Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-15-20; 5-c - Proposed Amendments to the Town of Hillsborough - OC Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan and to the OC Comp Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 15, 2020 Action Agenda Item No. 5-c SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan and to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Hillsborough/Orange County COCA Land Use Plan Amendment Map 2. Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Map 3. Excerpts of August 5, 2020 and August 19, 2020 Planning Board Meeting Minutes 4. Public Hearing Legal Ad 5. Resolution Amending COCA Land Use Plan and Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Altieri, Planner III, 245-2579 Tom Ten Eyck, Planner II, 245-2567 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 245-2575 Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director, 245-2326 PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing, receive the Planning Board recommendation and public comment, close the public hearing, and schedule action for a specific future date on a County- initiated request to amend the: • Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan, and • Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The amendments to these long-range plans work together to expand the southern boundary of the Hillsborough Economic Development area. BACKGROUND: Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough have been discussing potential expansion of the Hillsborough Economic Development area for several years as the County continued work towards investing in a sewer “trunk line”, south of Interstate 40 and west of Old Highway 86, in accordance with its Capital Improvement Plan developed in 2012. With an eye towards maximizing the use of the sewer line, there is interest in designating additional lands that could be served via a “gravity sewer line” for non-residential purposes. In addition, Orange County evaluates the amount of land available for economic development, and due to lands being developed as the UNC Hospital and Durham Technical Community College over the last few years, the limited supply in this area was considered for expansion. At its June 6, 2017 meeting, the BOCC approved amendments to the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) to expand the Hillsborough Primary Service Area. All parties have since approved the WASMPBA amendment, with the 1 Town of Hillsborough Board as the last party to approve it in October 2017. Because of language included in the approval resolutions, the WASMPBA amendment is to become effective when the joint land use plan is amended to reflect the expanded Urban Service Area and assigned a future land use classification. Some of these background details, including notice to the Board when the land use plan amendments would be forthcoming, were included as an Information Item on the Board’s June 16, 2020 agenda. The link to that Information Item is: http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/WebLink/0/doc/62679/Page1.aspx In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.3 Comprehensive Plan Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Director has initiated amendments to the Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan and to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) in the vicinity of the southern portion of the Hillsborough Area Economic Development District. The amendments related to COCA affect 17 parcels (in whole or part) encompassing 84 acres (Attachment 1). The amendments related to the FLUM affect 20 parcels (in whole or part) encompassing 89 acres (Attachment 2). The COCA proposed land use category is Suburban Office and the FLUM proposed category is Economic Development. These related amendments are being proposed to prescribe the land uses that will be allowed in the expanded area for Economic Development. 1. The Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan is a joint land use document that defines the locations of future land use categories to help achieve a desired and coordinated pattern of development over time. The COCA Land Use Plan includes several urban-style land use categories that are more specific than those provided in the County’s Comprehensive Plan, which covers a much larger geographic area. Implementation of the COCA Land Use Plan is achieved through consistency with the County’s Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, application of County zoning, and a coordinated approach to rezoning. The amendment proposes a “Suburban Office Complex” land use in the expansion area which would designate the area for office and employment, businesses in a campus setting, and limited supporting services. The proposed amendment also reflects the expansion of the Town’s Urban Service Boundary consistent with the WASMPBA to provide water and sewer service to the area. As part of a joint land use plan, this amendment requires approval by the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County. The Town of Hillsborough has already taken action and unanimously approved the amendment as follows. Town of Hillsborough Approval Process: March 15, 2018 – Town Public Hearing and Planning Board recommendation March 26, 2018 – Hillsborough Town Board adopted 2. The Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) defines the location of future land use categories, consistent with any joint land use plans, and is designed to accommodate a particular combination of general land uses. The FLUM helps achieve a desired pattern of development over time and is implemented primarily through zoning. The proposed amendment to this plan would change the expansion area from a Rural Residential land use to an Economic Development Transition Activity Node, which would designate the area for light industrial, distribution, office, service/retail uses, and flex space (typically one-story buildings designed, constructed, and marketed as suitable for use as offices but able to accommodate other uses such as a warehouse, showroom, manufacturing assembly, or similar operations). 2 The County has not initiated any rezoning at this time. Currently, the area is zoned Rural Residential (R-1). However, approximately 12 acres of the proposed Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP) are located in the amendment area discussed herein. Any rezoning that comes forward in the future will require a subsequent item on a public hearing and finding that it is consistent with the plans. Public Information Session Planning staff held an on-line public information session on July 21, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. to review the County-initiated amendments to land use plans and zoning atlas, rezoning being a separate item processed concurrently. An overwhelming majority of all questions and comments were related to the developer-initiated rezoning and Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP) development proposal, which was not the focus of the session as the developer had held the required Neighborhood Information meeting a few days before the session for the County- initiated proposals. Questions and answers with regard to RTLP will be addressed by the developer through the process of BOCC consideration, and staff has also provided a Q & A document as part of the Zoning Atlas Amendment (Master Plan Development Application – RTLP) agenda materials, which is also on the agenda for this meeting. Following is a link to additional information about the public information session, including a PowerPoint presentation: https://www.orangecountync.gov/1722/Current-Interest-Projects Planning Board Recommendation: The Orange County Planning Board, at its August 5, 2020 regular meeting, voted 6-4 to recommend approval of the proposed amendments. Clarification of the motion voted upon was deemed necessary and the Planning Board considered a clarified motion at its special meeting on August 19, 2020 when the board voted 6-4 to recommend approval of the amendments. Excerpts of the minutes from this meeting are included in Attachment 3. Agenda materials from these meetings can be viewed at: http://orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26 Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the Resolution contained in Attachment 5, indicating consistency with the County’s land use and economic development goals. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs for mailed notifications and the required legal advertisement will be paid from FY2020-21 Departmental funds budgeted for this purpose. Existing Planning staff included in the Departmental staffing budget will accomplish the work required to process this amendment. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goals are applicable to this item: • GOAL: ESTABLISH SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE LAND-USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes and educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, policies, and decisions. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies. • GOAL: ENSURE ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY 3 The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their dependents. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There are no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal impacts associated with this item. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1. Receive the request; 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comment; 3. Close the public hearing; 4. Authorize the acceptance of written comment(s) via e-mail to the Board at (ocbocc@orangecountync.gov) or by delivery to the Planning Department’s office at 131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278, until 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, September 17, 2020; and (STAFF COMMENT: In accordance with Session Law 2020-3 Section 4.31(a), regarding remote meetings during declared emergencies, while voting may be allowed on the night of the meeting, Staff is recommending the Board vote at a subsequent meeting. Session Law 2020-3 further allows the record to be supplemented by written comments on items heard at a public hearing by accepting written comments for 24 hours after the public hearing is closed. Due to the late hour at which this public hearing is expected to conclude, Staff is recommending an additional period of time in excess of this 24-hour period to accept written comments.) 5. Schedule a vote to approve the Resolution in Attachment 5 amending the COCA Land Use Plan and the Orange County Comprehensive Plan FLUM at the Board’s October 6, 2020 Business meeting, as recommended by the Planning Board and Planning Director. No additional public comments shall be received on this item at the October 6 Business meeting. 4 17 Parcels (in whole/in part)84 acres !"_$ WATERSTONEDR OAK RIDGE DR G LA D Y S L N DAVIS RD DESTINY DR SERVICERD W SCARLETTMOUNTAIN R D SUMMITTRAILDRRI P P Y L N OLDNC86OLDNC86ALICELOOP Proposed Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central OrangeCoordinated Area Land Use Plan Natural Resources Proposed Suburban Office Expanded Urban ServiceBoundary PendingHillsborough Current Urban ServiceBoundary Existing Land Use Plan Employment Mixed Res Neighborhood Mixed Use Neighborhood Mixed Use Permanent Open Space Suburban Office ¯Orange County Planning and InspectionsBrian Carson (1/26/2018) 0 400Feet 1 in = 650 feet 5 !"_$ 20 Parcels (in whole/in part)89 acres WATERSTONE DR VALLIEHILNOAK RIDGEDR G LA D Y S L N DAVIS RD DESTINY DR SERVICERD W SCARLETTMOUNTAINRD OLD NC 86OLDNC86PHOEBEDRALICELOOP Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Resource Protection Areas Overlay Water Supply Watersheds Overlay Parcels Proposed Economic Development Transition JPA Rural Residential Rural Buffer City Limits Activity Node Economic Development Transition ¯Orange County Planning and InspectionsBrian Carson (1/26/2018) 0 400Feet 1 in = 650 feet 6 Approved 9/2/2020 ATTACHMENT 3 1 MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 AUGUST 5, 2020 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 (Due to current public health concerns, this meeting was held virtually. 6 Members of the Planning Board, staff and public participated remotely) 7 8 9 EXCERPT 10 AGENDA ITEM 8: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH/ORANGE COUNTY CENTRAL ORANGE 11 COORDINATED AREA (COCA) LAND USE PLAN AND TO THE ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 12 FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM) - To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on County-13 initiated amendments to the COCA and FLUM in the vicinity of the southern portion of the 14 Hillsborough Area Economic Development District. The amendments related to COCA affect 17 15 parcels (in whole or part) encompassing 84 acres. The amendments related to the FLUM affect 20 16 parcels (in whole or part) encompassing 89 acres. The COCA proposed land use category is 17 Suburban Office and the FLUM proposed category is Economic Development. This item is 18 scheduled for BOCC public hearing on September 15, 2020. 19 PRESENTER: Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor 20 21 Tom Altieri reviewed the abstract and proposed changes 22 23 Hunter Spitzer: The first question that I have, no residential zoning will be permitted under this new County Land Use 24 under the Economic Transitionary correct? 25 26 Tom Altieri: As part of these amendments, there is no associated rezoning at this time. The residential structures, 27 the homes that are there now will continue to be conforming, the planning term, because the Rural Residential or R1 28 Zoning District will remain in place. 29 30 Hunter Spitzer: So could these properties potentially be rezoned to say medium or low intensity residential 31 development is my question, are those allowable zonings under this new land use? 32 33 Tom Altieri: Yes 34 35 Hunter Spitzer: I noticed in the Comprehensive Land Use map that there are protected areas identified in green but 36 in the areas selected to be rezoned as Suburban Office, there are no protected areas and I was wondering why not 37 but they are identified as protected in the County Land Use map. I suppose I know why, because we don’t want to 38 restrict development but I was wondering if you could lend anything to that. 39 40 Tom Altieri: It’s really for no particular reason, it’s just a matter of the Town took the initial step in the development of 41 the Joint Land Use Plan and it used the Land Use categories that it already had in its existing plan and it is just not 42 shown on the map in the Joint Land Use Plan. Those areas there certainly exist, I did mention that if or how 43 development occur in those resource protection areas is really handled through our Zoning Ordinance with stream 44 buffers and so forth. I think the resource protections area is really shown on the County’s Future Land Use map as 45 more, let’s just say, a reminder, if you would. That layer that land use category does not have a direct companion-46 zoning district or applicable zoning districts that would be applied in a resource protection area. It’s more or less just 47 an overlay just to show where there is a high likelihood of wetlands or steep slopes and so forth. 48 49 Hunter Spitzer: Ok, thank you. 50 51 David Blankfard: I have a question, so Orange County Comprehensive Plan map says it’s 20 parcels and 89 acres 52 and Hillsborough says it’s 17 parcels and 84 acres. Is that just the Town and Orange County finally coming together 53 to make the map match up? 54 55 7 Tom Altieri: That is correct. There are just a few parcels that are addressed in the COCA Land Use Plan on the 56 north side of the amendment area that are also covered in the County’s Future Land Use map so there’s a little 57 overlap there. That’s why when we’re looking at amendments to the COCA Land Use Plan the acreage amount is 58 different from the County’s Land Use Plan. I can point those out if you’d like to see the differences, I know you have 59 the maps in your packets but there is just a few parcels and a few acres difference between the two amendments 60 and that’s right along the northern boundary of the amendment area. 61 62 Melissa Poole: Will you flip back – I think it was 17, one of the maps where it had the star. (Map was shown) This is 63 currently Rural Residential and the star is where the RTLP is planned to go. 64 65 Tom Altieri: Correct. 66 67 Melissa Poole: So, I guess my questions is that it seems like we are doing this backwards, for me if this is Rural 68 Residential then why is RTLP planned to go there but we are only now talking about rezoning? It seems like we are 69 doing this backwards. Am I misunderstanding? 70 71 Tom Altieri: What we are doing is responding to the Town’s expansion of its Urban Services area and we are 72 reflecting that on the Joint Land Use Plan with Hillsborough and when that’s done, we need to apply a Future Land 73 Use category to the map and that is the addition of the Suburban Office Complex. We also need to add a County 74 Land Use classification which is Economic Development District. The County is not proposing rezoning so this 12 75 acres would stay R1. However, there is another item on your agenda tonight where the developer is initiating a 76 process to also amend the zoning, not just for the 12 acres where the star is, but for a couple of the parcels to the 77 north as well. I hope that answers your question. These are really separate amendments. We have a County 78 initiated amendment to implement the expansion of the Town’s Urban Services Area that is different and separate 79 from the developer’s proposal and the rezoning required for RTLP. It’s just a matter of the two amendments share 12 80 acres. Does that help? 81 82 Melissa Poole: Yes, thank you. 83 84 David Blankfard: Ok, we will take comments from the public. Please say your name and if you received a letter from 85 the County about this amendment. Thank you. 86 87 Franklin Garland: My name is Franklin Garland and I live off of Ode Turner Road. It seems like this was tried 88 already and I have a lot to say. Some people have ceded their time to me because I have spent the last two weeks 89 actually doing research. Nobody on the south side of the I-40 wants this, ok, the residents. There’s approximately 90 2000 residents that get involved in this. I know that you’re looking at just one particular piece of land out there but 91 what does the public, what do the people of Orange County have to say about this? I am looking at the Code of 92 Ethics, I’m looking at the Mission Statements, it says here “serve the residents of Orange County” “our residents 93 come first”. Now the residents don’t want this, ok. I know that, I personally put out 2000 flyers last week and it’s 94 unanimous out there that nobody wants it. So how can you force this on us, ok. Even though we don’t want it. That’s 95 another question for the Planning and Inspections Board out here. I have many, many questions that go along here 96 and I’m going to read a statement later on that maybe clarifies a whole lot but right now, my main question is what 97 give you the right to just force this on us? Anybody? Want to care to answer? Who’s win? 98 99 David Blankfard: Your elected officials, they are the ones that started this with the Town... (interrupted) 100 101 Franklin Garland: So our elected officials… 102 103 David Blankfard: Hold on, let me finish, your elected officials are the ones that started this land use planning, years 104 and years ago so I don’t know what to tell you. 105 106 Franklin Garland: in 1991, this was planned as an EDD, actually all this area out here was rural, and it was 107 designated possibly as an Economic Development Area because I-40 wasn’t in place then. Once I-40 went in place, 108 I believe in 1984, actually you said 1981. It actually was designated as is and this is 39 years ago. This whole area 109 has grown to be residential now. It’s no longer open space and rural and like I said it’s a whole lot of people out 110 there. If our elected officials are choosing to do this, why are they going in there with perceived ideas, and already 111 8 made up their mind that this is going to happen. That’s not the democratic way. That’s called a fascist way when you 112 do it that way. It’s very offensive, most people are offended by this and we’re trying to put a stop to this. By the way, 113 I think this is a ridiculous way to hold a meeting. I am going to add that, that we have 42 attendees where in person 114 you would probably have several thousand today, ok. It’s not valid for anybody in there, we actually are trying to take 115 some legal action on this as well. I will have more to say, I have a statement that I mailed out to the Commissioners 116 already, I hope that they have the courtesy to read it, I asked them to actually reply via email, text, call any which way 117 that they had actually received the email. I have one of the Commissioners actually respond, that said they received 118 it, not that they had read it, it would be nice if they actually went with how their constituency actually feels. I think 119 they are the ones that count out here. Again, like I said earlier, as that our residents come first and you’re putting the 120 Town of Hillsborough first. You’re putting the Planning Board first, what the whims are there. We are perfectly happy 121 with our wells, we don’t want city water necessarily out here. We don’t want city sewer, we are out of the Town, we 122 don’t want to be annexed and this is not just me. I happen to hold a chunk of property that is immediately adjacent to 123 this that I’m structure out there that basically, 2.5 million square feet big. This is about 3 times the size of Carter 124 Findlay Stadium and you say that doesn’t have an impact. You’re putting this in middle of an area that is completely 125 at this point basically residential. So you’re going to put an industrial park for lack of a better word, because this light 126 manufacturing, any manufacturing as you actually look carefully in there, warehousing and logistic center. That 127 translates into industrial park, this is a pretty hefty size industrial park. It would actually, just to give you a couple 128 comparison numbers, the PNC Center is 700,000 square feet including all the levels, so that’s 700,000 this is 2.5 129 million that you want to put in there. Carter Findlay Stadium is 107,000 square feet. How can this not going to have 130 an impact on this whole area, doing this. 131 132 David Blankfard: I think your comments, most of the stuff you are wanting to talk about is going to be held up in the 133 later item. Right now we’re talking about something else. Thank you. 134 135 Franklin Garland: I know you’re trying to approve something that is going to be the infrastructure for something else. 136 137 Craig Benedict: Good evening, my name is Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director. Just a little bit about 138 how we can answer some questions from the public in how we will handle it moving forward. If staff can address with 139 a quick answer, if it’s a or b we will provide that during this meeting, if it is a more lengthy question, we will make 140 note of the public comment and we can provide in writing the justification of the goals of the County and how the 141 process has come forward. 142 143 Franklin Garland: (background discussion of a personal nature) 144 145 Perdita Holtz: I have gone ahead and muted Franklin Garland 146 147 Randy Marshall: I was just going to say that since we have a number of people who want to speak tonight, it seems 148 to me we want to try to institute some limit to the amount of time that people have to speak. Otherwise, we’re going 149 to be here terribly late. The other thing is in the past, it’s never been quite productive to have Planning Board 150 members respond to presenters individually. I agree with what Craig had to say in that we need to take the 151 information that people are offering to us and we can get back to them or staff can get back to them at an appropriate 152 time. 153 154 David Blankfard: Thank you Randy. 155 156 Perdita Holtz: We have asked for folks to limit comments to no more than 5 minutes. 157 158 Ronald Sieber: This is Ronald Sieber speaking; I live in the New Hope Springs neighborhood, which is along David 159 Road. I have two short comments to make and a question. My first comment is that the signs that have been 160 provided by the Planning Department to announce these meetings are too small, the print on them is too small, and 161 they are placed in dangerous venues that if a person such as myself wants to stop and try to interrupt what is on 162 them, we’ll get run over by cars. This actually happened to me on Davis Road when I stopped to photograph one of 163 the signs because it was really too small to read. As I was doing that, a truck came up behind me and almost hit my 164 car which was parked by the side of the road. I would ask the Planning Department to please come up with a sign 165 that’s got larger print in it, is more intelligent in its presentation and doesn’t present a danger to us folks who want to 166 read what’s going on. My second comment is that the July 21st meeting invited only those people within a 1000 167 9 square feet of the affected area along David Road, which is a mile and a half long, there are 100s of homes, 168 thousands of people who live on Davis and Ode Turner and all of us are going to be effected by this change. Not 169 only from the development itself in parcels one and two but also the proposed change of planning along Davis for 170 that little 12 acre parcel that the RTLP is planning to incorporate as part of their zoning change. That goes to my 171 questions, my questions is if this is a rural neighborhood of farms, legacy businesses and homes, why are we 172 allowing a major corporation come in and annex this piece and make it part of their monstrosity of a development. 173 This is just going to change everything not only in our neighborhood but on the road itself on Old 86 and potentially 174 on Davis Road. That’s the end of my question. Thank you for taking it. 175 176 Richard Wagoner: My question is more of a question than a comment. I was unable to attend the earlier July 177 meeting for the public and my question is about the residential areas right when you come off I-40 onto Old 86. Right 178 now, I think it is in the Neighborhood Mixed Use on one map but on another map, it’s the Economic Development 179 Transition so I am trying to get an idea of what is proposed for that area in the future. My mother-in-law lives when 180 you are coming off 86 on the right hand side, my wife is the property owner along with my mother-in-law so we are 181 trying to find out what is proposed for that area. 182 183 Tom Altieri: The parcels you are inquiring about are to the north of the amendment area that I discussed in my 184 presentation. They are addressed in that Central Orange Joint Land Use Plan as well as the County’s 185 Comprehensive Plan it is located in an area that would have the potential for economic development. The properties 186 there that are residential if zoned for non-residential uses those parcels are allowed to continue to be there to have 187 residential uses. They are what’s called non-conforming uses meaning that it may be a house if it’s rezoned to non-188 residential it’s not within the conforming zoning district but those houses are certainly allowed to stay. We did receive 189 a question at our public information session about would it increase potentially the developers interests in purchasing 190 those houses and the response at that time was that yes it could so it is possible there could be some transitioning 191 there if property owners want to willingly sell their property to developers for non-residential uses in the future. 192 193 Richard Wagoner: There would be no requirement at this time, you could stay there if you wanted to or sell if you 194 wanted to? 195 196 Tom Altieri: Absolutely, that is correct. I know it’s hard to really separate the development proposal from some of the 197 land use amendments that I’ve been discussing but things like buffer requirements around the development to 198 provide buffers between it and adjacent residential uses will certainly be discussed later this evening. 199 200 Richard Wagoner: Ok, thank you. 201 202 Clare Brennan: Hi, Clare Brennan, like one of my neighbors earlier, I also live down Davis Road in the New Hope 203 Springs subdivision. I wanted to specifically talk about that little parcel of land that had the star on it. That’s of 204 concern to me and I think a lot of my neighbors since we live down Davis Road. As I see it, I think this big planned 205 economic development is likely going to happen but I would like to sort of try to get a win out of this somehow and 206 maybe will a battle but lose the war. My position is that we need not be rezoning or annexing that little parcel that 207 had the star on it. I think that was 17 acres that was on the west side of 86 and adjacent to Davis Road. I think there 208 was plans to change that zoning from Rural Residential to an Economic Development Transitional Zone, I am totally 209 opposed to that, and speaking for my neighbors, I think we all are in the subdivision. I also want to step back and 210 remind people that Old 86 is one of 57 scenic byways in the State of North Carolina and appeared on colonial maps 211 of this state dating back to 1770 so we’ve had 250 years of living off of Old 86, families, generations enjoying this 212 rural life so it is really with a lot of dismay and disappointment that we are seeing the plans for this huge rezoning 213 here right at the corner of our neighborhood. I also take a bit of issue with the term RTP Logistics Park. We are at 214 least 30 miles from RTP, surely this is a bit of a misnomer should we maybe consider calling this the Hillsborough 215 Manufacturing District, it’s kind of what we are looking at, right? This is not a RTP associated park in any way shape 216 or form. Also this might go onto the next agenda item but I have a real concern about the PIN 9862-99-8894 that is a 217 warehouse that has an access road off of Davis Road and this is planned to be 300,000 square feet again according 218 to my math that is some sort of building that would be 300 ft. by 1000 ft. right as you turn off of Old 86 onto Davis 219 Road. Quite frankly, that is really unacceptable. We moved out here to this lovely part of Hillsborough and Orange 220 County for the luxury and the privilege of living in the country and that is really just going to totally deface the whole 221 entryway into what is supposed to be our gateway into historic Hillsborough. I also want to mention in this COVID 222 environment, that Davis Road has really become a place that our neighbors cherish. We cycle out there and walk out 223 10 there you see families walking hand in hand with children on Davis Road especially because people are home now 224 and not able to go out and socialize. Folks cycle out there this is a great place to ride bikes and again that quality of 225 life that we’re used to maybe gone if this huge development comes to fruition so my pitch again is to remove any 226 service road, any development from encroaching down that Davis Road corridor and let’s leave Davis Road in as 227 much of the pristine condition as we can. My last question is once this large manufacturing and industrial 228 warehousing site is approved, will residents be notified about the potential new owners of these facilities and what 229 sort of manufacturing and industrial plans do we have for these parcels are we looking at a rubber tire plant, a swine 230 pig manufacturing site, pharmaceuticals what are we really approving here? It’s quite nebulas in my mind and a little 231 frightening so I’ll stop now and just take any questions if need be. Thank you. 232 233 David Blankfard: Thank you. 234 235 Randy Marshall: How far is your development from 86? 236 237 Clare Brennan: 1.75 miles, it’s right the Ode Turner fork, go left at the fork. 238 239 Randy Marshall: Ok, so you’d have to go 1.7 miles down Davis Drive from 86 to get to your development? 240 241 Clare Brennan: Correct. 242 243 Randy Marshall: Thank you. 244 245 Hunter Spitzer: My question was if we do not approve this Land Use Plan amendment, can this area still be rezoned 246 in the following amendment or would it be passed to the Board of County Commissioners? The one for the Research 247 Triangle Logistic Park if we don’t change our land use map? 248 249 Tom Altieri: Any rezoning needs to be consistent with the Land Use Plan. If it is not consistent with the Land Use 250 Plan then the Land Use Plan needs to change concurrently. So the answer to your question is no. 251 252 Craig Benedict: I can add on to that. North Carolina State Law allows rezoning to proceed and independent and if 253 the rezoning is approved in an area such as this then we would have to, as Tom said, go back and change the Land 254 Use Plan. 255 256 Hunter Spitzer: So it would be inconsistent but because our Land Use Plan didn’t agree with this, it wouldn’t 257 necessarily stop it? 258 259 Craig Benedict: That’s correct. 260 261 Jared Jurkiewicz: My name is Jared Jurkiewicz; I live down Davis Road as well just past the New Hope Subdivision. 262 I’m actually in the Windsong Subdivision, which is a tenth of a mile from them. I am also the president of the 263 homeowners association for the Windsong Subdivision representing approximately 15 households on this call and I 264 would just like us all to go on record saying that we oppose making these changes here all of us are extremely 265 concerned about the detrimental effects it will have to our community, to the traffic on Davis and to the overall 266 lifestyle of the area. It has been summarized by Franklin and several others beforehand that many of us moved out 267 here specifically because it was a rural area and we wanted to be outside of the city. We did not come here to 268 suddenly have a massive manufacturing facility and warehouse district pop up in our back yards. A lot of us are 269 incredibly unhappy about this and I don’t know if it is true or not but I know it has been discussed among people here 270 as we feel like this is being snuck in and hidden with the things such as the signs that are unreadable on the road 271 unless you stop and endanger your life to read them. That the stuff is being done very under the table and sort of an 272 underhanded fashion and it is breeding a lot of resentment with the residents of this area. I can that’s true for my 273 entire subdivision, it’s come up in our homeowners association meetings several time now and as Franklin said, it 274 really feels like, even though the statute said or the creed said that Hillsborough residents come first, it feels like we 275 are all coming last. That this corporation, which is from out of state, is getting more preferential treatment than the 276 2000 + citizens that live here and that’s pretty much my entire comment. Thank you. 277 278 11 Hunter Spitzer: New question, I know that the Town is planning to expand sewer service area to the north of this 279 parcel that’s in question right now and they will provide services to the proposed RTLP development but I remember 280 reading the plan that they’re also planning a long term vision to build a sewer loop that will return back across 86 and 281 I wondered if the Town needs this area to complete that project? 282 283 Craig Benedict: Tom, I can handle that one. The loop that they would be providing would be for a water system and 284 not a sewer system. So it’s likely that in order to get the fire flows for development of this type, that a loop would 285 occur back from I-40 near the service road through the development and back out to Old 86 where there is presently 286 a large water line in 86 now. As far as the sewer system, this area even this additional 12 acre area and the other 287 roughly 70 acres on the east side all flows by gravity naturally to the sewer systems within Hillsborough. That’s why 288 this both could be served easily by the sewer system and also water main loop that would go back to the existing 289 facilities along Old 86. 290 291 Hunter Spitzer: Right, the Town doesn’t necessarily need this area to complete the water loop. 292 293 Craig Benedict: There’s multiple engineering solutions. One of them would be a loop system so it’s something that’s 294 being explored to provide those fire flows that are necessary. 295 296 David Blankfard: I think the other way they could do it is to have a fire pump inside each room and each building 297 could generate the flows that they would need for a sprinkler system but those are costly. 298 299 Bob Bundschuh: My name is Bob Bundschuh; I also live in New Hope Springs, a couple of miles down Davis. I’ll try 300 to keep this to this particular amendment. The first question I have is when did Hillsborough actually approve this? 301 You said that this is the next step the County has to then follow suit but why now? What made it pertinent this month 302 to actually start doing this and is it related to the second part of the agenda? Looking at your first five slides, you 303 looked at all the areas that are slated for development, there are a lot of areas that are slated for development, 304 already zoned for development and aren’t developed yet. So why the push to do this right now, why don’t we wait 305 until we actually let the demand start catching up with the supply. Or as some people have said is this a quick way to 306 get this kind of rezoned and then call it the master plan which back when Settler’s Point was going on this was phase 307 3 and some type of retirement place and we’re going to go ahead and table that as kind of a negotiation tactic that 308 was used back then. So why is it suddenly become a thing to, it’s not a rezoning but we’re going to match it up with 309 the master plan for the Suburban Office. The second one is the 12 acre parcel at the northwest corner, it’s kind of 310 funny that it is connected to the redrawing of the lines to say, we need that little 12 acre parcel to become part of this 311 complex across the way. So we had 89 acres and 12 of it is across the street. Is it really realistic that someone 312 would actually go in and get that 12 acres, develop it you said, a walkable office building without drive up traffic or is 313 that a way to let’s get this little corner across the street, and Hunter even eluded to it, do we have to do it in the right 314 order to say yeah we do the land use first and then we can go and rezone it. Is that a way of saying let’s get this first 315 because somebody wants to rezone that later. It’s not, it doesn’t make sense that we have to put that little 12 acre 316 piece in there, it’s just a way to get it in line so that in your next agenda you can then rezone it. Like other people, 317 that connection to Davis, and we’ll talk about that more in the second one, it makes no sense. Davis is a two-lane 318 road where the white line actually will go into the gravel sometimes it’s so narrow. The development on Davis is not 319 where you want to put it. And lastly, so how do we change it? Every time we come to one of these meetings, we 320 want to change the master plan of the development to zone it more industrial and take away rural and you said well 321 that’s been the plan for 20 years. Well obviously, it can be changed so how do we change it back. Do we go to the 322 zoning board? Do we go to the County Commissioners? How do we put restrictions as the people that live out here, 323 so that every year we don’t have to keep doing this and that a decision made 20, 30 years, is not going to come up 324 all the time. One last comment, and Randy with all due respect, you said earlier that we have to make this quick or 325 we’ll be here terribly late. I understand we got to make it quick but we live here. We’re the one that have to deal with 326 the decisions being made so if people have to stay up a little later, I think that’s a small sacrifice for those of us who 327 have to live with being up terribly late with development so with all due respect, I’m ok with staying up a little late and 328 I think everybody else is to. Thank you. 329 330 Maryanne Ross: Hi, thank you for having this meeting and thank you Bob for that. We are community members and 331 with all due respect, if we are here later, this is our neighborhood. The last meeting that we attended it was put off to 332 a later date and they waited until we forgot, they waited until something else happened and they passed a rezoning. 333 It’s the same thing that Ronald said, the sign was put out and it was so small, the meeting had passed, it was only for 334 12 a few people and then the next thing I knew, I drove by and there were like 20 signs out. And then the meeting 335 happened a week later. So, speaking to David and Hunter and Melissa, welcome, the OCPB charge is that 336 ‘harmonious development, future needs, homes, homestead, wildlife habitat’ we have deer, we have endangered 337 bluebirds, we have many wildlife that are living in this neighborhood community. Whether or not we live 1.75 miles, 338 2.3 miles, we live on Davis, we live on Ode Turner, we live in this neighborhood. This is where we live now. We 339 didn’t live here 20 years ago this is where we live this is where our families are this is our harmonious development 340 we are your constituents we would appreciate you listening to what we have to say. I’m talking to you Hunter, I’m 341 talking to you Melissa, I’m talking to you David. Apparently, you weren’t here when we had this meeting two years 342 ago and they wanted to rezone yet again these same areas and that fell through and what Mr. Altieri described 343 earlier, the whole kit and caboodle was this is an example of the Town giving an inch and a developer taking a mile 344 because there’s a little bit of an extra parcel and that’s what they want to do. And we implore you to please put a 345 stop to it. Let us have our green area. Let us live our lives where we live it best. I do not need nor do we want to 346 have this traffic, this green space taken away, Thank you. 347 348 Jon Lorusso: Good evening, I don’t have a lot to say. I wanted to voice my opposition to this. I also live off Davis 349 Road across from the New Hope Springs Subdivision. I am against this I concur with previous speakers about the 350 signs. I almost got into an accident myself trying to read information off a sign. It does feel like this is being done 351 without the, no one voices their opposition. I came in from a meeting late tonight and I missed the meeting in July. I 352 wasn’t at the meeting a few years ago that the previous speaker mentioned. I don’t know how long in the process we 353 are but once it’s done you cannot undo it. You cut down a tree the tree is gone it’s not coming back you can’t just put 354 a new one there. If this is done, it’s permanent. It will change forever the place that we live. The phrase Not in My 355 Back Yard comes to mind. I don’t know how many of the County Commissioners live in this area if this was being 356 done on the other side of the County, I probably wouldn’t care but it is being done in my backyard like the previous 357 speakers have said, I didn’t move here so that I could live next to a giant manufacturing district. This is just not why I 358 moved here not why I live here. I would also like to reiterate what speakers said about the potential use. What’s 359 going to go on here? No idea. I think she mentioned a rubber tire factory, who knows? It’s really none of our 360 business right? It’s private property, they can do whatever they want. I am very upset by this and I really wish you 361 wouldn’t do this to us. That’s all I have to say. 362 363 Stephen Williams: I just wanted to voice my concerns and many people have already spoken on the topics I was 364 concerned about. I am wondering why the residents in this area haven’t be given any results as to if traffic studies 365 have been done on the impacts that this facility might have on traffic as well as green space. I spent one day this 366 week putting up my new mailbox because I am in the process of building on a property 3 acres that will border this 367 potential development and life others have said, as I was putting up my mailbox, bikers went by, people walking, 368 cars, it’s just unimaginable what the impacts will be on Davis Road to allow an entrance or exit to a facility of this 369 size. I am also confused as to why the 12 acres is so important. We keep saying that it’s, we’ll talk about something 370 separate but really they go hand and hands. I really thought it would have been best in the interest of everyone if this 371 had been addressed and then questions had been asked. There’s a major and no one has mentioned this, there are 372 major power lines that separate that 12 acres from the rest of this development. I don’t know if that has been brought 373 to anyone’s attention, I’m sure the planning committee is aware of that it just seems illogical that those 12 acres are 374 essential to them putting this development in. I concur the signs are super small, many people at the July meeting 375 voiced their concerns there weren’t many of us but there were a few there. I do feel like it’s absurd that we’re talking 376 about changing the zoning of a residential area with residents and people’s homes and lives that in and of itself 377 should say. What are we doing here? Why are we doing this? Are we doing this for money? I chose to buy land in 378 Orange County and pay the higher taxes because I wanted some space, I wanted 3 acres, I wanted some woods. I 379 didn’t know at the time that all this was going to be occurring or I would have changed my mind. I could have bought 380 in a different county and paid a lot lower taxes so I hope the planners here will hear our voices and as it’s been said, 381 we do the voting and I guess we’ll need to remember that when we vote again. Again, time is of the essence but I’m 382 hearing a lot of questions from people on the planning committee so we might want to direct the time to constituents 383 and residents if we want to save time and save those planning committee questions for when you guys meet at a 384 later time. Thank you. 385 386 Leslie Roberts: Thank you for letting me speak, this is Leslie Roberts and I live on Old 86 about a half a mile from 387 the Davis/86 intersection. I am opposed to this and I have some concerns that have not been mentioned yet. One of 388 them being that traffic on Old 86 is picking up quite a bit since I’ve moved here I’ve noticed and I think would be 389 erroneous to assume that the traffic will stay between this warehouse and 40 since 40 is right there. I think that traffic 390 13 will probably increase along Old 86 to New Hope Church Road as people bypassing go another to the interstate. I 391 think that is something that should be considered also considering the narrower parts of Old 86 out here as well as 392 cyclists and just people just trying to get out of their driveways. I am also concerned because I know that this is a 393 long time coming people have not heard that this has been in motion for many many years but the world we live in 394 now is not the same world we were in when this was thought of and I think it would behoove us to really take a step 395 back and consider the footprint that we are looking at leaving with this industrial complex. Many businesses are 396 opting to work from home options that may be permanent. They are finding that automation can make smaller 397 spaces for warehouses and not as big warehouses are needed. So I think it’s frivolous at this point to consider such 398 a big industrial impact when we’re very clearly seeing that in two or three years from now the same resources may 399 not be necessary and so I think that’s really important to consider that what we’re doing here will have a lasting 400 effect. I have a question to be considered for later, are there plans to consider that is there a pivot that can be made 401 if we realize that this is not going to be fruitful. So that’s where I’m coming from. I appreciate you taking my 402 questions, thank you. 403 404 Matthew Kostura: Just a couple of comments. First there have been a lot of question about what might go in here. I 405 think it’s pretty clear what going to go in here, a very large warehousing distribution center, manufacturing is probably 406 not in the cards here. You are really talking about the big impacts is traffic and with all due respect to Randy about 407 asking where people live on Davis Road, 1.8 miles away, whatever. Last I heard cars move they are going to be 408 coming down this way and a point that I want to make is that for everybody out here on Davis Road, all the 409 comments about the biking and the walking and such are true and here’s the reason why, in 20 years’ time since I’ve 410 been living here based on North Carolina’s own annual average daily trip data, the traffic on David Road has not 411 increased one bit it’s been stuck around 800 trips a day. So this is not a road for us, it’s a driveway. We don’t view it 412 as a road it’s our driveway that we come home to. Now at the top of it, you’re going to be putting the traffic bog of 413 basically four years’ worth of trips on this road, four years 3000 trips. That just doesn’t make any sense. Secondly, I 414 want to go back to Melissa Poole’s question because I think it’s really important. It seems like this rezoning is 415 backwards. How I interrupt Tom Altieri’s commentary is basically this way, we can rezone it because in the future we 416 have it marked for rezoning. So we can rezone it now. That’s basically how I’m interrupting this, I think it’s true but 417 it’s really just as a way, an ad hoc way to say, we’re going to get this way in that is critical for this development. They 418 need a second egress from that site and that land is for that. Oh and by the way, they’re putting a 300,000 square 419 foot building there too. Right next to a bunch of homes, which they are free, to sell to anybody who wants to come in 420 and put up fence. It seems to me, I really want to address that issue of how this lays out because it seems to me like 421 this a very ad hoc exercise. I really like some explanations on how that works out because it seems to me what 422 you’re justifying a present change because the future overlay that’s going to occur. Really, that cuts back to Melissa 423 Poole’s comments. Thank you, I’m done. 424 425 Adam Beeman: I am just wondering if we can just get past this first amendment, a lot of the problems and questions 426 would be addressed and answered in Mr. Harvey’s presentation over the rezoning of the MPZ-CD. We’re going 427 through stuff that they will get answers to once Mr. Harvey give his presentation. I don’t know if there is a way we 428 can vote on this first amendment and move along but a lot of the stuff will be answered once we get to that next 429 presentation, I believe. 430 431 Gerald Scarlett: I will speak specifically to Item 8 let it be known that I am not in favor of any of this. I have been here 432 for 65 years; my family has been here for over 200 years. When you look at your map, West Scarlett Mountain Road 433 is my driveway. It’s a half a mile long and I personally maintain all of it, all the expense and all the work. What I 434 would ask of the Board is that you recommend to the County Commissioners that Item 8 not be approved. I’d like for 435 all this to go away but I’ve been fighting this stuff since Interstate 40 took part of my property so I know how some of 436 it will turn out but we do not need to approve Item 8. If you look at that map, the change that you are making, I know 437 it’s not yet a rezoning, seems to be just because the Town wanted to do it and we want to match that. I think we 438 need to make everything as hard as possible for anybody to do anything in that section other than the R1. Part of my 439 reasoning for that is if you look at my driveway, that is the beginning of the Rural Buffer. My property is in the Rural 440 Buffer. There are a lot of things I cannot do with my property that people on Davis Road can because I’m in the 441 Rural Buffer. Some of my tax money has been spend over the last couple of years to put up signs that say ‘Entering 442 the Rural Buffer’. Some people love it, I personally don’t, it rubs my nose in the fact that I can’t do something on the 443 piece of property my family has been paying taxes on for 150 – 200 years but none of that matters at this point but if 444 you look at that map and you look at my driveway, it does not make sense to me that you have a Rural Buffer that 445 limits the use of property so that it has to stay the very rural, more rural than the rest of the County but I would have 446 14 to pass businesses and retail potential down the road to get off of my Rural Buffer property. If we are going to make 447 development, there has got to be a buffer between a Rural Buffer and the beginning of the Retail and Industrial. It 448 makes no sense to make a hard line to the Rural Buffer, don’t cut your trees, you can’t divide your property, right over 449 to here’s an industrial zone. If you are going to this and recommend to the County Commissioners that they do this 450 and approve this then you need to do away with the Rural Buffer. That needs to be forgotten about so I guess if 451 there is a question in all that, is there any intention of providing any kind of buffer between my driveway and the 452 changes that this might allow and the zoning that it might allow down the road and I know that the answer to that is 453 no. So, I would beg you please recommend to the Commissioners at least for Item 8 and of course, I think so for the 454 rest of it too, recommend to them that they do not change that. Let’s not make it easy for people to come in and ruin 455 what we’ve done here. Thank you. 456 457 Sarah Shore: My name is Sarah Shore. Randy, I just want to let you know that my land backs up to this so we are 458 directly affected by this amendment. This proposed amendment that was snuck in, that was completely different for 459 Settler’s Point, is really upsetting because I will have a warehouse in my backyard, about a 100 yards away from my 460 children’s playset. I moved here to keep my kid’s childhood simple with the woods and being able to run around and 461 have fun and you are now telling me there will be a semi going past my backyard because of the is one little parcel of 462 land and I understand that we can’t fight it all but whoever said it earlier, fighting and winning this battle and losing 463 the war is looking like it might be but please do not put a semi in my backyard and this warehouse. One thing Randy, 464 this is my backyard, I don’t live down Davis Road, I live on Old 86. Thank you. 465 466 Cedar Eagle: Hello, I have a question regarding the zoning basically. Can the constituents create a petition to keep 467 the zoning as Rural and Residential and if so, how many signature would be required on a petition like that before the 468 Town would have to address it? That’s my only question. 469 470 Craig Benedict: There is a public hearing process that is part of these amendments. You are welcome to attend and 471 bring signatures or petitions if you would like to that public hearing and that will be part of the consideration for the 472 amendment so that’s the process within the laws of the County that are put up in the Unified Development 473 Ordinance. 474 475 Cedar Eagle: Ok but there’s no set amount of signatures that is necessary. You can’t give me any kind of numerical 476 data to show how much outcry we would need to make it strongly … I mean I understand the County Commissioners 477 what this approved but pretty much everything I’ve heard from every resident wants it to keep agricultural and 478 residentially zoned so if had a public outcry of thousands of petitions saying they don’t want it how much impact 479 would that have? 480 481 Craig Benedict: We regularly, as part of the public hearing process, take a look at the input that comes from 482 residents and it is gauged against our Comprehensive Plan. There is not a numerical limit that makes it go one way 483 or the other. There is a public hearing process. 484 485 Cedar Eagle: Ok, thank you that’s all I needed to know. 486 487 Tom Altieri: If I might add, what you are describing sounds a little bit like a reference to annexation law in that when 488 an area is proposed for voluntary annexation, a majority of the property owners have to agree to that annexation. 489 That could be what you are referring to. Annexation of course is not proposed here and there is no rezoning part of 490 Item 8. 491 492 Jack Rupplin: Good evening, I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about this issue. I was ignorant about it until 493 a few days ago until Franklin Garland told me about it because I noticed the little signs but they didn’t mean much to 494 me. He briefed me on this and I realized the impact that this would have on the total area and I was totally shocked. I 495 thought that this amount of time that he described was totally short fused especially on circumstances we are living 496 now with the COVID and so I contacted my attorney and he referred me to another attorney and in turn they referred 497 me to Morningstar Law and they are a very good group of attorneys who specialize in this sort of issue. I spoke with 498 them and I asked them what it would take for them to represent us in this case which I will oppose with all ingenuity 499 and money I can muster to stop this because it is totally a rough plan. It’s a plan without any thought there is no 500 special use zoning in here, it’s just all very broad stroked and that makes it very dangerous and very unpredictable 501 and we will suffer the consequences for a long time and I am personally very happy where I’m near and I will want to 502 15 continue living where I am. So, as to what I want from you all is a voluntary deferment or delay of any action so we, 503 the residents of this area, we can organize and we can retain legal counsel and we can prepare a plan or a counter 504 plan and suggest some modifications to the zoning or the rezoning and suggest some modifications to the RTLP and 505 come up with something that is reasonable. This is our area not the Planning Board’s area. We want to work with 506 you and we want to organize we are not going to be run over and we are not going to be forced into this so I would 507 like to ask you to consider postponing this and give us the time to organize and to get legal counsel. Hereby, I 508 pledge $1,000 dollars of my money as seed money to begin this action. I thank you very much for your attention and 509 God bless you. 510 511 Betty Garland: I just wanted to say that this is going to be in my backyard. We do a brisk agritourism business in 512 general here and this is going to have a very negative impact on that. Also, regarding petitions and signatures we 513 had about 5000 against the Summit project but it got voted in anyway so like if we had 30,000 signatures would that 514 get somebody’s attention? I would like to get that really clarified if I can. That’s it. 515 516 Kaila Mitchell: I’m Kaila Mitchell, I live on Jedi Way my parents live on one side and then my in-laws live on the other 517 we are about a quarter of a mile down the road from Old 86. Before we move here, at the end of 2017, my husband 518 Matt Mitchell spoke with Michael Harvey asking about the development plans as far as that expansion that plot that 519 will come up to Davis. He was told that were was no appetite for it and so we were under the impression that it would 520 not happen. If we had known that it would have, of course we would have chosen not to move here. Some of our 521 concerns, just like many of our neighbors that I agree with, we are concerned about light, and noise, pollution, air 522 pollution and of course safety because of the increase traffic, especially the big trucks. I’d also, the potential for the 523 decrease in the value of our property being so close to a warehouse district. So I wanted to make my concerns 524 known as well and that I stand in solidarity with my neighbors being 100% opposed to this. Thank you. 525 526 Jon Lorusso: I spoke earlier, I’d just like to say that if this meeting were in person, the attendees, the residents would 527 have the opportunity to meet and meet each other in person a lot of my neighbors, share contact details and organize 528 in a way that Mr. Rupplin was speaking about. We don’t have the opportunity to do that because this is being done 529 virtually but if, I was made aware of this through Mr. Garland, Mr. Franklin Garland, I would say, just to keep it simple, 530 I am going to email him and see if he has any means of organizing the rest of us. Perhaps a Facebook group or 531 something along those lines would be useful. Mr. Rupplin if you have any ideas, I can’t really share my email with 532 you right now but I will try to get in touch with you through Mr. Garland and hopefully we can organize something that 533 way. That’s all I have thank you. 534 535 Franklin Garland: Thank you for taking my questions again, I know I am using a lot of the time out here. Somethings 536 that haven’t been asked yet and I know this will come up later on in the meeting but are any Commissioners present 537 today for this meeting. That’s one question, ok. 538 539 Perdita Holtz: Can I go ahead and answer that and say that Commission Chair Penny Rich is on the call as an 540 attendee. 541 542 Franklin Garland: She the only one. 543 544 Perdita Holtz: Yes, it is not typical that BOCC members attend Planning Board meeting. 545 546 Franklin Garland: So this is moot, what we’re discussing the decision everything we’re saying. 547 548 Perdita Holtz: Well this the Planning Board meeting and there will be a public hearing before the Board of County 549 Commissioners at a future date. 550 551 Franklin Garland: It’s my understanding, and everybody that has spoken so far that this was in fact an information 552 meeting with the Commissioners present and once again it seems to me that the Planning Board is trying to sweep 553 everything under that rug. Ok, again pulling the wool in front of our eyes. Big questions for you guys, there is the 554 Research Triangle Logistic Park Company out there Terra Equity did a presentation for a hand full of people because 555 nobody else was notified and Planning Board has made it a point of not notifying all the people that really get 556 involved but just the ones that are in contact with the property. Ok, so sort of devious, ok because there are, like I 557 said, thousands of people that get affected by this not just the 12 parcels around it. However, big big question, we 558 16 did have an informational meeting on July 15th I believe it was and they said it was going to create 4500 jobs. The 559 same argument used by the planning that was going to create this jobs for from Northern Orange County. So, this 560 was with Summit Corporation. If we have 4500 new jobs out here and that are being created for the people who live 561 in Northern Orange County, that means we’re going to have approximately 4500 cars coming through Hillsborough 562 additional to the traffic that is a mess already there, in the morning and those cars are going to be returning in the 563 afternoon ok. I don’t think that is exactly good planning by the way. I mean we really need a different way other than 564 Churton to get through Hillsborough and that’s never going to happen but let’s go ahead and double the traffic out 565 there. 4600 people that almost the population of Hillsborough that you actually adding to the traffic conditions out 566 there ok. I don’t know if you guys have considered that apparently not because certainly that would require putting in 567 four lanes or at least 2 lanes in every direction and that’s not in the plans either. I understand that DOT doesn’t have 568 money to convert the roads at this one and to the work and Hillsborough doesn’t either ok. I also, actually good 569 question out here, everything we got pretty much blindsided with Summit and it got approved. I will ask someone 570 who is in the know, Summit got approved pretty much they just blew us away and said we’re going to do whatever we 571 want anyhow and you did and then they pulled out. Why did they pull out, when did they pull out, what did Terra offer 572 you that is making you do it. When did they let you know that they were going to do this and why weren’t we 573 informed that this all had happened? Any care to comment on that, it is planning, this is you know obviously 574 somebody planned Summit and decided to get out of it. Somebody now trying to just pull another one over us. I 575 wouldn’t mind if Mr. Harvey or Mr. Benedict answered this one cause apparently they’re the one in charge of this and 576 I hope they’re present because they are the planning commission and if they’re not there why are we even having 577 this meeting? 578 579 Craig Benedict: I can give you a brief answer; we will provide something in writing. The developer of Settler’s Point 580 received approval in January 2018. At times, developers do not stay with the project and we are not privy to why they 581 left the project, cease to exist. Another project did pick that up. 582 583 Franklin Garland: Have you seen the damage they did back there already? And the wildlife that the displaced? I 584 mean they literally raised it and then abandoned it. 585 586 David Blankfard: I think that was the tornado. 587 588 Franklin Garland: No, no, no, no, no, no we’re talking about 90 + acres that are devastated back there not tornados. 589 Raised, cut down and raised and leveled with grading already having started on it. I am just curious why they pulled 590 out. It seems like you guys would know. There would be some agreement that there have to do it since they went 591 forth and everything and they pulled out and you guy pulled out from who knows where this other mega corporation 592 that is not even in North Carolina that one of the stipulations is here that it’s going to help North Carolinians. This 593 company is from Kentucky for crying out loud. They gonna get their own crews in here and that is supposed to help 594 us? Orange County residents? I mean I don’t see where you guys are deciding this and pulling this out from and you 595 literally putting this whole thing in middle of a residential area. You look around your development zone and it is all 596 residential. It might be by I-40 but that doesn’t keep it from being residential. 597 598 David Blankfard: I think Michael Harvey has something to say. 599 600 Franklin Garland: I’d be surprised. 601 602 Michael Harvey: The applicant for Settler’s Point did not engage in any land clearing. The land clearing that Mr. 603 Garland is referring to was actually carried out, as I understand it, as part of a timber operation and consistent with a 604 forest management plan to harvest the timber. The land disturbance activity did not occur as result of any actual 605 development activity for the Settler’s Point project. 606 607 Franklin Garland: Why did Settler’s Point pull out Harvey. I mean you should know you’re in charge of this. 608 609 Michael Harvey: Well, Mr. Garland, I responded to your email request. The Settlers Point applicant has not pulled 610 out of anything and the properties have been rezoned. As I understand it the applicant for the project chose not to 611 move forward with initiation of development plans activities due to utility extension issues. We have a new applicant 612 proposing a new project that is being processed in accordance with the provision of the Unified Development 613 Ordinance. 614 17 615 Franklin Garland: So if Summit hasn’t done anything that doesn’t mean they’re out of the picture, they just have not 616 done anything yet. You gonna try to sell this to the second customer, how about we go ahead and do a proposal of 617 our own to put up whatever we want our community and try to counter that, would that fly too then. 618 619 David Blankfard: You’re welcome to do it. 620 621 Franklin Garland: If our proposal calls for farmland for example, we want it rezoned to pasture. I mean that’s a 622 perfectly legitimate thing and that’s then, you’d have to accept it right if the people, if that’s what we want. 623 624 Jayse Sessi: My name is Jayse Sessi, I live a little further away but I drive by that area all the time. We moved here 625 almost 14 years ago and we chose to live in a semi-rural area. Since we’ve been here that parcel that corner has 626 been put up for several different situations and I think it’s a little upsetting that the rural area, if that 12 acres, will 627 impact the neighborhoods that are nearer than I am but it also would have a negative impact, I think, for this area. 628 It’s not just that immediate, those immediate houses those people have mentioned but it’s further away that has an 629 impact as well. I am just basically wanting to voice my concerns and I am against it and my support to the local 630 community. 631 632 David Blankfard: Ok, I think that’s everybody from the attendees. Does anybody on the Board have any further 633 questions or comments or anything? 634 635 Perdita Holtz: There are two people with their hands up. They have already spoken and as is normal during an in-636 person meeting, normally people are able to speak once so I’ll have to let the Planning Board make a decision on 637 whether they want to hear from Cedar Eagle again and Franklin Garland again. 638 639 David Blankfard: So what does the Board think? 640 641 Hunter Spitzer: I think it’s time for a motion. 642 643 Adam Beeman: I believe I’ve heard enough. 644 645 David Blankfard: Yeah, they’ll have time to talk about what they really want to talk about in the next couple of items. 646 Ok, so can I get a motion. 647 648 Adam Beeman: Motion to approve the item – I don’t have it in front of me. A motion to approve the amendment for 649 the zoning for the COCA and FLUM. 650 651 Tom Altieri: In the motion, sorry for interrupting, the motion would be to approve the resolution that is provided in 652 your packet as attachment 3 and that outlines the amendment and the parcels to be amended if indeed the Planning 653 Board wants to recommend approval they would do so by virtue of approving the resolution that you have. 654 655 Adam Beeman: I move to approve Tom’s resolution. 656 657 Kim Piracci: Wait a second, I really... I would like to hear from Michael Harvey before I vote on anything. Do I have to 658 vote to hear from Michael Harvey? 659 660 David Blankfard: You can ask Michael anything. 661 662 Kim Piracci: Isn’t he going to present tonight? 663 664 David Blankfard: Yes, the next one. 665 666 Craig Benedict: The next two items. 667 668 David Blankfard: We’ve got a long way to go. Tom spoke on this item. 669 670 18 Tom Altieri: I’m sorry, I did not hear. I think the motion on the floor is to approve the Land Use Plan amendments 671 through the resolution. I believe Mrs. Piracci’s question is with regard to the rezoning and there are actually two 672 rezonings on the agenda but I think the one that she is referring to is Item 10, the MPD-CZ that Michael Harvey has a 673 presentation to introduce that item. This is for the Land Use Plan amendments and does not include the rezoning. 674 675 Randy Marshall: I am prepared to read the proposal if you want to hear it from the agenda packet. 676 677 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approve the amendment. The requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been 678 deemed complete pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 and 1.1.7 of the UDO and Section 153a to 341 of the North Carolina 679 General Statutes the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is 680 consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest 681 because it supports modifying existing non-residential zoning designations in an effort to provide each property 682 owner with an opportunity/path forward for the reasonable development of their property. I would recommend that 683 the Planning Board recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they consider adoption of the proposed 684 Zoning Atlas amendments. Seconded by Adam Beeman. 685 686 ROLLCALL VOTE: 687 Carrie Fletcher: No 688 Adam Beeman: For it 689 Hunter Spitzer: No 690 Melissa Poole: No 691 Randy Marshall: Yes 692 Kim Piracci: No 693 Patricia Roberts: Yes 694 Susan Hunter: Yes 695 Alexandra Allman: Yes 696 David Blankfard: Yes 697 MOTION PASSED 6-4 698 699 700 David Blankfard, Chair 701 19 Approved 9/2/2020 MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 AUGUST 19, 2020 3 SPECIAL MEETING 4 (Due to current public health concerns, this meeting was held virtually. 5 Members of the Planning Board, staff and public participated remotely) 6 7 8 Excerpt 9 AGENDA ITEM 7: CLARIFICATION OF PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN OF 10 HILLSBOROUGH/ORANGE COUNTY CENTRAL ORANGE COORDINATED AREA (COCA) LAND USE PLAN 11 AND TO THE ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM) - To review 12 and make a recommendation to the BOCC on County-initiated amendments to the COCA and 13 FLUM in the vicinity of the southern portion of the Hillsborough Area Economic Development 14 District. To clarify the motion made at the August 5, 2020 Planning Board meeting and revote on 15 the clarified motion regarding County-initiated amendments to the COCA and FLUM in the vicinity 16 of the southern portion of the Hillsborough Area Economic Development District. This item is 17 scheduled for BOCC public hearing on September 15, 2020. 18 PRESENTER: Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor 19 20 David Blankfard: Item 7 is to clarify a vote that we took on the 5th and any comments need to be in regards to this 21 clarification. Comments pertaining to the RTLP application are going to be at a later time which is up next. Can I get 22 a new motion for Item 7? 23 24 Randy Marshall: I believe the motion would amend Orange County’s zoning atlas as established in Section 1.2 of the 25 Orange County UDO and whereas the proposed rezoning consist of the 8 property owners and whereas the proposal 26 has been found to be consistent with the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan and whereas the requirement of 27 Section 2.8 of the UDO has been deemed complete and whereas the Board has found that the proposed zoning atlas 28 amendment to be reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety and general welfare we recommend that 29 the Board of County Commissioners rezone the areas described above and depicted on the attached map. 30 31 Tom Altieri: Chair Blankfard, Tom Altieri, Orange County Comprehensive Planning Supervisor. Good Evening, if I 32 could just say a few words about this item. I think it would be helpful and I can reference page numbers that are in 33 your packet that I think would be helpful as well. So thank you for your service to the Planning Board members. The 34 purpose of this item is to clarify the motion that was made at the August 5th Planning Board Meeting and to revote on 35 the County initiated amendments to the Land Use Plans. In your agenda packet, this item is on pages 33-38. While 36 the intent of the Boards’ action was clear on August 5th , through review of the meeting recording, staff discovered 37 that the motion included reading from materials related to a subsequent agenda item. Planning staff is not 38 suggesting that the Board revisit its discussion but rather to repeat the correct motion and revote so that the minutes 39 of tonight’s meeting can be crystal clear. The draft minutes are an informational item in your packet. This item is 40 discussed on pages 15 to 16, which would be the discussion that you had on this item at your August 5th meeting. 41 The Planning Director’s recommendation is included in your abstract which is on page 34 and that is to approve the 42 resolution contained in attachment 1 which is right after the abstract, pages 35 – 37. What we need from the Board 43 this evening is to recommend to the County Commissioners approval of the resolution, which is attachment 1, 44 reflecting the proposed Land Use Plan Amendments. We need a second to that motion and then a roll call vote. 45 That concludes my introduction. 46 47 (Randy Marshall nodded head in agreement to this clarifying language) 48 49 David Blankfard asked for a second to the motion, as clarified by Mr. Altieri. Adam Beeman seconded. 50 51 ROLLCALL VOTE: 52 Melissa Poole: No 53 Randy Marshall: Yes 54 Adam Beeman: Yes 55 20 Susan Hunter: Yes 56 Patricia Roberts: Yes 57 Carrie Fletcher: No 58 Hunter Spitzer: No 59 Alexandra Allman: Yes 60 Kim Piracci: No 61 David Blankfard: Yes 62 MOTION PASSED 6-4 63 64 David Blankfard, Chair 65 21 Attachment 4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS The Orange County Board of Commissioners will hold public hearings on Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 7:00 PM for the purpose of giving all interested residents an opportunity to speak for or against the items below. Due to current public health concerns, the hearings will be held on-line and pre-registration is required. The meeting will be live streamed at the following web address for those who wish to only view the meeting: www.orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos To register to speak at the public hearing, please send an email to ocpubliccomment@orangecountync.gov no later than 3:00 PM on the day of the hearing and indicate you wish to speak during the hearing. When submitting the request to speak, include the following: • The date of the meeting • The number and title of the agenda item (from the list below) you wish to speak on • Your name, address, email and phone number • The phone number must be the number you plan to call in from if participating by phone After registering to speak, an email that contains instructions and a link to sign up to access the hearing will be sent to the email address used to register. If you do not have access to an internet-enabled computer and would like to phone in to access the hearing, please call the office of the Clerk to the Board after September 9, 2020 at 919-245-2130 and a staff member will provide you with the call-in number. Public Hearing Items: 1. Amendments to the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan and to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM): In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.3 Comprehensive Plan Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Director has initiated amendments to the Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan and to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) in the vicinity of the southern portion of the Hillsborough Area Economic Development District. The amendments related to COCA affect 17 parcels (in whole or part) encompassing 84 acres. The amendments related to the FLUM affect 20 parcels (in whole or part) encompassing 89 acres. The COCA proposed land use category is Suburban Office and the FLUM proposed category is Economic Development. The affected parcels are as follows: 22 [Type here] 2 Parcel Identification Number (PIN) Entire or Partial Parcel to be Changed? Acreage Proposed to be Changed FLUM only or “Both” COCA and FLUM 9862998894 Partial 11.69 Both 9872087570 Partial 0.03 Both 9872095945 Partial 1.64 Both 9872098324 Partial 7.45 Both 9872183072 Partial 0.02 Both 9872187626 Partial 7.98 Both 9872188329 Partial 1.87 Both 9872191961 Entire 1.18 Both 9872193459 Entire 10.23 Both 9872196844 Entire 3.26 Both 9872198336 Entire 10.44 Both 9872286360 Partial 0.04 Both 9872286779 Partial 0.59 Both 9872292222 Entire 10.18 Both 9872298289 Partial 7.99 Both 9873007189 Entire 1.06 FLUM only 9873008345 Entire 2.71 FLUM only 9873104230 Entire 4.45 Both 9873104310 Partial 0.72 FLUM only 9873108103 Entire 3.51 Both The Orange County Planning Board, at its August 5, 2020 regular meeting, voted 6- 4 to recommend approval of the proposed amendments. Clarification of the motion voted upon was deemed necessary and the Planning Board considered a clarified motion at its special meeting on August 19, 2020 when the board voted 6-4 to recommend approval of the amendments. Agenda materials from these meetings can be viewed at: http://orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26 2. Zoning Atlas Amendment: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments, the Planning Director has initiated action to rezone 8 parcels totaling 45.96 acres. A. Six parcels (identified with the following PINs: 9873-11-4636, 9873-11-7506, 9873-11-5415, 9873-11-9450, 9873-11-7247, and 9873-10-7937): From: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. To: Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. B. One parcel (PIN 9873-10-4310): From: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point, Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District, Rural Residential (R-1). 23 [Type here] 3 To: Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2), Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District, Rural Residential (R-1). C. One parcel (PIN 9873-20-2388): FROM: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. TO: Economic Development Hillsborough Office/Retail (EDH-4) and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. The parcels are located in Hillsborough Township, south of Interstate 40 and east of Old Highway 86. The purpose of the rezoning is to return these 8 properties back to their original zoning designation in place prior to the approval of the MPD-CZ for Settlers Point. If approved, development of these properties will be regulated consistent with the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) rather than the various conditions associated with the approval of the MPD-CZ for Settlers Point. The Orange County Planning Board, at its August 5, 2020 regular meeting, voted 10-0 to recommend approval of the proposed amendment. Agenda materials for this meeting, including maps, can be viewed at: http://orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08052020-1013 3. Zoning Atlas Amendment (Master Plan Development Application – Research Triangle Logistical Park) : In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance, an applicant has applied to rezone 3 parcels, totaling approximately 180 acres, for a Master Planned Development – Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) for Research Triangle Logistical Park in the Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD) south of Interstate 40 and west of Old Highway 86, within Hillsborough Township. The parcels are currently zoned: A. PIN 9863-71-8857: An approximately 90 acre parcel zoned MPD-CZ (Settlers Point) and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District; B. PIN 9863-91-6573: An 80 acre parcel zoned: • Approximately 60 acres (south of Interstate 40) zoned MPD-CZ (Settlers Point) and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District; • Approximately 20 acres (north of Interstate 40) zoned Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Officer (EDH-2) and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. Note: The portion of the parcel north of the Interstate is not proposed to be rezoned. C. PIN 9862-99-8894: An approximately 12 acre parcel split zoned Rural Residential (R-1) and Rural Buffer (RB). Note: The small portion of this parcel zoned RB, approximately 26,000 square feet in area along Davis Road, is not proposed to be rezoned. It will remain zoned RB. 24 [Type here] 4 The Orange County Planning Board began review of this application at its August 5, 2020 regular meeting and continued review at a special meeting on August 19, 2020. At the August 19 special meeting, the Planning Board voted 6-4 to recommend approval of the application. Agenda materials from these meetings can be viewed at: http://orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26 Substantial changes in items presented at the public hearing may be made following the receipt of comments made at the public hearing. In accordance with Session Law 2020-3 (Senate Bill 704), Section 4.31(a), which pertains to remote meetings during declared emergencies, written comments on items heard at a public hearing are accepted for 24 hours after the public hearing is closed and the Board of County Commissioners shall not make a decision on public hearing items until after the 24-hour period for written comments has concluded. The full text of the public hearing items may be obtained no later than September 11, 2020 on the County’s website: https://www.orangecountync.gov/1707/BOCC-Agendas Information will also be available from the Orange County Planning Department (contact information below) no later than September 4, 2020. Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department via phone at (919) 245-2575 during normal office hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday). You may also e-mail questions to planningdept@orangecountync.gov. Written comments to the Board of County Commissioners can be sent via e-mail to ocbocc@orangecountync.gov. Written comments can also be dropped off at the Planning Department offices at 131 W. Margaret Lane, 2nd floor, Hillsborough, NC during normal office hours or mailed to the Planning Department at P.O. Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278. PUBLISH: The Herald Sun News of Orange September 2, 2020 September 2, 2020 September 9, 2020 September 9, 2020 25 Resolution #:RES-2020-053 1 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH/ORANGE COUNTY CENTRAL ORANGE COORDINATED AREA LAND USE PLAN ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP WHEREAS, Orange County has initiated amendments to the: • Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan, • Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, as established in Section 1.7 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan consists of the following: • Extend the Town’s Urban Service Boundary for public water and sewer consistent with previously approved Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement amendment by all parties, and • Add the Suburban Office Complex Future Land Use Classification to all or portions of 17 parcels, totaling 84 acres, located on both sides of Old Highway 86, south of Interstate 40, and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map consists of the following: • Amend all or portions of 20 parcels, totaling 89 acres, located on both sides of Old Highway 86, south of Interstate 40 from Rural Residential to Economic Development Transition. Additionally, 1.64 acres of road right-of-way is included, and • One overlay land use classification applies in this geographic area (Resource Protection Area). No modifications are being proposed to the boundary, and WHEREAS, the following parcels are affected by the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map amendment proposal: Parcel Identification Number (PIN) Entire or Partial Parcel to be Changed? Owner on Record Acreage Proposed to be Changed 9862998894 Partial LANDMARK MANAGEMENT PARTNERS LLC 11.69 9872087570 Partial CHARLENE W HAMLETT 0.03 9872095945 Partial LARRY B LEE 1.64 9872098324 Partial THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N BRYANT 7.45 9872183072 Partial JOE L JERNIGAN 0.02 9872187626 Partial THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N BRYANT 7.98 9872188329 Partial JOE L JERNIGAN and VICKIE R JERNIGAN 1.87 9872191961 Entire JEANINE L DUKE and JAMES N POULOS 1.18 9872193459 Entire THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N BRYANT 10.23 9872196844 Entire MICHAEL WILLIAM SUDYK 3.26 9872198336 Entire THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N BRYANT 10.44 9872286360 Partial REA LANDCOM INC 0.04 9872286779 Partial THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY A BRYANT 0.59 9872292222 Entire THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N BRYANT 10.18 9872298289 Partial THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N BRYANT 7.99 9873007189 Entire JOHN JR BOXTER and SHANNON MARTIN 1.06 9873008345 Entire JOSEPH S SHORE and SARAH C SHORE 2.71 9873104230 Entire MICHAEL W SUDYK and GEORGE W SUDYK 4.45 9873104310 Partial BEATRICE S BROOKS 0.72 9873108103 Entire MICHAEL WILLIAM SUDYK 3.51 Attachment 5 26 WHEREAS, the proposals have been found to be internally consistent with the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following: Objective ED-1.5: Identify barriers to development of desirable businesses and local businesses, and mitigate these barriers. Objective ED-2.1: Encourage compact and higher density development in areas served by water and sewer. (See also Land Use Objective LU-1.1 and Water and Wastewater Objective WW-5.) Objective ED-2.5: Identify lands suitable to accommodate the expansion and growth of commercial and industrial uses in the County. Objective ED-2.7: Select industrial sites in Economic Development Areas based on present and planned supporting systems, such as public water and sewer, access to adequate highway, rail, or public transportation infrastructures, and minimize detrimental environmental or negative social outcomes. (See also Water and Wastewater Objective WW-15.) Land Use Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of life. Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non-residential development with existing or planned locations of public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high-speed internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed- use zoning districts where adequate public services are available. (See also Economic Development Objectives ED-2.1, ED-2.3, ED-2.10, and Water and Wastewater Objective WW - 2.) Land Use Goal 4: Land development regulations, guidelines, techniques and/or incentives that promote the integrated achievement of all Comprehensive Plan goals, and WHEREAS, the requirements of Sections 2.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) has been deemed complete, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan and Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map are hereby amended as depicted on the attached maps. Upon motion of Commissioner ________________________, seconded by Commissioner ________________________, the foregoing ordinance was adopted this ________ day of ___________________, 2020. I, David Hunt, Deputy Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting 27 held on ________________________, 2020 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this ______ day of ______________, 2020. SEAL ___________________________________ Deputy Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 28 17 Parcels (in whole/in part)84 acres !"_$ WATERSTONEDR OAK RIDGE DR G LA D Y S L N DAVIS RD DESTINY DR SERVICERD W SCARLETTMOUNTAIN R D SUMMITTRAILDRRI P P Y L N OLDNC86OLDNC86ALICELOOP Proposed Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central OrangeCoordinated Area Land Use Plan Natural Resources Proposed Suburban Office Expanded Urban ServiceBoundary PendingHillsborough Current Urban ServiceBoundary Existing Land Use Plan Employment Mixed Res Neighborhood Mixed Use Neighborhood Mixed Use Permanent Open Space Suburban Office ¯Orange County Planning and InspectionsBrian Carson (1/26/2018) 0 400Feet 1 in = 650 feet 29 !"_$ 20 Parcels (in whole/in part)89 acres WATERSTONE DR VALLIEHILNOAK RIDGEDR G LA D Y S L N DAVIS RD DESTINY DR SERVICERD W SCARLETTMOUNTAINRD OLD NC 86OLDNC86PHOEBEDRALICELOOP Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Resource Protection Areas Overlay Water Supply Watersheds Overlay Parcels Proposed Economic Development Transition JPA Rural Residential Rural Buffer City Limits Activity Node Economic Development Transition ¯Orange County Planning and InspectionsBrian Carson (1/26/2018) 0 400Feet 1 in = 650 feet 30