they had Orange County marked off the list. Twenty-
five years later, not one brick has been laid in this so-called potential corridor. As a result of
that, the property tax in Orange County has increased 524% in the past 20 years. In the last 19
years, we have increased property tax every year. Orange County is known widely as a no-
growth county. In October of last year, I was visited by a gentleman who's job is to promote
economic development within the state of North Carolina. He had been on his job
approximately a year. He told me when he accepted that job, his peers told him, "Don't waste
your time in Orange County, they don't want anything." That's such a shame, when nearly half
of Orange County's workforce has to leave the County. They should both live and work in
Orange County, which would lower the traffic and lower the pollution that people complain about
so much. This Buckhorn Village proposal, I applaud. It's the first positive step in years relative
to providing the needs for the people in giving us tax relief. I support them 200%. With the
projected needs of Orange County and the school capital needs over the next ten years being in
excess of$300 million and the debt service payment on current projects exceeding $60 million,
something has to give somewhere. People are paying all they can pay. I would suggest that
this be project#1. We need to continue to live without these outrageous property taxes that we
now pay. Thank you.
Joan Jobsis: I have been sworn. I'm a resident of Orange County, I live in Efland on Bushy
Cook Road, approximately a mile and a quarter south of the proposed Buckhorn Village, and I
came to support the project that's proposed. I've been in my current home for the past 23
years, and am committed to this section of Orange County. I have been a past member of the
Orange County Planning Board for six years, and the Chairman of that board for one year.
Back in the 90's, I was part of the process that established the three economic development
districts, one of which we're now talking about, and talking about converting it into another
version of that. To give you some frame of reference, back in the 90's, when we were
discussing this and basically promoting it, our thinking was that Orange County needed
economic development, it didn't have anything going in the way of economic development, and
the logical place was the 1-8511-40 corridor. It is still the logical place for economic development.
I think we chose our geographical placement correctly at that time, and I think this is where we
do need development in this County. I don't think there's any question that we need some kind
of economic development, not just to become a county of houses. Eventually, we would be like
the elite Poughkeepsie area, where basically people have houses that they use for property
taxes, and they all commute down to New York City for their jobs. I don't think that is the future
for us. I think we do need, within our County, economic development. I think this is the logical
place to have it. I think the proposal is very solid, and I'm very pleased that they are local
developers that are planning it, and that they are planning to have local businesses included in
this. I do think it would provide us jobs and taxes and bring more revenue into the County.
Thank you.
Margaret Cannel!: I have been sworn in. I am the Director of the Hillsborough/Orange County
Chamber of Commerce. However, I'm not here to represent the Chamber of Commerce, I'm
here to represent myself. There's been a lot of things that people have said that I would like to
rebut one way or the other, but that's not my position. I do want to say that I think it's very
important that the economic development districts have been in existence for 14 years with
virtually no economic development going on. One of the maxims of economic development is, if
you have a property that does not have infrastructure, water and sewer, then you really have
nothing. I think that it's very important to provide that, and of course Orange County does not
have the ability to provide water and sewer, because that's not the business that Orange County
is in. The City of Mebane has offered through the work of these people to provide water and
sewer to a very large area, and I think that this project has the potential to jumpstart the
economic development district, and potentially to get some activity going there. While retail is
not the highest and best use potentially of this project, and it would be really nice to have
something where Ph. D's could go to work, no one has come forward and said, "You know, I
think we'd like to put IBM out here." This is what has been presented to us. I think it is a great
use, and I say that not just because I'm a rabid shopper, but because I think that this is
something that the people of Orange County could really get behind and potentially enjoy.
Some of the things that the project proposes are to have entertainment in addition to shopping,
restaurants. Yes, Southpoint is one of those places that you go to, but I was out there the other
day, I was up there Saturday, and interestingly enough, I had to go to Southpoint to return some
items that I had bought at Alamance Crossing. So I drove through Orange County both ways to
do this shopping. And when I was out at Southpoint on a Saturday afternoon, it was a beautiful
day, and I had to park an entire parking lot away from the shopping center because it was
packed. Those people, I would guess that a great number of them were not from Durham
County, they were from Orange County, they were Chatham County, and they were from Moore
County, Harnett County. But, if we have a facility with destination shopping, we could capture
some of those dollars that are coming from other parts of the state. In addition, we could
capture those people to come back and visit the wonderful tourist attractions that we have here.
We already have over a million visitors that come every year to visit Orange County. If they
came and did some shopping, that would be great. These people are going to be driving down
1-40 and 1-85 anyway, so perhaps we can capture some of their dollars while they're here. I do
have a question too. Some of the documents that other speakers have made reference to, will
those be part of the public record as well? It was answered yes.
Karen Pratt Morris: I have been sworn in. I'm just speaking as a property owner, a mother,
and a grandmother. I live in Timberwood Trail, which is off of West Ten Road, very close to
Gravelly Hill Middle School. One of my first and main concerns is safety. It is a proven fact
when malls go in, crimes go up. We're talking about firemen, how many policemen are you
going to put on the payroll, and will they protect our properties and properties away from the
mall. Number two, one of the main places throughout the country for child abduction are
amusement parks, malls, and country roads now, just within the last two or three years those
kinds of abductions have increased. So you are building a mall right next to a middle school in
the country. So please think about that. Drainage, we have multiple concerns about drainage.
We have a flow going down West Ten Road, and you ask for legal and whatever examples, my
example would be Crabtree Mall back when we had rain. Every time there was rain, they had
flooding and drainage issues, and that may impact us. The other thing, we moved to where we
are because we liked country life, we like clean, green living. All of us in our neighborhood have
pets, we do organic farming, organic bee-keeping. This will all be threatened by the pollution
and traffic, and I still have to talk about the traffic coming off of Buckhorn Road, and we're going
to widen it. I mean, we have to be in a dreamland to think that people are not going to take side
roads like West Ten all the way down past where we live. We're just going to have traffic,
pollution, and have you thought about, back to Gravelly Hill Middle School, the affect of this
traffic in December and November and shopping times on school bus traffic. My last thing, so
many people have already covered, again, so many intelligent people here, and this is all we
can think of is a mall. I can guarantee you that all of us that are driving out of the County are
not going to stay here to work, because we will not be working in the mall for minimum wage.
The last thing is, my husband and I used to live in Pittsburgh, and I talk about the shortcuts.
The one thing they did in the mall that was abandoned, it grew up and was a beautiful mall, and
literally five to six years later, it was abandoned and an eyesore. Somebody went in there and
redid this mall, and some of things they did would have music festivals. And the other thing I
thought— make this a green area, make it a park where people can come in and play volleyball,
ping-pong tournaments —things like that where you have other areas where they can still come
in, still spend money. A theater, for heaven's sake, maybe Carrboro and Chapel Hill do, but we
don't. I'm not talking about movies; I'm talking about a theater with plays, both outdoor and
indoor. There are thousands of good small businesses coming in here. Try to find other
businesses that will develop in this area in a green atmosphere, but not a mall. And don't ruin
our homes, please.
Becky Bolinger: I have been sworn in. I'm a resident of Efland. I'm Karen's neighbor. Mostly
what I wrote down has already been said, but I just wanted to be on record that I do not think
this would be very good for our community. I don't think it's the right direction to go when we're
in a big global warming crisis. Mike Collins, I think everything he said is something you should
really consider.
Mike Swaim: I have been sworn. I live a mile from the proposed development site. What I
would like to do tonight is propose an idea for the developers and for the County
Commissioners. I apologize to you in advance if this idea is something you're fairly sick of
hearing about. As a 20-year resident of Orange County, the general Buckhorn area, I've been
hearing proposals for this region west of Orange for quite some time. Initially, I was extremely
dismayed that one of the plans was to turn the Jockey lot into a giant retail center. It seems that
that would just increase congestion in an area that locals have been avoiding on weekends for a
long time, due to flea market traffic. Over the years, I've watched Hillsborough and Mebane
struggle with decisions regarding big box retailers and ever-expanding retail sprawl, with Efland
caught right in between. It seems to me that simply attempting to halt proposed retail space
expansion rarely works well. If anything, in this case, it might just move the project down the
interstate a few exits in neighboring Alamance, meaning that once again, Orange could see no
benefits but still experience the negative consequences of increased traffic. So, I have an idea
on how this area might be developed in a manner that would benefit residents in both Orange
and Alamance Counties and still meet the larger goals of The Village Project and distinctly
different than Buckhorn Village. What Buckhorn Village needs is a regional farmers' market, a
regularly daily schedule coupled with a restaurant featuring locally-grown products and an art
consignment gallery featuring works by local artists and craftspeople. There are a number of
reasons why Buckhorn exchange area is neatly suited to a regional farmers' market. Both the
Raleigh and Piedmont NCDA farmers' markets are currently at capacity, both for growers and
for buyers. Buckhorn is sited between these two giant markets, drawing people from
Greensboro to Durham, actually decreasing the amount of driving necessary for residents of
Orange, Alamance, Caswell, and Person Counties, which would shop or sell there. While the
individual farmers' markets in Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Durham are quite successful on the
weekends and selective evenings in season, there is no local daily market or private outlet such
as Weaver Street or Whole Foods for growers to sell wholesale. These individual farmers'
markets cannot keep up with current demand, either from consumers or from growers that
would like to sell there. A regional farmers' market/restaurant/artist gallery complex at Buckhorn
would not only draw more people to Buckhorn Village, but would encourage Buckhorn Village
patrons to spend some money at the vendors that would be more likely to keep that money
local. A farmers' market retail space for locally-produced items would make this project a whole
lot more palatable to many of us that live in the area.
Robin Taylor-Hall: I have been sworn in. My family has actually lived in this County at least
five generations. I'm a taxpayer, and I represent the Efland heirs, which Efland was named
after. They are very excited that this project has been proposed. They have 180 acres in the
EDD, and they also have another 80 acres that is a proposed commercial development. This
was from the water and sewer that is moving in the area and just growth and money that would
be coming to the County. So they wanted me to speak and say that they are very much in favor
of this project. Martha Brown, I represent her too, she also is in favor of the project.
Tom O'Dwyer: I have been sworn in. I serve on the Orange County Commission for the
Environment, I'm a member of the U. S. Green Building Council, and I am an avid believer in
principles of sustainability, where the economic, environmental, and social impacts of our
actions are measured for our future. As a design builder and small developer, I am a committed
participant in an architecture program called the 2030 initiative, where everything I build is 50%
energy efficient. I'm finding we can do it. This is why I personally believe, this is an aside, I
personally believe that sustainability should not only be a policy, but it should be institutionalized
for the purpose of coordinating and implementing adopted goals with developments such as
these. More on this subject hopefully in the future. Regarding the Commission for the
Environment's letter that you all have a copy of, I'll give some highlights about it. The proposed
Buckhorn development would be located in the Seven-Mile Creek area of the Upper Eno
Protected Watershed. Now, we can reduce the environmental impact of a large complex such
as this by streamlining traffic flow, reducing vehicle miles traveled, reducing wastes through less
generation and recycling, and encourage water and energy efficiencies and low-impact design
principles. In our advisory role to the Board of Commissioners on environmental matters, the
Commission recommends the following:
Plan and build according to the LEED Neighborhood Development Standard, at a minimum
using the current LEED ND pilot standards. Right now, they're not accepting anymore
programs, but one of the developers here is participating in East 54, and they're using LEED ND
guidelines for that development. I feel it's important that there should be a set of standards that
you ask them to follow. There is a historical tract of developers and builders at UNC and other
places, I'm not accusing these people of anything, they are doing good things, but sometimes
what people say they're going to do, does not verify. So commissioning verification of the things
that are standards can be asked of you to these developers. So, what we're recommending is
the LEED ND pilot standards for the revised adopted standard plan for release in 2009. You
have an attachment of the guidelines and frequently asked questions about what that is about.
These standards address things in transportation, bicycle use, bicycle storage for commercial
and residential, reduction of water. Commission for the Environment is recommending a 30%
less use of water than the water use baseline calculated for the building after meeting the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 fixture performance requirements. This is an obtainable goal, and if
they're asked to do this, you'll find that it's possible. It's being done in State buildings right now.
And 30% energy efficient.
There's more for you to read in the submittal, but this is the gist. Thank you.
Ruffin Slater: I have been sworn. I'm the General Manager of Weaver Street Market, we have
grocery stores in Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and soon we'll have one in Hillsborough. I've been
involved in economic development in the County for the last 20 years as a businessperson. I've
been on various boards and commissions, including serving as the Chair of the Economic
Development Commission, where I became familiar with retail leakage and other economic
development issues. While this project may provide solutions to some economic development
challenges, it may well exacerbate others. I urge you to consider the project's net economic
impact and whether or not it will truly be beneficial for our local economy. While it's likely a
development of this size will attract some stores that we don't have in the County, it's equally
likely it will house other businesses that are in direct competition to our traditional downtown.
Southpoint has had a dramatic negative impact on our downtown businesses, not just retail, but
restaurant and entertainment businesses. Another center of this size on the other side of our
downtowns will further erode the fortunes of our downtown businesses, especially in
Hillsborough and Mebane. This development is specifically sited to attract national chains,
which, although they pay the same taxes as local businesses, beyond that, have dramatically
different economic impact. About 85 cents of every dollar spent in the national chain leaves our
community, and the 15 cents that stays typically goes to pay low-wage jobs. By contrast, about
50 cents of every dollar spent in a local business stays in the community and supports other
local businesses and typically pays higher wages. I urge you to consider the true economic
impact of this project, the impact not just on new business, but the impact on existing business,
and also to consider the difference in the economic impact on national chains and local
businesses.
Janine Zanin: I'm a property owner on Timberwood Trail in Efland. I was sworn. I have not
yet made up my mind about how I feel about this development. I came here tonight to learn
more about the developers' intent and just to get some specifics. I am leaving here with some
questions that I'd like to ask, and also some concerns that I didn't have before I came. There's
been a lot of talk about two different ideas, one is keeping Orange County dollars in Orange
County and getting Orange County residents to stay at home for their shopping. On the
surface, this sounds like a fabulous idea. I question whether this specific location is appropriate
for that goal. We just built some new soccer fields next to the middle school, and all I've been
reading in the paper is about how the folks in Chapel Hill don't want to drive to those soccer
fields. I'm not really convinced that they're going to want to come to the Buckhorn Village
shopping area. I do think that one thing that might encourage that travel is if this was a unique,
green, local development. I haven't heard who's going to be there, I haven't heard enough
details to really make up my own mind whether I think that's what it's going to be. I did move
and buy property though in Orange County because I trust the leaders of Orange County more
than surrounding counties to base their decisions on priorities of Orange County residents, and I
think you've heard some of them here today. Those are transportation issues, the environment,
and keeping local folks in good business. One thing I heard that concerned me today, that I
hope is not the goal of the developers, is that one of the great things about developing this
particular location is that they will access the 84,000 cars a day that travel through the area
without degradation to the rest of Orange County. Does this mean that they're going to be
degrading the place where I live? And I certainly hope that's not the case and that it's not the
intention of the developers. That was one of my concerns, a lot of what's been in the paper and
a lot of what was presented tonight was designed with catch phrases and key words to make
me feel good about sustainability and jobs and things like that, but that one phrase is the one
that gave me the most pause. Some specifics, I'm concerned about commercial traffic,
obviously there's going to be tractor-trailers to load these stores and the products they're going
to sell. Where will they be accessing the property? Will it be restricted to the interstate
exchange, or will this traffic be coming down West Ten Road past the middle school that my son
is one day going to be attending? I'm somewhat concerned about the traffic on West Ten Road.
I'm also concerned about noise, air, and light pollution coming from the highway. Their plan
shows that they're basically going to take down most of the trees in the area, and those trees, in
addition to helping with air pollution also provide a lot of noise reduction to those of us who live
on that side of the highway, and I'd like that to be taken into consideration, particularly since the
economic development district marches all the way down West Ten basically to the middle
school, providing a great deal of buffer of sound and noise and light as well to those of us who
live south of it. Thank you.
Mark Zimmerman: I have been sworn. In the past few weeks, there's been an awful lot of
discussion about revenue, and I've been involved in a lot of that discussion with you all. But,
through all of that, there's actually one thing that stuck in my mind that wasn't about the issues
that we're talking with taxes, it's the parallel process that's going on with your CIP ten-year plan.
It's the one thing I kind of think back on an awful lot. Pages and pages, dozens and dozens of
projects that will improve the quality of life here —schools and parks, social services. Despite
our tight property taxes, we don't have enough money for those projects, and I know you're
keenly aware of that. My question really is, if we're going to accomplish those goals, where are
we going to get that money? Here we have a group of people who have stepped up and said
that they can help us with that. According to their projections, upon full buildout, this project will
generate about $6 million a year in sales tax revenue. To put that in context, if my memory
serves me correctly, that's about 20-25% of the sales tax we take in in this County right now.
It's not often that someone steps up and gives you a 25% raise. If you combine that with the
million dollars plus in commercial property taxes that are going to come with this project, at $7
million a year, that equals the two revenue choices that we've all been talking about for the past
couple of weeks. With that having been said, it's not really the money itself that's important, but
what that money will go to. You just have to go back to your CIP document to look at those
projects —all of those services that will help citizens across Orange County, and at the same
time provide more diversity to our tax base to alleviate this relentless pressure on our property
taxes for residential property. Thank you very much.
Bob Ward: I have been sworn. I've been a resident here for 60 years, and my family goes
back prior to the Civil War. Orange County EDDs have been sitting for almost 15 years. The
only tangible development we've seen at this point is a soon to be open branch of the
community college, and we're proud of that. The Buckhorn Village presents an opportunity to
develop a well-planned, coordinated, substantial improvement to that area of the County. The
commercial tax base is in desperate need of being expanded. Commercial property equals
money for schools and public safety. We've heard how commercial development pays for itself
with a 4:1 ration, where residential development actually has a negative cost factor. There are
many residential units that are proposed or planned now in western Orange County jurisdiction
in the Town of Mebane. That is going impact our schools and our public safety. Most
importantly, the track record of the people involved in this development should give us
confidence that this project will be done in a way that we can all be proud.
Bryant Colson: I have been duly sworn in. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to talk to
you tonight. I'd also like to applaud the residents that are here at this hour and who were here
earlier for exercising an important and cherished civic responsibility of being here. I am
currently the Economic Development Commission Chair. The EDC is not at this time taking a
position on the issues tonight, we have a meeting on Thursday at which time we will review and
advise. At that meeting, I plan to let our commissioners know or remind them of our purpose,
that is to make Orange County a smart, innovative place, a great place in which to live. We
encourage private and public investments to provide jobs for the County residents and to
increase the non-residential tax base. Through these investments, we enhance the financial
well-being and quality of life of County residents, and the ability of the local government to
provide high-quality services. I know you guys know that that's the EDC mission on the Orange
County, North Carolina website. I also plan to advise them of all the calls and meetings that I've
had with individuals in Orange County where the common concern with these individuals was
the residential tax burden that Orange County residents are feeling, and the need for
commercial development to offset the tax base. I personally am in support of this controlled,
sustainable economic development at Buckhorn Village. It is my hope that, with developments
like this, it would draw us one step closer to the County's Five-Year Strategic Development
Plan, and that is 5,000 new private sector jobs and adding about $125 million in new
commercial property by June 2010. I'm advising them of all of this information in hopes that we
do not let opportunities like this slide by and continue to have our hands tied, and once again let
economic development pass us by.
Karen Bley: I have been sworn in. There are a few things that I'm really confused about. I've
been a resident in Orange County for almost 40 years. I've lived on Buckhorn Road, and now I
live on Bradshaw Quarry Road, which is right down the road from Buckhorn. I'm really
confused, I live in Mebane, but I think there's a drought going on in Mebane right now. I keep
hearing about all this wet water that's going to be coming from Mebane, and I don't understand
that, how does that work, where is this water. Why isn't Raleigh, why isn't Durham, why aren't
all of these other communities that are starving for water saying, "Ok, Mebane, send us the
water." It just doesn't make any sense to me. The other thing that really doesn't make any
sense to me at all is the transportation plan that was presented tonight talked about expanding
the bridge on 1-85 and 1-40 and the left turn into the BP station and all of that, there was no talk
at all about all the roads that leave from Carrboro, Saxapahaw, Chapel Hill up to this
development. If I live in Carrboro, I'm going to be going down through Calvander, Dairy land
Road, up Orange Grove Road. All of those roads are so overburdened right now. What's the
plan for all of the roads that are leading into the Buckhorn Village? What really scares me is
that anytime there's a development that's called "village", it really makes me scared because it's
not a village. I think there needs to be a lot of answers and a lot more discussion along these
lines.
Heather Main: I have been sworn. I live on Buckhorn Road, on that part that Karen's talking
about. I'm also concerned about the transportation issues. She asked Tyson Graves about the
southern end of Buckhorn Road.
Tyson Graves: I have been sworn in. Basically, the southern end doesn't generate as much
traffic as the northern because of the highway. That's where most of the development traffic
would be coming from. Therefore, there are some improvements for West Ten and Buckhorn,
but otherwise, it doesn't need any other improvements.
Heather Main: I've put together a petition, which people have signed. She read this petition,
as follows:
Concerned Citizens of Orange County Responding to the Buckhorn Village Project in Northern
Orange County
As concerned citizens of northern Orange County in the district surrounding the proposed
Buckhorn Village development, we would like to petition the Board of County Commissioners of
Orange County to consider the following issues:
1) We do not wish to see irresponsible and environmentally degrading development in
this area. New development should contain "green buildings and landscape."
Natural resources degradation is a concern with large-scale development in Northern
Orange County.
2) As stewards of our county, we ask the Commissioners to consider improving the
Efland and Northern Orange County communities by requiring the developers of the
Buckhorn Village plan to include enhancements to the community by donating the
following at or near the "Village" complex:
. A community recreational sports complex for youth of Northern Orange
County. This would include soccer fields, baseball fields, a playground,
outdoor and indoor pool facilities and an indoor gym and basketball courts.
This would be free to youth in the community.
. Within this complex, include a Senior Center, which would have a small gym
complex and meeting areas.
3) Donate a parcel of land and build a charter school for Orange County. Please
preserve our land and resources and enhance our communities when considering
development of Northern Orange County.
Aaron Nelson: I serve as the present CEO of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of
Commerce. I had planned to put something on the overhead, but it seems like that has long
since passed. So, let me just give you my comments and I'll turn in the slides. First, I just want
to say congratulations. For almost my entire life, you have wanted that section developed. You
have three times reconfirmed your interest in that. You dispatched your Economic Development
Director to find somebody who could do that. She didn't have to go far and all over the place.
Most communities have to go outside before they can find someone to develop a project like
this. She was able to go to people with tried and true records in our community. So I wanted to
say congratulations, you did it. You piqued the interest of local developers to bring forward a
project in a long-identified economic development node. And I also want to say thank you to the
developers. This is a great deal of risk for them to come forward and be the first to propose
something in an economic development node that has sat empty for a very long time. It is a
risky proposal and it risks their professional record. I have confidence, I have seen their
projects, these are the folks who go above and beyond and bring twice the amount of affordable
housing, when there's a standard that most people object to or who are excellent at downtown
redevelopment or developing city centers, so I'm real pleased that you've found great partners.
Sustainability is a balanced approach, and unfortunately it is a word that's being used a lot, and
I'm worried that because it's said so often, it loses its meaning. What it really means, I believe,
is a triple bottom line — environmental stewardship, social equity, and economic prosperity. I
want to look at that not just project by project, but also to back that out and look at our entire
County. You all have done a remarkable job with environmental protection in our community.
You are doing a remarkable job with respect to your social responsibilities. We have work to do
on our economy and balancing that. We are close to accomplishing the $125 million in
additional development in five years. I think the new issue of environmentalism is that we are
going to have to go dense and develop along our transit corridors. If we're going to protect the
green stuff, then we're going to have to develop on the stuff that's already messed up. So, this
is a brown field in existence at the intersection of major transit corridors, and is the exact sort of
place that you in your good wisdom in 1981 began talking about. Many of the previous
speakers spoke eloquently on the nexus between successful economy and successful
community, and that's one that's going to get more and more important, and we need to
generate revenue to support the things that we want. What I'm going to hand into you is, at our
expense we hired a graduate student of the Department of City Regional Planning to use a
software program to project a construction grid and all of the economic impacts of the project.
Many of the numbers you have heard here today, with an estimated total of 2,465 jobs created
both through the construction phase as well as the retail sector, 1,700 of those filled by Orange
County residents; the sales tax revenue of almost $900,000 during the construction phase for
Orange County, and $2.5 million totally; and another $5.5 million in sales tax revenue projected
every year once it begins, plus million of dollars in property tax revenue. That's an extraordinary
opportunity to do the things that you all have long set out and desired for the County. I'm
pleased to be part of it and to be here expressing our organization's support and
congratulations. He added that he had not been sworn in.
The Clerk swore in the remaining speakers.
Tom Studemayer: We've heard lots of testimony, a lot of it very moving, and a lot of it very
emotional. I don't have a lot of details, I don't have a lot of charts, I don't have a lot of facts. I
bring simply my experience growing up in a community not in Orange County that did not have
a plan for smart growth. I also bring it as a local businessman who deals with residents of
Orange County daily. In my business, I do a lot of tax planning. The one tax plan that I can't
help them with is their property tax, and it is about the single biggest complaint that I hear. So
my question simply is, if not here, where? If not now, when? And if not these folks, who? I
enjoy the rural nature of Orange County just like everyone else. Clients give me the pleasure of
the use of their land during hunting and fishing seasons and I enjoy it immensely. It's how I
grew up, and I would hate to see that go away. This property and the decision to develop this
property was made long before I took residence here. If not now, when? As stated, the
residential property tax burden that the citizens of Orange County are bearing is crushing. Our
school systems are crushing under that burden as well. This is a small parcel of one EDD that
would bring infrastructure, which I hope will make room for the small businesses and the start-
ups that don't have the shoulders and the Ph. D's that are leveraging our homes and our
mortgages to start businesses and putting their families at risk that are now taking those
businesses outside Orange County because they don't have room to build in here. I would
prefer to see this in downtown Hillsborough or downtown Carrboro. That's not your fight. If not
these folks, who? Business, from a transactor's point of view, is a one-time deal. You come in,
you either buy what you want or the service you receive, and then leave. But from my side of
the desk, it's my lifetime pursuit. The assumption that folks that live here and work here are
somehow going to ravage the communities that they serve is just bad business. I leave you
with those three points — if not here, where? If not now, when? And if not them, who? Because
growth is coming, and if you squeeze it out of Orange County, your problems are going to get
worse.
Tatiana Jones: I live at 610 Buckhorn Road. If you would look at section 3, I am part of the
road front that is not included in the development. I have two small children — one who is three
years old, one that is five months old. My children can't play outside as it is now on the
weekends because of the traffic from the flea market. If this comes in, being that we are not
included, my house will still be there. My children could still not play outside. Another thing that
someone touched on earlier was the traffic. No one mentioned anything about the traffic on I-
85. Yes, there are 84,000+ people on the highway going south and north, but they're not all
getting off the exit at the same time. There are already traffic issues. I can't get out of my
driveway if I wait after 11:00 on Saturday and Sunday. I have to wait 20-30 minutes to exit out
of my driveway as it is. If this development comes in, it might be longer than that. During busy
shopping season, Thanksgiving and Christmas, I'd have to stay in my house all day long. The
truck stop is already enough traffic. The flea market is too much traffic. There is a taco stand
across the street from my house that causes chaos early in the morning. There's loud music
early in the morning until late afternoon. I do not have peace and quiet now. If this
development comes in, it will be worse than what it already is now. Like I said, to touch on the
weighing station; the weighing station is right there going northbound if you get on the interstate.
Saturdays and Sundays there's already problems that the trucks have to merge to get in the
weighing station. No one touched on how that's going to back up Buckhorn and 70 from both
ends from people trying to get on northbound 85.
Tom Darnell: I'm an Orange County landowner. I have two questions and one comment. The
gentleman mentioned a national, unnamed tenant. What if they lose the tenant? Do they lose
the budget? Would all of this work be in vain? The second thing, there was an amendment, I
got this on the internet, they added a couple of acres, which an acre and a half of it adjoins my
property and it's on the east side of Buckhorn. What are they going to do if it wasn't addressed?
The acre and a half that was not even mentioned, but it's going to be zoned the same as the
west side, and it absolutely adjoins my property. That affects me, and I don't mind it, I just
would like to know what their intentions are with that property. The third thing that wasn't
addressed when the firemen were here —they're asking for six-story buildings. A five-story
building is as far as a ground ladder will go. They'll need a ladder truck and you're going to
have to come up with about $1 million for a ladder truck. Some company, either Mebane or
Efland is going to have to maintain that ladder truck. I don't know if anyone has thought about
that. If they donate a place for a fire station, well that's the place it needs to be. The last
comment is that I've owned the land for ten years or so, but since 1981 or so, you or your
predecessors have worked diligently to put approximately 600 or 900 acres in an EDD and told
everybody that it's going to be economic development. If not these guys, next week there will
be somebody else. This is not going to stop. Basically, I'm for it, because the next one will be
right down the street. If they leave and don't get the approval, six months from now we'll be
back in here for another go. So, you can control with all your rules and regulations and come up
with something good, but they are coming because you've already told them, "Here's our EDD."
Chair Jacobs: Can someone answer the question about the property adjoining Mr. Darnell's.
Jim Parker: I believe the property he is referring to is a piece of property that resides on the
west side and the east side of Buckhorn Road and is not two separate parcels; it is one parcel
that is connected. The portion of that parcel on the west side, which is shaped somewhat like
an "L", we anticipate that that will be used for access in some form or fashion to Rabbit Drive
and/or the Petro.
Chair Jacobs: I don't know if you can or want to answer the question about what happens if
you don't get the anchor tenant.
Jim Parker: We keep trying. That's my answer.
End of public comment.
Chair Jacobs said that the remaining items would be deferred to the next public hearing.
He asked Craig Benedict to walk the Board through page 4 of the agenda abstract.
Craig Benedict said that the staff received the application for Planned Development and
Class A Special Use Permit. Part of the package was the Zoning Officer's assessment of the
report. As part of that report, the staff also submits for evidence the County's existing zoning
code or land use element and EDD Manual. The staff conducted at least part of the public
hearing on the applications tonight. Item 4 is when the Board intends to adjourn this meeting to
a time certain to hear additional public comment. The process timelines are on the bottom of
page 4. The staff suggests that on March 5th some additional questions can come forward in
writing so that the developer can answer those questions or staff can research in the short-term.
Depending on when the Commissioners would like to decide on this item, there is a timeline that
sets up when the various meetings can occur. It is recommended that this meeting be
adjourned to a time certain where the Planning Board would have to come back and meet jointly
with the County Commissioners at a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. At
that time, staff would be able to provide any additional information that they have uncovered.
Also, it's very important to understand that the special use permit part of this — all of the
evidence and all of the information that comes forward needs to be held very closely so that the
information can be spread equally to all parties concerned (elected bodies, appointed bodies,
developer, and the public).
Chair Jacobs suggested trying to put this item back on the agenda on April 1st. The
Board agreed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
adjourn this meeting (1 1:08 p.m.) to April 1st at 7:30 p.m. at the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in
Hillsborough, North Carolina.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
The meeting was adjourned at this point, so the below items will be on the re-convened meeting
on April 1st
2. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments:
a. Telecommunications Towers: Amendments to promote consistency with
December 1 , 2007 revisions to NC General Statutes concerning Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities.
b. Planned Development: Amendments to address inconsistencies between
existing ordinance requirements and NC General Statutes, specifically the
requirement that imposed conditions be mutually agreed upon by the
County and petitioner.
Barry Jacobs, Chair
Donna S. Baker, CMC
Clerk to the Board