HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-06-20; 6-c - Zoning Atlas Amendment – Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) for the Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP)ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 6, 2020
Action Agenda
Item No. 6-c
SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment – Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning
District (MPD-CZ) for the Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Excerpt of Planning Board Minutes from
August 5 and 19, 2020 and Statement of
Consistency
2. Statement of Consistency
3. Draft Conditions of Approval
Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597
Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2592
PURPOSE: To continue review and discussion on an applicant initiated Zoning Atlas
Amendments for 3 parcels west of Old NC Highway 86/south of Interstate 40 to Master Plan
Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district.
Specifically, the Board will be finalizing on an application submitted by Terra Equity Incorporated
to rezone parcels within PIN numbers 9863-71-8857, 9863-91-6573, and 9862-99-8894:
FROM: MPD-CZ (Settlers Point), Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay
District, Rural Residential (R-1), and Rural Buffer (RB).
TO: MPD-CZ (Research Triangle Logistics Park), Major Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Overlay District, Rural Buffer (RB).
NOTE: As indicated at the public hearing, approximately 26,000
sq.ft. of property (PIN 9862-99-8894) shall remain zoned RB and will
remain in open space.
As a general reminder the public comment period for this item closed at 9:00 a.m. on September
24, 2020. The BOCC will not be accepting any further public comment on this item.
As the Board is aware, staff has recommended the imposition of several conditions designed to
address the impacts of the project as well as address some of the concerns expressed by the
general public. These conditions must mutually be agreed to by the applicant. At the writing of
this abstract, staff and the applicant are still working to finalize various conditions.
BACKGROUND: Review of this item began at the BOCC’s September 15, 2020 BOCC regular
meeting and concluded with the closure of the public hearing on September 22, 2020. Agenda
materials from the public hearing can be accessed at:
http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/WebLink/Browse.aspx?startid=61357&row=1&dbid=0.
1
Video from the September 15 and 22, 2020 meetings can be accessed at:
https://www.orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos.
Approximately 100 people spoke on this item over the course of the two public hearing dates. In
accordance with Session Law 2020-3 Section 4.31(a), regarding remote meetings during
declared emergencies, written comments were allowed to be sent for 24-hours after the public
hearing was closed. Interested parties were told so submit comments via e-mail, or in writing to
the Planning Department office at 131 West Margaret Lane in downtown Hillsborough, by 9:00
a.m. September 24, 2020.
No written comments were received at the Planning Department office by the deadline. All
comments sent to ocbocc@orangecountync.gov on this proposal are viewable at:
https://groups.google.com/g/ocbocc.
Proposal: The applicant is proposing to rezone the 3 identified parcels to a new MPD-CZ district
allowing for the development of a new master planned project, referred to as the Research
Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP) summarized as follows:
1. Construction of approximately 2,400,000 sq.ft. of building area supporting non-
residential development and preserve 41 acres (25%) of land as open space.
2. Permitted land uses within the new MPD-CZ district would include:
a. Health technology,
b. Information sciences and engineering,
c. Advanced and light manufacturing,
d. Scientific research and laboratories,
e. Logistics/supply operations,
f. Warehousing and supply chain fulfillment services.
The applicant has also provided a list of land uses that would be strictly prohibited
within the new district;
3. Vehicular access would be through Service Road, running parallel with Interstate 40,
and Davis Road;
4. Buildings would observe a 6 story height limit consistent with County regulations.
Accessory structures (i.e. water tower, telecommunication tower, etc.) may be higher.
5. The applicant is proposing imposition of development and design standards (i.e.
architectural design, signage, internal and external setback limits, height limits,
landscaping/buffer standards, outdoor lighting standards, erosion control/stormwater,
etc.) governing overall development of the project if the MPD-CZ district is approved
by the County.
During the public hearing several concern(s) were expressed over the project, summarized as
follows:
a. Proposed development is too intensive for the 161 acres of land (i.e. over 2,400,00
sq.ft. of building area cannot be accommodated on the 3 parcels);
b. Proposed land uses are not in harmony with surrounding property;
2
c. The applicant has not provided sufficient details on proposed land uses. Local
residents have expressed concern(s) they will not have a voice is recommending
denial of specific tenants;
d. Action on the application will result in illegal spot zoning subjecting the County to a
court challenge. Specifically the parcel along Davis Road is within the Rural
Residential land use category, as defined in the County’s Comprehensive Plan,
and was never intended to support high intensity economic development projects;
e. The request is inconsistent with various goals and policies of the adopted 2020
Comprehensive Plan including but not limited to:
i. Allow for intensive non-residential development in an area of the county
designated as a rural and/or protected area,
ii. Will not result in adequate protection of the natural environment,
iii. Will not be in harmony with surrounding land uses.
f. Will negatively impact rural neighborhoods in and around Davis Road due to the
proposed driveway allowing vehicular access to and from the development. The
driveway will generate too much traffic on the road creating a public safety hazard.
Further, commercial vehicles will make use of existing, rural roadways (i.e. Old NC
Highway 86, New Hope Church Road, Orange Grove Road);
g. The project does not provide enough protection for existing environmental features
(i.e. streams, floodplains, and identified hardwood forests), will have a negative
impact on Cates Creek, and will impair the health of the Eno River;
h. Development will negatively impact and displace local wildlife;
i. Insufficient safeguards are proposed addressing stormwater runoff and impacts on
adjacent property owners;
j. Development of buildings with a maximum height limit of 60 feet will dominate the
local landscape;
k. Truck traffic will create health hazards for residents due to increases in diesel
exhaust/fumes. Further, noise created by these trucks will negatively impact local
residents and will constitute violation(s) of applicable noise regulations;
l. The applicant has been inconsistent in the number of jobs the project will
generate;
m. The submitted traffic impact analysis is contradictory with the application narrative.
As previous indicated, there are numerous recommended conditions designed to address the
anticipated impacts of the project.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this item on August 5 and 19,
2020. The Board voted 6 to 4 to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency
(Attachment 2) and the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment (Attachment 3) as proposed by staff.
Those voting against the project cited the following concerns:
a. The Board wanted the applicant to provide the specific tenants (i.e. names,
operational characteristics, etc.) within the project for ‘review and approval’ prior to
action being taken on the zoning atlas amendment request;
b. Board members expressed concern over anticipated traffic impacts on Davis Road;
3
c. The project was deemed to be too intensive for the area.
Excerpts of the minutes from these meetings, as well as the Board’s signed statement of
consistency, are included in Attachment 1. Agenda materials from the meetings can be viewed
at: https://www.co.orange.nc.us/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26.
Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the:
1. Statement of Consistency indicating the zoning atlas amendment(s) are reasonable
and in the public interest as contained in Attachment 2.
STAFF COMMENT: This presumes the land use designation of the 12 acre parcel
(PIN 9862-99-8894) is changed from Rural Residential to Economic Development
Transition Activity Node as detailed herein. If the aforementioned FLUM is not
approved, the staff recommendation will have to be revised.
2. Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas, as well as imposing development conditions,
for the identified parcels as contained in Attachment 3.
Effect of Denial or Withdrawal: In the event the rezoning application is denied or withdrawn, it
should be noted that Section 2.2.8 of the UDO states that no application for the same or similar
amendment, affecting the same property or portion thereof, may be submitted for a period of
one year. The one year period begins on the date of denial or withdrawal.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who
have determined that the approval or denial of the request would not create the need for
additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs associated with advertising,
including the public hearing notice and mailings, were paid by the applicant in accordance with
the adopted Orange County Fee Schedule.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is applicable to
this agenda 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.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal
impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION: In the absence of the applicant formally accepting recommended
conditions, the Manager recommends the Board continue to review/discuss the project and
review imposition of additional conditions.
If the applicant accepts the imposition of recommended conditions, in writing, by the October 6,
2020 meeting the BOCC can approve the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 2), and the
Ordinance Amending the Zoning Atlas (Attachment 3).
4
1 2
3
4 MEETING MINUTES 5 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 6 AUGUST 5, 2020 7 REGULAR MEETING 8
(Due to current public health concerns, this meeting was held virtually. 9
Members of the Planning Board, staff and public participated remotely) 10
11 MEMBERS PRESENT: David Blankfard (Chair), Hillsborough Township Representative; Adam Beeman (Vice-Chair), 12
Cedar Grove Township Representative; Kim Piracci, Eno Township Representative; Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill 13
Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Randy Marshall, At-Large 14
Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large Representative; Alexandra Allman, At-Large Representative; Melissa 15
Poole, Little River Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township Representative 16
17
MEMBERS ABSENT: Gio Mollinedo, At-Large Representative; Vacant, At-Large Representative 18
19
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Tom Altieri, 20
Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Brian Carson, GIS Tech III, Tom 21
Ten Eyck, Transportation/Land Use Planner, Christopher Sandt, Staff Engineer; Tina Love, Administrative Support; 22
Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director, Amanda Garner, Assistant Economic Development Director; 23
24 APPLICANT AND ASSOCIATES PRESENT: Bill Aucoin, Vice President - Avison Young; Chris Bostic, Project Manager – 25
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.; Jack Graham, Principal – Avison Young; Michael Birch, Partner – Longleaf Law 26
Partners; Christa Greene, Senior Principal – Stantec; Frank Csapo, CEO – Barrister Commercial Group; Wes Hall, 27
Civil Engineer Analyst – Kimley-Horn; Matt Peach, Senior Transportation Engineer – Stantec; Rick Ogburn, Director 28
of Construction – Barrister Commercial Group; Doug Short, Partner – Manning Fulton 29
30
OTHERS PRESENT: Penny Rich (BOCC Chair); Sarah Shore; Joseph Shore; Stephen Williams; Frederick Tapp; Kaila 31
Mitchell; Brandon Sneed; Gerald Scarlett; Leslie Robert;, Ellen Mayer; Jayse Sessi; Myra Gwin-Summers; Franklin 32
Garland; Isabel Garland; Clare Brennan; Karen Fernandez; Theresa Gilliam; Maryanne Ross; Jill Bauer; Dennis 33
Hagerman; Ronald Sieber; Jared Jurkiewicz; Matthew Kostura; Jon Lorusso; Richard Wagoner; Ted Bryant; Bob 34
Bundschuh; Allen Rynish; Brian Lapham; Steve Kaufmann; Gina Rhoades; Doug Short; Betty Garland; Kevin 35
Nicholson, Jonathan Espitia, William Clayton, Beatrice Brooks, Rowdy and Kim Walker, Beth Rosenberg, Diane and 36
Erik Dunder; Noah Chase; Cedar Eagle; Jack Rupplin; Tammy Grubb; 3 callers 37
38
39
AGENDA ITEM 1: BRIEF SUMMARY BY STAFF ON TECHNOLOGY PROTOCOLS FOR MEETING 40
PRESENTER: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 41
42
Perdita reviewed the technical processes and rules 43
44
45
AGENDA ITEM 2: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 46
Chair David Blankfard called the meeting to order. 47
48 49 AGENDA ITEM 3: INFORMATION ITEMS 50
a. Planning Calendar for August and September 51
52 53
AGENDA ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 54 February 5, 2020 55
Attachment 1
5
56 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approve the February 5, 2020 Meeting Minutes. Seconded by Hunter Spitzer. 57 VOTE: Unanimous 58
59 60
AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA. 61
There were none 62
63
64 AGENDA ITEM 6: PUBLIC CHARGE 65
66
INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 67 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 68
appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development law of 69
the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 70
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future 71
needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to 72
and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every 73
effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our 74
deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 75
76
PUBLIC CHARGE 77
The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 78
citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 79
fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 80
public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 81
regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 82
until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 83
84 85
AGENDA ITEM 7: CHAIR COMMENTS 86
There were none 87
88 89
AGENDA ITEM 10: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – RESEARCH TRIANGLE 90 LOGISTICAL PARK) - To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on a developer-initiated 91
application for an MPD-CZ (Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning). The proposed project 92
encompasses approximately 180 acres in the Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD) 93
south of Interstate 40 and west of Old Highway 86, within Hillsborough Township. 168 acres are 94
currently zoned MPD-CZ (Settler’s Point) and 12 acres are currently zoned R-1 (Rural Residential). 95
This item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on September 15, 2020. 96
PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 97
Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract and proposed changes to the Zoning Atlas Amendment 98
The Applicant for the RTLP proposal give a presentation 99
100
Randy Marshall: I read in some of the material here that you are likely going to consider putting left turn only from 101
that service road onto Davis Drive, I didn’t see it in your presentation. Is that something you’re considering doing, left 102
turn only coming out of the service drive onto Davis? 103
104
Michael Birch: Correct, we have added a condition that is part of the case that requires the developer to install 105
signage essentially stating ‘left hand turns only’ there at that access point. That is part of the conditions. 106
107
Randy Marshall: I think that would help address some of the residents concern that there’d be a lot of increased 108
traffic going down Davis Road or at least intending to try to control traffic and encourage them to turn left, that might 109
allay some of their concerns. 110
6
111
Michael Birch: Absolutely, and that access point is approximately 1000 feet from the intersection with 86 and as I 112
mentioned, the traffic engineers have been working with the County and the State to really anticipate only about 5% 113
of the site trips to come or to go on Davis Drive to the west, or coming from the west. We think that signage will 114
assist with that. 115
116
Adam Beeman: My biggest concern is the traffic coming off of 40 or especially coming from Mebane. How do you 117
plan on solving that problem because it’s only a single lane coming down the ramp and there is no lights so right now 118
anybody that comes off that ramp could sit there for minutes before they can make a left turn to go towards the 119
hospital. I only see that increasing with all those, the developments that they put in over across the street from the 120
hospital and you want to add how many tractor-trailers coming off of that ramp? So, I’m just curious to know what 121
your plan is for the light situation coming off the ramp. 122
123
Matt Peach: Hello everybody, my name is Matt Peach with Stantec Consulting Services; I’m the engineer of record 124
for the traffic impact analysis. Mr. Beeman, I did hear your question and I think your concern regarding the amount of 125
traffic coming from Mebane and using I-40, that’s correct? We’re currently in the process of recommending and 126
coordinating improvements with NCDOT. We know that the applicant has recommended improvements, particularly 127
installing a traffic signal at the I-40 eastbound ramps there at Old NC 86. In addition to that, we’re trying to 128
coordinate with NCDOT regarding two projects they have in the area along I-40 and to the north on Churton Street 129
trying to make sure that our recommendations are in line with their future projects as well. That was the, part of the 130
information that they had requested previously, that we supplied them today. 131
132
Adam Beeman: So there’s no intention to add any extra lane, widen any lanes coming off the ramp or turning that 133
corner towards your service road? 134
135
Matt Peach: That’s what we’re coordinating with NCDOT right now. We would definitely try our best to work within 136
the existing pavement to have turn lanes there at the service road. In terms of lanes at the ramps, we are not 137
proposing any at this moment but that’s exactly what we’re coordinating with NCDOT. 138
139
Adam Beeman: I come off of that ramp from Mebane, I go to the hospital, and I can sit there from minutes trying to 140
take that left. I just imagine if someone is trying to take the left and that ramp’s not any wider when you start stacking 141
up trucks behind those people, you are going to be up on the highway before long so I am just curious. I know, 142
understand you’re within the footprint but that right hand turning lane would be really nice so that the truck could just 143
roll off and not have to sit there and stack up. 144
145
Matt Peach: I certainly understand that and the purpose that and the purpose of putting a traffic signal in there would 146
be to allow the side street to move more efficiently. In theory, that delay would be reduced. 147
148
Adam Beeman: Well that’s my biggest concern; I mean all the other stuff is secondary. My biggest concern is just 149
that whole intersection is a nightmare and I don’t if it’s going to be on you guys to deal with it or because the hospital 150
is expanding, they’re building all those houses across the street from the hospital and all that development, that 151
intersection is going to be a nightmare before long so I was just hoping that you guys would try to address it 152
preemptively rather than reactively. 153
154
Matt Peach: Our current recommendation to NCDOT is to install a signal at that location so we are right in line with 155
you there and just to point upon the point you made regarding the hospital, we made sure to account for traffic for 156
future phases of Waterstone in our analysis. 157
158
David Blankfard: I have a question, so what kind of traffic is going to be coming out from the building onto David 159
Drive? Is that going to be trucks or is it going to be automobiles or a combination? 160
161
Matt Peach: We do foresee both. Really as we had kind of been mentioning previously, the trucks would be using 162
Old NC 86 to get up to I-40 primarily. We see very little traffic going to and from the west on Davis Road. If traffic is 163
on Davis Road it’s trying to get from that driveway to Old 86 for that 1000 feet and that’s about it. 164
165
7
David Blankfard: What about when they get to Davis Road and it’s backed up from 1-40? What prevents them from 166
taking a right on Old 86 going down to the stop sign and then turning onto New Hope to get onto 40? 167
168
Matt Peach: Another recommendation we made in the traffic study was to install a signal at Davis Road as well at 169
Old NC 86 so again the delay on the side street having no longer stop control will be reduced in this scenario. 170
171
David Blankfard: But there’s nothing to stop them from turning right and going further into the rural….going toward 172
Carrboro. 173
174
Matt Peach: There will be no physical barrier, to answer that question specifically, but they would be losing time and 175
which I don’t believe truckers, it’s in their best interests. 176
177
David Blankfard: I guess, I’m just saying if it gets backed up where you’re proposing, over near the service road, if it 178
gets backed up there then they would go the other way. Is there going to be a lot of stacking between the service 179
road and I-40? 180
181
Matt Peach: I don’t believe that would be any longer, to answer your question. We do foresee some queues going 182
back from the ramp but that’s just normal for the installation of a traffic signal and quite frankly, we need that traffic to 183
stop for brief periods so we can let the ramp move but our analysis show that the stacking would go back a couple 184
hundred feet certainly nowhere near Davis Road and certainly not long enough to really deter anybody from taking 40 185
up that way off Old 86. 186
187
David Blankfard: Ok, so what you’re saying is it’s faster just to go down to towards the service road as opposed to 188
taking a right? 189
190
Matt Peach: Correct sir. 191
192
David Blankfard: Now what about once they get to 40 and say they are going on 85 northbound, would it be faster to 193
for them to get on 40 west and then looping around to 85 or to keep going straight past Waterstone to get to 85. 194
195
Matt Peach: I’d imagine the faster way would be I-40 but that would be an individual decision that every individual 196
driver would have to make. 197
198
David Blankfard: Ok, so we don’t know? 199
200
Matt Peach: I can’t say definitively what behavior individuals will choose. It depends on time of day, depends on 201
their individual preferences. In my view, I would take I-40 to 85. 202
203
David Blankfard: Ok, my next question is what the outcome of the high electric line going over the existing or one of 204
the proposed buildings? 205
206
Chris Bostic: Good evening, I’m Chris Bostic with Kimley-Horn; I’m the civil engineer of record for his project. To 207
answer your question, Duke Energy does have regulations as to what is allowed underneath those transmission 208
lines, no buildings are allowed within the easement of those transmission line, however, they do allow parking and 209
our current conceptual plan does contemplate putting parking underneath the power lines and keeping the proposed 210
structure the required distance away from the easement. 211
212
David Blankfard: Ok, the entrance onto Davis Drive, there’s a parcel of land that’s very close and their house is very 213
close to where the proposed driveway is or the road access. Is there concern about, I mean you’ve got the 100 foot 214
setback but is it going, what kind of impact is that going to have for that property owner? 215
216
Michael Birch: (Showed an exhibit) So, I think you are talking about this area (pointed out on exhibit) down here 217
along Davis, so we really only have within that 100 foot area, really only have kind of the drive aisle and maybe a little 218
bit of parking in that area with the building setback 60 feet. Excuse me the building setback with a maximum height 219
of 60 feet but outside of that 100 foot setback line, in terms of impact, I was trying to see if there is a better image to 220
8
try to get a sense of it there but I think with a mix of landscaping that we anticipate in that area that is a mitigating par t 221
of the transition. 222
223
David Blankfard: There is a similar part on the east side. That person’s home is quite close to the property line. I 224
am just wondering is their backyard going to be your driveway and parking lot. 225
226
Michael Birch: No, there was anticipate likely having a stormwater control facility in that area and then only outside of 227
that, again, we are kind of showing a 100 foot buffer on this exhibit that the parking and drive aisle would be outside 228
of that, largely outside of that 100 feet. 229
230
David Blankfard: Is this going to be phased construction; are you starting with Building A and then going to Build B, 231
C and then finishing up with D? 232
233
Michael Birch: Likely, it will be phased. I don’t know exactly if it’s a Building A, B, C, D but we do anticipate that it 234
would be phased. The building likely off the service road to be part of that initial phase. 235
236
David Blankfard: Are they all one story, or are they going to be multiple stories or high bay? 237
238
Michael Birch: Anticipated to be one story. 239
240
David Blankfard: So, high bay? 241
242
Michael Birch: Yes. 243
244
David Blankfard: Are you going to put any photovoltaics on the roof? 245
246
Hunter Spitzer: I was going to ask how far away is the nearest Duke Energy substation? 247
248
Michael Birch: I want to make sure I heard the two questions to make sure we get the response for you. One, how 249
far away are we from the closest Duke Energy substation and then two, are we planning to include any photovoltaic 250
cells or panels on the roofs. Just from the developer it’s likely that some will be included. We don’t have the answer 251
on what the distance is to the substation. 252
253
Hunter Spitzer: Would the developer be willing to submit to a condition requiring roofs not to install solar immediately 254
but to be readily available to solar installation? If that makes sense? Designed with the intent to install solar. 255
256
Michael Birch: Yes, I think that’s something that the developer would be willing to agree to. 257
258
Hunter Spitzer: Additionally, would the developer be willing to commit to electrical vehicle charging stations in 259
addition to this? 260
261
Michael Birch: Yes. 262
263
Hunter Spitzer: I know for the Settler’s Point development we had, I am be confusing this with a different Special Use 264
Permit, but we had agreed to a particular number of stations per parking spaces. I am sure one of the staff can 265
remember because it was based on the parking deck for the Orange County Municipal Building downtown. What 266
would be acceptable ratio? 267
268
Michael Birch: My senses given the nature of this development and how different it is both from Settler’s Point and 269
the project that was used as a reference point for that Settler’s Point ratio, my sense is we would not be agree on a 270
ratio basis. I think we could discuss a flat number of station. 271
272
Hunter Spitzer: I see and are you intending to provide stations or availability to electrical fleet management 273
particularly in the context of developing the distribution center? 274
275
9
Michael Birch: Sorry, just to kind of answer your question, our sense is that something like that or having that 276
available will be driven by the end user, a particular end user that we don’t have in mind right now or don’t have at 277
the table. So I think it would be hard for us, difficult for us to commit to providing that and then there’s the potential, 278
again if it’s not a warehouse, distribution use. Kind of having those and nothing to use it so I think given that is 279
somewhat of a trend being driven by some of those types of users, if there is that type of use there, I would expect 280
them to be there but I think not knowing who the users are going to be or what type of user there is going to be, I 281
don’t think we can commit to that as a condition. 282
283
Hunter Spitzer: Are you anticipating any fuel storage on the premises, gasoline, diesel or otherwise for backup 284
generation or vehicle fueling? I’m not sure where the nearest gas station is immediately to this but I imagine if you 285
are expecting a lot of traffic it wouldn’t be unreasonable. 286
287
Michael Birch: There might be some diesel storage for backup generation but that’s really all that is anticipated. 288
289
Hunter Spitzer: This is more of a question for the planning staff. There are UDO regulations to control that correct? 290
Fuel storage. 291
292
Michael Harvey: It’s actually regulated by the North Carolina State Fire Code, not necessarily by zoning. In terms of 293
distance from structure, how stored, how protected, and how maintained it’s actually going to be addressed through 294
compliance with the fire code and what I want to remind everybody that site plans that are submitted have to go 295
through the development review process with Orange County, which requires the fire marshal’s office to sign off on 296
them. That is going to be a component of any and all review. So this will come up at the appropriate time by the 297
appropriate entity if proposed. 298
299
Hunter Spitzer: Can I simply request that the developer agree as a condition not to put fuel storage adjacent to their 300
vegetative buffer of the flood plain. 301
302
Michael Birch: Yes, we can agree to that. 303
304
David Blankfard: This is a question for Michael, is the building height determined by how tall the fire department can 305
raise their ladder? 306
307
Michael Harvey: So Mr. Blankfard let me answer that question this way, obviously there are height limits enforced 308
under Orange County General Use Zoning Districts and 60 feet is the potential building height that would be allowed 309
(for this MPD-CZ). You are correct that building height is usually determined by available … or I should say one of 310
the factors in determining allowable building height … is available infrastructure to fight fire. I think that without 311
putting words in the applicant’s mouth or stealing their thunder, one of the reasons this site has so much traction is 312
because of the availability of water and sewer service and the potential for sprinklered buildings addressing some of 313
these concerns as well. There’s also, in their narrative discussions about the potential to allow for water towers on 314
the property that might be used in addressing that very particular issue as well. 315
316
David Blankfard: Is there any requirements for high beams on the trucks and cars spilling over our property line? 317
Something similar to what happens in parking decks? 318
319
Michael Birch: I think that’s likely addressed through the vegetated buffer around the perimeter. I think largely, I 320
think Michael Harvey can correct me if I’m wrong, largely the County’s Lighting Ordinance with regard to site lighting 321
but again I think we anticipate that vegetated buffer around the perimeter of the site would mitigate those headlights. 322
323
Michael Harvey: Chair Blankfard, this is Michael Harvey, Mr. Birch is correct our lighting regulations particularly 324
address outdoor lighting, building security lighting and whatnot they don’t address or they are not designed to 325
address lights from vehicles. 326
327
David Blankfard: Would the developer be willing to try to mitigate those high beams? 328
329
Michael Birch: I think we’re trying to through the use of those perimeter buffer yards and also one, the vegetation 330
and two the distance and also the location of where our parking area are or anticipate them to be. I think it would be 331
10
hard for us to articulate an objective standard but just to answer your question more broadly, I think yes we will try to 332
mitigate that but it’s hard for me to think of an objective standard that we could apply as a condition. 333
334
Melissa Poole: So you don’t have actual companies going into this location into this space yet, is that correct? 335
336
Michael Birch: That’s correct. 337
338
Melissa Poole: Ok, so if you’re looking at manufacturing and possibly laboratory and research are you looking at that 339
they would have the ability to operate multiple shifts? 340
341
Michael Birch: Yes, potentially a building user could have multiple shifts that is correct? 342
343
Melissa Poole: So, back to, I want to jump back to just to a moment to David, when he talking about particularly the 344
residents most closely situated towards the lines, I mean I guess my question is how can you guarantee this will not 345
disrupt their life if you are running multiple shifts. That’s 24 hours, could be 7 days a week 24 hours and you don’t 346
know what kind of businesses are going in there. 347
348
Michael Birch: Right but they are indoor activity in these buildings. In terms of like the primary use is inside, again 349
building setbacks, vegetative buffers around the perimeter, and I mentioned earlier, those distances between just our 350
property line in some of the closer structure to our west from the larger parcel over 1100 feet. To our south from that 351
larger parcel over 800/900 feet so I think we are well buffered on the subject property but also a lot of the lots that 352
surround us are deep lots with the houses situated far from the common boundary line. 353
354
David Blankfard: Can you have the traffic engineer explain what is going on at Davis Drive and Old 86. Specifically, 355
what the current traffic is and then when this is functioning what happens what will the new traffic pattern be. 356
357
Matt Peach: Thank you, appreciate the question. Obviously, we recommended a traffic signal there at that location 358
and I believe was touched on previously in the presentation but what we were concerned with at the intersection of 359
Davis Road and Old NC 86, quite frankly, is sight distance. What our concern was traffic coming along Davis Road 360
coming to a stop and being able to see in both direction down Old NC 86 for a sufficient distance to allow them to 361
turn safely onto Old NC 86 to make sure there is a sufficient gap in traffic. We didn’t feel that it was there in terms of 362
site distance so we had recommended a traffic signal to that end in addition to helping facilitate movement to and 363
from the site. In terms of traffic today, we had full traffic counts. Currently on Davis Road at Old NC 86 there’s about 364
170 cars along Davis Road in the morning peak hour. In the evening peak hour there is roughly 91 cars coming 365
along Davis trying to turn onto Old NC 86. On Old NC 86 there’s a 300 northbound cars approximately in the 366
morning and this is consistent with the evening rush hour southbound is similar about 300 in the morning and 367
evening rush hour. 368
369
David Blankfard: That’s current? 370
371
Matt Peach: That’s correct. 372
373
Hunter Spitzer: I have a question for the County staff; does the Town’s sewer line currently follow along Cate’s 374
Creek? Both sewer and water connections? 375
376
Craig Benedict: I can answer that, yes the sewer line is known as the Cate’s Creek outfall and it would roughly follow 377
those elevation changes flowing to the north. The water doesn’t have to follow the topography and it would be along 378
the service road and there is an existing 16 inch water main on Old 86 now at Davis Road all the way into 379
Hillsborough and there is actually an emergency interconnect all the way down Old 86 to the Orange Water and 380
Sewer Authority facility. The Old 86 line is in operation with the Town of Hillsborough now and it would be those two 381
areas, Old 86, service road and then some sort of loop through the project would be likely with the final engineering. 382
383
Hunter Spitzer: I was thinking less about water and sewer and more along the lines of co-locating some sort of 384
pedestrian trail but then I remembered that you have to build a bridge over I-40, which would probably border on 385
impossible. Maybe that should be a development …. If they are planning on redoing 40 in this area anyway which I 386
think is the case. Ah, maybe we should see if the developer will build us a bridge, what do you say guys? 387
11
388
David Blankfard: I still have a question for the traffic, what is going to be when it’s build out what are the numbers 389
going to be? 390
391
Matt Peach: When we put the development in, we’re looking at very little traffic coming from the south on Old NC 86. 392
We’re looking at, we had estimated that being a maximum of 37 vehicle per hour. That’s particularly in the morning 393
and it’s similar for the southbound on Old NC 86, that is a maximum of, we had estimated that at 28 that’s in the 394
evening rush hour. Along Davis Road, since we are directing trucks to turn left out of this site and onto Davis for that 395
short 1000 foot section to get to Old 86, we’re seeing a little bit higher, so we’re looking at staff, 62 in the morning 396
traffic, an additional 62 and up to 200 vehicles per hour in the evening. 397
398
David Blankfard: One of the comments was, did your, the traffic study was only for a.m. and p.m. was that the high 399
times? The other times were fewer these were the maximums? 400
401
Matt Peach: That’s correct, the other hours of the day we’re forecasting much less traffic. What NCDOT requires us 402
to do is basically run the traffic study imagining that a shift change or some other operation were to occur during the 403
rush hour on the road already. So, kind of trying to get that worst-case scenario, that’s what we ended up studying. 404
We didn’t study any of the off-peaks where traffic would be less both at the development and along the roads within 405
the study area. 406
407
David Blankfard: Ok, on this slide that is being shown at the service road there is a right out only so how do the 408
trucks get to I-40? 409
410
Matt Peach: That’s correct. The back and forth that we are currently having with NCDOT right now is NCDOT had 411
expressed concerns over whether queues at the interchange would extend past the service road and what they had 412
requested we analyze and those are the numbers I was just quoting you, would be if left turns were prohibited out of 413
the service road and if that traffic were relocated down to Davis but to get back over to Old NC 86 for that 1000 feet. 414
That’s why you see that right turn there, that was at the request of NCDOT. 415
416
David Blankfard: So the trucks leave the service road they take a right on Old 86 they go down to Old 86 and how do 417
they turn back around? 418
419
Matt Peach: So trucks would go through the site, they would exit at Davis go to Old NC 86 that way. 420
421
David Blankfard: Ok, so they would go through, ok. They wouldn’t be exiting from the service road the trucks would 422
be diverted towards David Road and then they take a left on Old 86 towards I-40. 423
424
Matt Peach: That’s correct. 425
426
Melissa Poole: So, with regards to manufacturing and the laboratory, I’m sorry to jump back to this, when we went 427
through the list of prohibited, and this might be a question for Craig and Michael Harvey, when we went through the 428
list of prohibited businesses, I did not see like biodefence or anything like that in that list. So, if it doesn’t come back 429
to Planning Board once we go through this and it doesn’t go to Board of County Commissioners everything just kind 430
of goes through. What are the protections for residents, not just nearby but Orange County in general, for things like 431
insuring biodefence manufacturing in there or biodefence research is going in there? 432
433
David Blankfard: I think the building codes, I’m not, hopefully, I’m not speaking out of turn Michael. I think the 434
building codes would limit the amount of toxic chemicals and based on what is going on there. That would be … 435
436
Melissa Poole: It doesn’t have to be chemical, it could be research on Corona, it could be research on, you know, it 437
doesn’t have to emit a toxic chemical. You see what I’m saying? 438
439
David Blankfard: Then it wouldn’t be lethal, right? If they’re just doing research? 440
441
Melissa Poole: I have a client in Maryland who’s doing the vaccine for COVID and everybody in the company’s got 442
COVID. I’m just telling you. 443
12
444
Michael Harvey: This is Michael Harvey, let me just provide Ms. Poole an answer. The permitted uses that the 445
applicant put in their narrative are various general land use categories with sample or anticipated uses for 446
development within the project. The narrative also provides a prohibited use list as well. The direct answer to your 447
question is if a proposed activity falls into those general uses and is similar to the uses listed, much like the current 448
County’s Table of Permitted Uses, it would be permitted. You could have an activity consistent with research and 449
development activities that, not to make a judgement call, you may not necessarily find viable as other similar uses 450
(other research and development activities) but it could be developed within the project because you’re allowing 451
research and development. That goes directly to your example that there may be research and development 452
activities that you are not comfortable with. We wouldn’t have the authority to say no you can’t do that as there is no 453
specific prohibition. David is correct there would be building and other regulatory standards that the applicant would 454
have to comply with, but if they meet the standard proposed by the applicant and approved by the County 455
Commissioners staff would not have the authority to prohibit it (proposed land use) if it falls in the approved use 456
category. That would be the same answer with the enforcement of the current Table of Permitted Uses. 457
458
If you are, for example, proposing a rec amenity and while you as an adjacent property may not like the actual 459
amenity someone has chosen to develop, if the proposed use qualifies as an allowable use and meets applicable 460
development requirements and criteria then it gets developed, it’s permitted as an allowable rec amenity. The 461
Planning Board and County Commissioners wouldn’t have any ability to, I hate to use the word challenge but I’m 462
going to, whether or not the validity of that land use is consistent with the approval. I will also say that every decision 463
that the County makes as it relates to the enforcement of the UDO and as it relates to the enforcement of the 464
conditions imposed on this project, is subject to appeal to the Orange County Board of Adjustment. That’s not a 465
great answer but that is the answer, part of the answer I’m going to give you to try to address your question. 466
467
Ronald Sieber: Hello, this is Ronald Sieber again and first of all, I’m just trying to process the change from 800 cars 468
per day traveling on our road, Davis Road, to 200 per hour. I mean that is a stunning, I repeat that is a stunning 469
change in numbers. I want the Planning Board to think about that, you work for us. This is unreal that you are 470
allowing this development to go forward. I just can’t believe it so therefore, I’ve prepared several and a couple of 471
questions and I’d like to just run them by you and you don’t need to respond, I would just like you to hear, record and 472
react to it at a later date. 473
474
David Blankfard: Ronald, before you start, can you tell us if you received a letter from the Planning … 475
476
Ronald Sieber: No, I receive no letter because I live, as Mr. Marshall would point out, 1.7 miles away from this 477
development so therefore, I’m not relevant, so you know. 478
479
David Blankfard: I didn’t say that but thank you. 480
481
**Planning Board Member Melissa Poole left the meeting** 482
483
Ronald Sieber: Yes, ok, thank you Mr. Blankfard and I’ll proceed. First of all, I just want to point out that the 484
developer does not seem to supportive of electrical charging stations. We’re at a point, and I’ve followed the 485
automotive industry because that’s what I write about, I’m a professional writer. We’re at a point where fleets , I’m 486
talking about fleets of trucks are developing electrical charging stations to charge and support their electrical fleets. I 487
think it’s time that developers, especially those who are putting warehouses up for such facilities to be used by fleets 488
of trucks. They need to start providing the infrastructure for these folks to attract them as businesses. I think that 489
also, I’d like to point out, that on amendment 8 and I know this goes back to 8 and we’re talking about 10 but 8 is 490
involved with 10. Four members of the Planning Board voted against amendment 8 and I do appreciate their 491
support, however, I just want to put it on, put the remainder on notice that that property that you want to rezone from 492
rural to something else is along a road that is inhabited by 100s of people, some of them are legacy businesses, 493
some of them are farms, and many of them are residents who moved out here without any knowledge, like myself, 494
without any knowledge of some sort of planned economic development section that is going to change our lives 495
forever. We did not move out here to be next to an industrial park, we moved out here to be in a rural neighborhood 496
and that’s what we want to preserve and I think it’s high time we change that development or designation and I’m 497
going to work every way I can to change that if we can have a chance to do that but apparently it seems like the dice 498
and the deck is stacked against us. Nevertheless, we as a community are going to fight this every way we can. We 499
13
are opposed to this proposed change. Having said all that this community is not opposed to intelligent development. 500
That’s in sync, that somehow aligns with some of the goals of this community, which is to have a nice place to live, a 501
Rural Buffer. Now Steve Kaufmann had an intention to build a school and he’s going to get that zoning returned to 502
him so he can do that. That’s an example of the kind of development that we can support as a community not a 503
warehouse. Come on guys think about it. In closing I would just like to say we are totally opposed to an access road, 504
as I mentioned, the number of trips on this road are going to be drastically increased. The size of the vehicles are 505
going to be on this road which is Davis Road are going to be drastically changed. Planning Board will you think 506
about what you are deciding on, you work for us. That’s the end of my comments. Thank you. 507
508
Joseph Shore: Hi everyone my name is Joseph Shore, I live on Old 86 between Davis and 40 most of the 509
conversation tonight has been about the effect on 40 but this going to completely alter my life and I can’t emphasize 510
that enough. If it’s impossible to get out of my driveway with 300 cars during rush hour as the traffic engineer 511
mentioned and you double that it means cars are going to be coming by my driveway every 5 to 6 seconds, 18 512
wheels are going to be coming by every 5 to 6 seconds. That will literally make my property worthless because I 513
won’t be able to access my own home anymore I won’t be able to get to work or I’ll have to stay in my travel lane for I 514
don’t even know how long to try to get in and out. There’s a preschool right down the road, there’s a preschool by 515
the corner of Davis and Old 86. I can’t imagine trying to be a parent to drop off my 3 or 4 year old there when there’s 516
18-wheelers coming by every 10 seconds or 5 seconds. Just imagine the traffic trying to turn in and out of the 517
preschool in the morning. To the previous gentleman’s quoting, we aren’t opposed to development but this is the 518
absolutely wrong thing for this area. I can’t emphasize that enough this is a residential area. In the 1980s when this 519
plan was originally developed, my house was a cow pasture so sure put a warehouse there it doesn’t matter to them 520
but things have changed dramatically, it doesn’t make sense to have this development here any longer so Planning 521
Board please hear me I’m begging you, oppose this. Please don’t make my family collateral damage from this 522
economic development building. 523
524
Jon Lorusso: Hello, it’s quite late thank you for giving me a chance to speak. I wrote down a few notes of what I’d 525
like to say before I get to them I just want to agree with previous speaker this really does come down to a 40 year old 526
plan that is no longer relevant and yet the Planning Board feels that they need to stick with it because it’s on the 527
books so we might as well, I’m almost tempted to say that there is some kind of conspiracy going on some kickbacks 528
because there really, this is the Planning Board, you are supposed to plan for the communities and the people who 529
live here. Not for out of state businesses, not for lawyers in Raleigh this is for the people, you work for us the people 530
who live here. Yes, the people here need jobs but not at the expense of their fellow citizens, this is absurd. So just 531
to go through a few points. The traffic engineer mentioned that is would be up to the individual truck drivers whether 532
or not they took 40 west to get to 85 north that’s absurd no one would ever do that. People who live here know that 533
you wouldn’t do that, you are obviously going to take Churton to get 85 north. We’ve already had, the Planning 534
Board has a plan in action to extend 70 from Orange Grove because of already existing traffic issues. They already 535
exist the traffic issues this is going to make it so much worse and yet are we planning or are we reacting. We’re going 536
to allow this to be built and then react later on. We’ll figure it out 20 years from now when people are fed up. So, this 537
neighborhood, one if the improvement that Mr. Birch mentioned was oh we get a traffic signal at the end of Davis 538
Road and all we have to do it to get it is build a 2.1 million square foot warehouse inside of our neighborhood. Great 539
thanks a lot thank you for that wonderful improvement. The left only sign coming out of the place onto Davis Road, 540
are there any laws that, is there going to be a cop stationed there and if they make a right are they subject to a 541
summons? A ticket? No, it’s really just up to the individual driver if they see that the traffic is backed up to the light 542
on Old 86 you know maybe I’ll just make a right and take Orange Grove up or maybe I’ll make a left on Orange 543
Grove and go down to Arthur Minnis, who cares right? Who cares about the people who live here, who cares. 200 544
vehicles per hour additional on Davis Road that is absurd an average tractor-trailer is 72 feet. How many tractor-545
trailers can fit between Old 86 and 1000 foot entrance on Davis Road? I don’t know what the math is divide 1000 by 546
72 it’s somewhere around 14. If you have 200 per hour, it sounds to me like it’s going to get backed up. It sounds to 547
me like there’s a lot of conjecture, a lot of estimates based on businesses that we don’t even know what kind of traffic 548
they’ll have. I think Michael Birch again that the primary use is indoor yet he doesn’t actually know what kind of 549
business is going to be there. How does he know they’re going to be indoor? They’re asking for approval when 550
they’re still back and forth with NCDOT how can you approve something when thinks haven’t even been settled? We 551
are not talking about little things; we’re talking about huge changes. Oh, the traffic is backed up on 40 west, on the 552
40 east who cares if there’s an ambulance that can’t get to the hospital, who cares right? It’s all at the expense of 553
business, who cares, who cares if people are backed up on the highway, who cares? I mean this is absurd; it’s 554
absurd that our Planning Board the people who are supposed to plan this are the ones that are selling up the river. 555
14
It’s crazy. I could expect it from the lawyers in Raleigh who don’t care what happens here because they don’t live 556
here. They’re going to get this signed and they’re done they get their check but from our own Planning Board the 557
people who are supposed to protect the citizens of this county they are the ones who are selling us up the river. It’s 558
insane, it really is insane. That’s all I have to say. 559
560
David Blankfard: One thing, did you receive a letter from the planning department? 561
562
Jon Lorusso: No I did not. 563
564
Perdita Holtz: David as you can see there are 12 people with their hands up and it now 11 p.m. I don’t know if there 565
wants to be any discussion among the Planning Board on how to handle the rest of the meeting, what some options 566
might be. 567
568
Hunter Spitzer: I do recall that Michael had some comments that he wanted to make pertaining to us making 569
recommendation. So I would like to hear those at the very least before we move forward. 570
571
Michael Harvey: As I indicated, your abstract had suggested that the Board, if they felt comfortable, make a 572
recommendation in time for the County Commissioner’s September 15th hearing. Obviously the applicant will also 573
need to weigh in on this. As I see it, there’s a couple of different options and scenarios here. Through no fault of the 574
applicant, we got comments from the Department of Transportation on this project Friday, July 31st and again that is 575
not anything that staff or the applicant could control. The applicant has responded to the Department of 576
Transportation and we are waiting for a response to those comments. We’ve heard tonight from Planning Board 577
members related to potential conditions that you all would to see vetted before you make a final decision. We have 578
obviously heard some comments from the public and there’s going to be some additional comments as we continue 579
discussion. 580
581
So as I see it the Board technically has a couple of options. The Board could table any decision providing the 582
applicant with areas of specific focus that they want answers to, I’ve heard loud and clear and in my note the primary 583
concerns is traffic impact and more review of the DOT comments and the applicants responses and what DOT says 584
to some of the traffic concerns I’ve heard. So you could certainly delay any decision til or table the item until your next 585
regular meeting, which would be September 2nd to wait for that information. Craig and I have had a texting 586
discussion about this very topic over the last hour, you could identify areas where you have less concerns or you are 587
satisfied with the conditions and the applicant’s responses and identify specific conditions you’d like to see fleshed 588
out, you could adjourn this meeting to a date and time certain in a couple of weeks conceivably to revisit this 589
discussion or the Board could vote either to make a recommendation to approve or make a recommendation to deny 590
this evening. 591
592
I’m not trying to say you don’t have any of those options but staff was going to recommend was that we’re still waiting 593
on DOT to get us some documentation as is the applicant and hearing some of the discussion tonight, I think that 594
there is a comfort level lacking with the transportation component from staff, the applicant who is waiting on DOT and 595
you all and that might need some discussion. Whatever you all’s decision is, I would like to strongly urge you to 596
identify any specific areas of concern be it traffic, be it alternative energy conditions, whatnot so that the applicant 597
and staff have a clear understanding of what we need to be working on in the interim to provide you the feedback 598
you’re asking for so you can make an informed decision. If that makes sense and thank you Hunter for asking. 599
600
David Blankfard: So what does everybody have a concern with? 601
602
Adam Beeman: My biggest concern is I want to see whatever the DOT is come to them with and determine whatever 603
steps necessary to rectify, my biggest concern is coming off of the highway and right there at the highway. I am not 604
so concerned as Davis Road as much as the highway but that’s all part of the study so I’d like to see what DOT’s 605
response was. 606
607
Hunter Spitzer: I would like the applicant to consider removing access to Davis Road as they move forward with the 608
process cause I suspect that we will probably vote to delay at least until our Planning Board meeting and potentially 609
until we, until you end negotiations with the DOT. Conditionally, I would like a more concise proposal on electrical 610
15
vehicle charging. I will just put the number out there at 1 station per 100.000 square feet of space to be built. Those 611
are my largest concerns at the moment. 612
613
Michael Harvey: Chair Blankfard, if I could interject quickly. I’m sorry I know that Ms. Poole lost her internet access if 614
I recall what Perdita said. One of her concerns was more specificity in land uses. In terms of what would fall into this 615
categories and what would not. At least that’s what I have in my notes. 616
617
Hunter Spitzer: If I may say one more thing, particularly to the residents that are listening. A lot of what we’ve been 618
doing over the past hour has been talking about conditions that we would like to request from the developer, that’s 619
the nice part about this master planning conditional zoning is that we can ask for certain conditions to be met and so 620
if you all and I understand that you are all very opposed to this but in the off chance that it can’t be stopped, you do 621
have the opportunity to shape this development through this process and so I encourage you to consider what you 622
might want to put in as conditions if at all possible. 623
624
David Blankfard: I have a huge concern about the traffic being dumped onto Davis Drive. Not just some of the traffic 625
but everything is going to be dumped onto Davis Drive because NCDOT does not want anybody to come out the 626
service road. So I don’t know if anybody else feels that way or if we want to see if the applicant can come up with a 627
better way of getting access to the site. Are we comfortable making a decision now or wanting to wait? 628
629
Hunter Spitzer: I move that we delay a decision on our recommendation until our next meeting on September 2nd. 630
631
Michael Birch: This is Michael Birch, the applicant, I think the outstanding issues that appear to be out there are one 632
responses from DOT but I want to reiterate that whatever DOT comes back with in terms of requested improvements, 633
those will be made. So it’s not really a negation in that respect. Second with regard to some of the comments about 634
Davis Drive, I just think it is not possible for us to prohibit access onto Davis Drive. Third, with regard to some of the 635
comments or requests for the conditions the design of the buildings with intent to accommodate solar, providing 636
some electric vehicle charging stations and no fuel storage adjacent to the flood plain. I am comfortable with we can 637
craft those conditions and extremely short order and so I would respectfully ask but because of the date of the next 638
Planning Board meeting being on the 2nd essentially eliminates our opportunity to get to the Board of Commissioner’s 639
meeting on the 15th. I would ask that the Planning Board please consider meeting or adjourning to a date certain 640
possibly 2 weeks from today on the 19th. 641
642
David Blankfard: I think we could do the 19th to reconvene. 643
644
Adam Beeman: I was going to ask Craig or Michael Harvey, with what Mr. Birch said about whatever DOT comes 645
back and they’re going to rectify whatever DOT says they need to do. Do you guys feel comfortable with moving 646
forward knowing whatever DOT may say or would it be better to meet a date later once the DOT issues have been 647
straightened out? 648
649
Craig Benedict: Let me just give a brief introduction about NCDOT is in charge of the roads within Orange County so 650
they are the ultimate authority on what improvements are made because counties in North Carolina are not in the 651
road business so they take, their recommendations are of prime importance and as the developer said they will have 652
to do whatever NCDOT says. We work with DOT and we will take the comments that we have from tonight and 653
impart them to NCDOT for any alternatives that there may be but NCDOT is also in the business to use taxpayer 654
money to use the roadways to their best ability. My opinion if you want to call it that is that we will be satisfied with 655
what NCDOT suggest as improvements for the project. 656
657
Kim Piracci: I just want to say that it seems to me that the traffic that’s being talked about, even if it could be 658
arranged in such a way that the traffic only comes and goes from 40 to Old 86 and never hits Davis it just seems like 659
an enormous amount of traffic even just for Old 86. Even though I understand there’ll be road expansion and 660
whatnot so I just, I feel like the scope of the project is just too big for this space in Orange County. Maybe smaller 661
warehouses or two instead of three. I don’t know but in any case it just seems like too much. To me it seems all 662
that’s too much. 663
664
Hunter Spitzer: Do you have an expected return date from NCDOT on those comments? An anticipated time? 665
666
16
Michael Harvey: Hunter, let me jump in and Mr. Birch may be able to also provide some detail. I don’t know if it’s fair 667
to say if we have any expectation from DOT. They obviously took a prolonged period of time to get us the comment 668
they got us on Friday and we can obviously impress to Mr. Edwards who is our district engineer the need for 669
expediency but I can’t and will not tell you that I can guarantee that within two weeks we’ll have an answer. I can’t 670
guarantee that within two weeks we’ll have an answer. But I think it’s reasonable for us to try if the Board sees fit to 671
adjourn to at date and time certain in two weeks. We’ll do the best we can to address this concern as best we can 672
and I know so will the applicant but I do think it’s also important for me to make clear one think to the Board. It’s been 673
sort of danced around but I think it’s important to say it. One of the, this same issue came up with Settler’s Point, the 674
Department of Transportation is not satisfied with the current condition of service road which parallels (Interstate) 40 675
and they had requested or indicated that in order for Settler’s Point to be developed they had to have secondary 676
means of ingress/egress. At Settler’s Point chose to try and secure access off Old NC Hwy 86 directly. That was a 677
gamble they took and unfortunately it didn’t pay off at the time they had the approval they couldn’t negotiate an 678
access point. I know that this applicant has looked for alternative access points and I’m not telling you this to say, it’s 679
a fait accompli, but I’m telling you this that one of the reasons there’s two access points is because DOT has 680
mandated it from day one. This applicant is obviously proposing Davis Road there’s obviously concerns about that 681
and there’s request for more information and that needs to be processed to move forward but I think the Board just 682
needs to be put back in the loop that the reason there’s two is because DOT is mandating it. 683
684
Michael Birch: This is Michael Birch, the applicant just to reiterate on the timing of DOT responses. We will hound 685
them as best we can to get responses so we can this resolved in advance of a possible meeting on the 19th. 686
687
Randy Marshall: I’m not sure we are going to continue to be productive tonight so I’d like to make a recommendation 688
that we adjourn or postpone or continue the meeting until two weeks from tonight at 7 p.m. 689
690
Hunter Spitzer: Seconded. 691
692
Adam Beeman: I vote going ahead and solving the problem tonight if anybody else is ready to vote. I’m ready to 693
vote. I’m got my choices made so if everybody else wants to shelve it that’s fine but I’m ready to move forward 694
tonight. 695
696
Kim Piracci: I would like to postpone voting but to me it doesn’t make sense to meet in two weeks if we haven’t 697
heard from the DOT though it could be a conditional two weeks from tonight sort of thing. 698
699
Michael Harvey: Kim, let me just interject that it unfortunately can’t be conditional you are going to be adjourning to a 700
date and time certain so there will be a meeting if you all elect to do it this way on the 19th and if we don’t have the 701
response unfortunately we don’t have the response and I hate to say it that way but it’s the truth. The two options 702
you have are to adjourn this meeting matter or table this matter until the September meeting which obviously the 703
applicant I know has a concern with or to say you’re going to attempt to do a special meeting on the 19th. If there’s 704
Board consensus to try that and we don’t have answers, we don’t have answers. That’s the unfortunately blunt way 705
I’m going to have to put it to you. 706
707
Randy Marshall: Part of my thinking was that we still have a number of people who wanted to address this some of 708
them we may have already have heard from and understand what their positions are but there may be others that 709
we’ve not heard from at all and I’m not sure we want to start listening to them at this late time. The other things is 710
we’ve not been able to address the DOT issues and nothing may change as Michael suggests in two weeks but at 711
least in two weeks we will have a little bit more information and can get a little bit more input from the public and 712
make an informed decision at that time. I can vote tonight, I know where I stand but I just want to make sure that 713
everybody feels like they’ve had enough opportunity to get all the information they need or to provide all the 714
information they need. 715
716
David Blankfard: I think that we should postpone it to the 19th. I guess we’ll have to have a motion again. But we’ll 717
wait and until the 19th we can listen to more of the constituents, the public right because they were saying they were 718
not notified this will give them more time to rally their forces and then if the DOT isn’t there, we’ll just listen to the 719
public and if the DOT we can finish it then and there. 720
721
Craig Benedict: Perdita how many people do you have still want to speak tonight? 722
17
723
Perdita Holtz: There are 14 people that have their hands raised. 724
725
Adam Beeman: I have a question if we come back on the 19th and we don’t have the information from DOT are we 726
going to push it out again. 727
728
David Blankfard: We’ll just listen to the public. 729
730
Adam Beeman: I understand that but are we going to push the vote out again or are we going to vote on the 19th? 731
732
Randy Marshall: I suggest that we have a vote on the 19th we’ll have all the information available and I think we 733
should go ahead and vote then and I would also recommend for people who want to speak, to try not to continue to 734
repeat yourselves and to provide us with new information or insight which will help us get closer to making a decision. 735
736
Michael Harvey: Chair Blankfard, just to remind the Board that if you adjourn the meeting to a date and time certain 737
and adjourn to a specific format, we will not be resending out notifications because this is a continuation of the 738
meeting. We will not be sending out new notices, we’re not obligated to send out new notices because you are 739
adjourning to a date time certain. We will post it on the website as we have done with tonight’s meeting but we will 740
not be sending out notices to everyone within 1000 feet. 741
742
MOTION by Randy Marshall to adjourn the Planning Board meeting to August 19, 2020 at 7:00 PM via Zoom. 743
Seconded by Hunter Spitzer. 744
VOTE: 9-2 (Adam Beeman and Kim Piracci opposed) 745
746
Craig Benedict: Staff will be making a summary of some of the questions. 747
748
749
AGENDA ITEM 11: ADJOURNMENT 750
Meeting was adjourned by consensus 751
752
753
754
755
David Blankfard, Chair 756
18
Approved 9/2/2020
MEETING MINUTES 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
MEMBERS PRESENT: David Blankfard (Chair), Hillsborough Township Representative; Adam Beeman (Vice-Chair), 8
Cedar Grove Township Representative; Kim Piracci, Eno Township Representative; Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill 9
Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Randy Marshall, At-Large 10
Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large Representative; Alexandra Allman, At-Large Representative; Melissa 11
Poole, Little River Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township Representative 12
13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Gio Mollinedo, At-Large Representative; Vacant, At-Large Representative 14
15
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Tom Altieri, 16
Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Brian Carson, GIS Tech III, 17
Christopher Sandt, Staff Engineer; Nish Trivedi, Transportation Planner; Tyler Sliger, Planner; Molly Boyle: Planner; 18
Tina Love, Administrative Support; Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director, Amanda Garner, Assistant 19
Economic Development Director; 20
21 APPLICANT AND ASSOCIATES PRESENT: Bill Aucoin, Vice President - Avison Young; Chris Bostic, Project Manager – 22
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.; Jack Graham, Principal – Avison Young; Michael Birch, Partner – Longleaf Law 23
Partners; Christa Greene, Senior Principal – Stantec; Frank Csapo, CEO – Barrister Commercial Group; Rick 24
Ogburn, Director of Construction – Barrister Commercial Group; 25
26 OTHERS PRESENT: Penny Rich (BOCC Chair); Earl McKee, (BOCC); Ronald Allen; Joy Alvis; Diane Anderson; Daniel 27
Arneman; Gina Arnone; Susan Attermeier; David B.; Jill Bauer; John Boxter; Clare Brennan; Jessie Brinson; Dana 28
Brinson; Ronda Buchanan; Bob Bundschuh; Stephanie Caler; Jocelyn Carbonara; Samantha Carney; Stuart Carr; 29
Christina Casa; EJ Caughlin; Annie Caulkins; Tom Caulkins; Gayane Chambless; Susan Cheek; Michael Childress; 30
Karla Childress; John Clayton; Carolina Colbert; Karen Coulter; Linda Crabill; Kaye Crawford; Vincent Credle; Betsy 31
Crittenden; James Curtis; Beth Daniel; Jane Davis; Mary Therese Deegan; Dennis DeJianne; John Dempsey; Nora 32
Dennis; Anne Derby; Adam Dickens; Cindy DiLiberti; Mike Dodson; Maria Dowle; DC Dowmont; Rebecca Drapp; 33
Diane and Erik Dunder; Cedar Eagle; Marguerite Eaton; Richard Eckberg; Jeremy Edmondson; Dale Edwards; Brika 34
Eklund; Robb English; Williams Evans; James Farrin; Kenneth Fath; Phyllis Fath; Clairece Feagin; Joe Feagin; Karen 35
Fernandez; Larry Fernandez; Beverly Ferreiro; Hope Folsom; Andy Freeman; Madelyn Friedman; Nan Fulcher; 36
Florence Garland; Franklin Garland; Lisa Garland; Isabel Garland; Betty Garland; Kris Garvin; Beth Gerall; Andrew 37
Gillespie; Aleta Gillespie; Theresa Gilliam; Tom Gilliam; Joel Gillis; Amira Glaser; Sascha Godfrey; Tammy Grubb; 38
Dore Gruener; Myra Gwin-Summers; Barrett Hahn; J Mathew Hamlett; Parviz Hatami; Bonnie Hauser; Charles 39
Hecht; Jeanne Hecht; Amy Henes; James Henninger; Sarah Henshaw; Michael Henson; Lauren Herman; Melissa 40
Hinson; Tom Howe; Teresa Howell; Lucas Howerter; Janet Huebner; Matt Hughes; Mark Hulbert; Anthony Isley; 41
Marilyn Jacobs Preyer; Chloe Johnson; Frederic Jordan; Jared Jurkiewicz; Joan Kalnitsky; Andrea Kalokitis; Gloria 42
Kammerman; Tony and Gail Kane; Jesse Kaufmann; Jeb Kelly; Shelley Kennedy; Michael Kennedy; Jay Kennedy; 43
Claire Kern; Stephen King; Brenda Knowles; Matthew Kostura; Brenda Kross; Ed Kushner; Pattie Kushner; Margo 44
Lakin; Wilson Lamb; Becky Laudicina; Laura Lipps; Traci Little: Jeff Lloyd; Jon Lorusso; Ashley Lorusso; Keith Luck; 45
Laura Maile; Bradley Manton; Andi Mariategui; Janet Marks; Jeffrey Marks; Ralph Marshall; Margaret Matheis; Nicole 46
Mayer; Ellen Mayer; Adam McGovern; Jane McMullen; Kathryn Mentz; Karin Michel; Joelle Miller; Matt Mitchell; 47
Justin Mitchell; Bill Mitchell; Rena Mitchell; Kaila Mitchell; Amy Morrow; Erin Mullaney; Amy Mullenix; Miguel Munoz; 48
Alice Murdoch; Virginia Nadworny; Wanda Neville; Sandy Newton; Kevin Nicholson; Davia Nickelson; Kailey 49
Norman; Wendy Novicenskie; Eric Nowicki; Lynn Occhiuzzo; Colin OConnor; Amira Oguntoyinbo; Kelly Owensby; 50
Tami Pfeifer; Keith Poole; Christine Poole; Kristi Price; Marcos Prieto; Lauren Procopio; Jean-Francois Provost; Erik 51
Reavely; Linda Reed; Kim Reiman; L.A. Renn; Victoria Reynolds; Carl Richardson; William Riedel; Leslie Roberts; 52
Nicole Robertson; Chris Rodermond; Stephanie Rogers; Payton Rose; Beth Rosenberg; Maryanne Ross; Andrew 53
Rouse; Victoria Roy; Korinn Saker; John Saylor; Jennifer Saylor; David Scanga; Lori Scanga; Gerald Scarlett; Tracy 54
Schaeffer; Kathleen Schenley; Mark Schueller; Geoff Sebesta; Patricia Sena; Jayse Sessi; Amanda Shakhloul; 55
19
Approved 9/2/2020
Michael Shannon; Claudia Shapiro; Karen Shelley; Sarah Shore; Joseph Shore; Doug Short; Ronald Sieber; Stanley 56
Smith; Lily Smith; Katie Smith; Angela Sneed; Brandon Sneed; Rich Sodemann; Bruce Spencer; Kathy Stanford; Lisa 57
Sutton; Frederick Tapp; Alison Taylor; Blake Tedder; Thelma Thomas; Paul Thomas; Bernard Thomas; Chip 58
Thrasher; Lee Thurston; Jane Thurston; Merideth Tomlinson; Ashley Trahan; Edward Triplett; Elizabeth Turnbull; 59
Catharine Vaughan; Rowdy Walker; Susan Walser; Sophie Wang; Judy Weinstock; Paul Werner; Deborah White; 60
Mary Whortan; Stephan Williams; Erika Williamson; Phyllis Wright; Edward Wright; Jeffery Wysocki; Dana Xiao; 61
Jenifer Yarnelle; Kenneth Yowell; Kurt Kulberg; Declan Cambey; “jdmmc”; “homevet”; 16 callers 62
63
64
AGENDA ITEM 1: BRIEF SUMMARY BY STAFF ON TECHNOLOGY PROTOCOLS FOR MEETING 65
PRESENTER: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 66
Perdita reviewed the technical processes and rules 67
68
69
AGENDA ITEM 2: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 70
Chair David Blankfard called the meeting to order. 71
72 73 AGENDA ITEM 3: INFORMATION ITEMS 74
a. Draft Minutes for the August 5, 2020 Regular Meeting (to be approved at the next regular 75
meeting; provided here for information purposes) 76
77
78 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA. 79
There were none 80
81
82 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 83
84
INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 85
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 86
appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development law of 87
the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 88
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future 89
needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to 90
and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every 91
effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our 92
deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 93
94
PUBLIC CHARGE 95
The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 96
citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 97
fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 98
public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 99
regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 100
until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 101 102
103 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 104
105
David Blankfard: Please everyone in the public please be kind to everybody else. We are all citizens of 106
Orange County. If you have any comments, please direct them to the Planning Department and they 107
will get them to us. Contacting us through Facebook, LinkedIn, telephone calls is not appropriate. 108
109 110
20
Approved 9/2/2020
AGENDA ITEM 8: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – RESEARCH TRIANGLE 111 LOGISTICAL PARK) - To continue review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on a developer-112
initiated application for an MPD-CZ (Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning). The proposed 113
project encompasses approximately 180 acres in the Hillsborough Economic Development District 114
(EDD) south of Interstate 40 and west of Old Highway 86, within Hillsborough Township. 168 115
acres are currently zoned MPD-CZ (Settler’s Point) and 12 acres are currently zoned R-1 (Rural 116
Residential). This item was continued from the August 5 regular meeting and is scheduled for 117
BOCC public hearing on September 15, 2020. 118
PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 119
Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract and proposed changes to the Zoning Atlas Amendment 120
121
Craig Benedict: Good evening, just for the help for the Planning Board, when the Planning Board suggests 122
conditions, it is good to make sure there’s consensus amongst the Planning Board that these are newly imposed 123
conditions that go beyond what was in the original abstract. If one of your thoughts is to vote on the three conditions 124
at are on page 17 of the abstract and those three new conditions that were suggested by the Board at the last 125
meeting, it wasn’t necessarily a vote. We want to make sure that when the vote does occur that these conditions are 126
clearly included in the other 50 plus conditions that are there. Of those 3 conditions that you mentioned a couple of 127
weeks ago, as Michael said, energy for the building, fuel storage more than 30 feet away from a flood plain area and 128
EV stations at the buildings. So, at some point in your deliberations or possibly now, you could at least make a 129
motion that the Planning Board is in agreement to add these to the other 50 plus conditions we have for the project. 130
That is one topic; another topic is tonight there is a lot of people that are participating in the meeting. It is up to the 131
Board to listen to proposals, it’s also up to the Board if there is some repetitiveness you can say that is clearly noted 132
in the record and we will take that under consideration. The motion that is available in the agenda package that is on 133
page 41 for this item talks about the Planning Board coming to a determination in enough time that it can reach a 134
public hearing in September. Please keep that in mind. It is not unlimited in your time to have to make decisions on 135
this item. If the Board feels like it would like another meeting to hear additional input from the public that is their 136
prerogative. It would probably be just one more opportunity to do that before we need to conclude this item, approval 137
or denial and move it on; and get the draft minutes of the meeting to move onto the formal public hearing which is 138
schedule to occur in mid-September. Those are just some additional items and we will help guide you through as 139
deliberations continue. The first item I brought up is just to get some clarity to get that behind us so that we do not 140
lose those additional conditions that were suggested by the Board on August 5th. 141
142
David Blankfard: Is everyone ok with the first condition about the fuel or chemical storage not occurring within 30 feet 143
of the floodplain? 144
145
Planning Board Members were in consensus 146
147
David Blankfard: The next one is at least two electrical vehicle charging stations per building. 148
149
Planning Board Members were in consensus 150
151
David Blankfard: Ok, Hunter what did you say about the third one? 152
153
Hunter Spitzer: I would like for it, instead of reading unnecessarily preclude, read necessarily prepare for 154
incorporation. 155
156
David Blankfard: So you want them to … 157
158
Hunter Spitzer: Necessarily prepare for incorporation of alternative energy systems. 159
160
Adam Beeman: What does that mean? 161
162
Hunter Spitzer: Well as it stated, they could necessarily preclude incorporation of alternative energy systems and it 163
seems if they so choose they can make up any reason why they can necessarily preclude. I would like for it to be a 164
little bit more forceful than that. So necessarily prepare would mean that I would like for them to design an idea, I 165
21
Approved 9/2/2020
would like for them to propose their site plan with provisions for how solar will be incorporated at such time as they’re 166
prepared. 167
168
David Blankfard: So you’re saying that you want them to design for it. Not necessarily install it? 169
170
Hunter Spitzer: Yes, I think that pretty much at least heavily encourages them to install at that point. 171
172
Adam Beeman: I am not understanding what you mean, during design for it? Would you like them to lay conduit and 173
put disconnects? Or are you just talking about, I’m not understand … 174
175
Hunter Spitzer: During the architectural planning. Whether or not they lay the conduits at the time of construction or 176
after the fact it at their choice. 177
178
Adam Beeman: I still don’t understand design for, any building if in the right sun location, we can put solar panels on 179
it and run conduit down the disconnects, that can all be done after the fact. I’m not sure what you mean about 180
planning for it ahead of time. 181
182
Kim Piracci: I want to back up what Hunter is saying. Building can be built in such a way that they don’t have solar 183
panels today but it would be a lot cheaper to put solar panels on them tomorrow if that is desired, it just makes sense 184
to build building that way. Now, having said that I’m not an architect or an engineer or an electrician, it’s just 185
something that seems to me makes sense to do in 2020. And so therefore, I feel like Hunter verbiage, his college 186
degree is in this so I feel like if he thinks that’s what the verbiage should be, I kind of want to support him on that. I 187
would simply say, design would allow for future solar panel installation but the technology, the verbiage, I’m not an 188
attorney and so maybe we just need guidance on this. 189
190
Adam Beeman: I am an electrician and that is why I’m saying I’m not quite understanding what you’re going after? If 191
you want to have like holes and penetration put through the roof so you can slide pipes through later, maybe I could 192
understand what you’re saying. 193
194
Hunter Spitzer: That is what I’m, design and construction shall necessarily prepare for the incorporation. 195
196
David Blankfard: You could also design the roof for an extra 15 lbs. per sq. ft. to accept the panels for future loading 197
and they wouldn’t even have to put in the conduit. The conduit could be put in later. 198
199
Adam Beeman: That I could understand and get behind. I just want clarification as to what we’re talking about as far 200
as design. I can understand what you’re talking about as far as rood load. 201
202
Kim Piracci: I just believe, you’re an electrician, so you understand that part, wires going through pipes. I’m sure 203
there are other aspects of this we, Planning Board Members, don’t and so if they’re kind of required to be able to put 204
solar panels on in the future then that will take place at the architect level. And David came up with roof load 205
brilliantly, I didn’t think of that and there are probably other considerations beyond our scope. 206
207
Randy Marshall: Can I just make a very simple rewording suggestion that says, building design/construction shall 208
allow for the incorporation of alternative energy systems such as solar panels. That gets the double negative out of it 209
and make it a positive but doesn’t really change the gist of what’s being said. 210
211
Michael Birch: On behalf of the applicant, we are absolutely amenable to that suggested word change. 212
213
Hunter Spitzer: I would still prefer necessarily prepare. 214
215
Randy Marshall: It shall allow for incorporation. Take out not necessarily preclude but more positively said shall allow 216
for incorporation of alternative energy systems. 217
218
Kim Piracci: I like Hunter’s verbiage better. Any building could be built and allow for solar panels in the future. 219
220
221
22
Approved 9/2/2020
Michael Birch: We were hoping to use Mr. Marshall’s or removing the word unnecessarily from the proposed 222
language. Our concern with some of the other language that’s being considered or proposed. As to structural 223
components, we don’t know what the technology is going to be when this gets constructed so it’s hard to talk in terms 224
of roof load, we don’t necessarily know what type of alternative energy systems that we’re talking about and so I think 225
what the intent of what we understood to be asked at the last meeting was that our building design was not going to 226
prohibit the building from being able to incorporate alternative energy sources in the future. With that understanding, 227
we said yes, we’ll draft a condition around that. I think we’re open to Mr. Marshall’s language or also removing the 228
word unnecessarily from the proposed language. 229
230
Hunter Spitzer: I see, I would like you to necessarily prepare for current technology existing solar panels. I’m going 231
to leave it at that. I would like for you to prepare for existing technology. I think existing technology is effective and 232
valuable and I think preparing for that allows you to adapt further down the road as well. I would like necessarily 233
prepare. I have a secondary question, some of the comments that you’ve calculated that 40 EV stations would be 234
built under the proposed rule that I suggested and you can back with 2 which is fine but how did you calculate 40? 235
236
David Blankfard: So, you’re going back to number 2, Hunter? 237
238
Hunter Spitzer: We don’t have to talk about it. I really like to focus on the third point but I’m curious to know how 239
they calculated 40. 240
241
Michael Birch: We’re proposing two per building and right now the thought is for four building so we would have eight 242
EV charging stations. I’m not clear where the estimate came from but I did want to clarify that it is two per building 243
and that would result in eight under the current plan. 244
245
David Blankfard: Back to number 3. Building design construction shall not necessarily preclude incorporation of 246
alternative energy systems such as solar panels. 247
248
Hunter Spitzer: The phrasing I was thinking was, building design and construction shall necessarily prepare for 249
incorporation of alternative energy systems specifically solar. 250
251
Randy Marshall: I think that sounds just fine, I’m not sure the word necessarily needs to be in there but otherwise I 252
think Hunter’s wording is satisfactory. 253
254
David Blankfard: Would you say building design/construction shall incorporate provisions for accepting alternative 255
energy systems such as solar panels. 256
257
Craig Benedict: If I could suggest that the wording necessarily prepare for is voted on and then you would know that 258
the Board has consensus to include that. In most cases, its true building can be retrofit to include future solar panels 259
or other photovoltaic systems. It is just identification of a County goal and it could probably be accommodated within 260
the typical design of the building. 261
262
Michael Birch: I understand the Board may vote on it but just going back to something in Mr. Harvey’s presentation 263
about the condition language which being something that is mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the Board. 264
We are willing to propose that condition either as drafted with the removal of unnecessarily with the Mr. Marshall’s 265
original proposed language. Any of those 3 options, we’re not sure on the applicant team what necessarily prepare 266
means and we don’t necessarily know how to proof that up in a site plan so we would ask for the Board consideration 267
of one of those 3 options; as it stand today, removal of unnecessary, or Mr. Marshall’s initial proposal. 268
269
Kim Piracci: I still keep liking Hunter’s words. I’ve got building design and construction shall include 270
271
Hunter Spitzer: The phrasing I would like included as a condition is building design/construction shall necessarily 272
prepare for incorporation of alternative energy systems specifically solar panels. It does seem that the applicant will 273
be unwilling to agree to the condition. I don’t think I would vote on it without this. 274
275
Kim Piracci: No, I think he is willing to agree on those words that you put forth just now. 276
277
23
Approved 9/2/2020
Craig Benedict: No, it’s my understanding that the applicant has not agreed to Hunter’s verbiage but either what Mr. 278
Marshall proposed or a version of what was proposed. Allow for incorporation was one of those alternate proposals 279
or take the word unnecessarily out. In order to get this condition in there we have to come to an agreement with the 280
applicant so one version is take the word unnecessarily out, shall not preclude incorporation of alternate energy 281
systems. And the other one is Mr. Marshall’s shall allow for incorporation of alternate energy systems. Those are 282
the two that are viable that if you want to include them with the other conditions the Board could vote on one of those 283
versions and then you would be able to attach these conditions to the other elements of the MPD-CZ. 284
285
Adam Beeman: I propose building design/construction shall not preclude incorporation of alternative energy systems 286
such as solar panels. 287
288
Hunter Spitzer: Second. 289
290
David Blankfard: All right, all in favor of that verbiage let me read it for you the way I understand it. Building 291
design/construction shall not preclude incorporation of alternative energy systems such as solar panels. 292
293
Alexandra Allman: Second 294
295 ROLLCALL VOTE: 296
Melissa Poole: Yes 297
Randy Marshall: Yes 298
Patricia Roberts: Yes 299
Carrie Fletcher: Yes 300
Hunter Spitzer: No 301
Kim Piracci: No 302
Adam Beeman: Yes 303
Susan Hunter: Yes 304
David Blankfard: Yes 305 MOTION PASSED 8-2 306
307 MOTION by Randy Marshall the addition of the three conditions be add to the proposal. Seconded by Adam 308
Beeman. 309
310 ROLLCALL VOTE: 311
Melissa Poole: Yes 312
Randy Marshall: Yes 313
Patricia Roberts: Yes 314
Carrie Fletcher: Yes 315
Hunter Spitzer: Yes 316
Kim Piracci: Yes 317
Adam Beeman: Yes 318
Susan Hunter: Yes 319
David Blankfard: Yes 320 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 321 322
The Applicant/Associates for the RTLP proposal give a couple of presentations 323
324
Kim Piracci: One clarifying question, when Frank was talking about the homes, the adjacent properties are mostly 325
vacant and there are a few that have homes on them. I think the closest he said was 100 ft. It was unclear to me did 326
he mean 100 feet from the property edge or that home to the building. 327
328
Michael Birch: To the building. 329
330
Kim Piracci: Ok, then the difficulties in our current economy were very nicely explained to us and how this 331
development will alleviate those problems but creating jobs and paying taxes and whatnot but I have to say that with 332
developers that don’t have the vision to develop buildings for the future, with clean technology, and charging stations 333
24
Approved 9/2/2020
for cars, that’s all just asking too much, how do we know that these things aren’t going to be built and partly build and 334
then left empty. We have to vote on this and not know what your plans are and I appreciate that you don’t have to 335
tell me. I guess I’m just a little irritated that you gave a pretty speech and yet so far you haven’t given anything so 336
that’s all I have no more. 337
338
Michael Birch: I will say, Ms. Piracci, we given over 50 conditions that are a part of the case and that will be the law 339
that governs this property regardless of who owns it or occupies it. I will say that any developer will have to go 340
through the site planning process and with regard to the EV stations, also the buildings, and their use of alternative 341
energy sources, so much of that is driven by individual tenants. The needs for their building and also the types of 342
things that can be in and around their buildings. Some of these might be manufacturing uses, there are things that 343
we aren’t telling you because they are unknown in terms of who the actual end users is going to be. I think that the 344
applicant has attempted to agree to the things as conditions written as a part of the ordinance that it has certainty 345
around and knows about today and can speak with certainty and yes has been reluctant to commit to things that it 346
doesn’t know or can’t know at this point in time. So it’s not a game of hiding the ball, or withholding information but it 347
is a matter of in this rezoning process which is really early in the stage of the development process. We are where 348
we are in terms of what we know. I did just want to make clear that it’s not a matter of us knowing and not telling you. 349
It is us operating with the information that we have. 350
351
Continued presentations from the Applicant/Associates for the RTLP proposal 352
353
Adam Beeman: I have a quick question for you Christa, I have read a lot of responses and maybe you can put to 354
rest. Your peak traffic value is cars, trucks, and all, it’s not a peak of 200 tractor-trailers an hour or am I wrong. I 355
have been reading a lot of numbers and everybody has been throwing around that there’s going to be 300 tractor-356
trailers an hour or 200 tractor-trailers an hour and we are talking about all traffic not just tractor-trailers, correct. 357
358
Christa Greene: Yes, that is all traffic. Also, that is during the one peak hour. I think there was a misconception, 359
someone asked Matt how many vehicles are coming out in an hour and when he answered, 200 some people were 360
like 200 an hour over 24 hours that’s thousands and thousands of trucks. That is not how it’s done. Think about 361
going in and out of your neighborhood, you’ve got more people going out and coming in during the morning and 362
afternoon. There’s a peak time so we have taken one snapshot of the worst time to look at it. We’ve assumed that 363
worst time is occurring at the worst time and it may or may not be. A lot of warehousing, manufacturing work on 364
shifts that purposely don’t line up with the peak hours. 365
366
David Blankfard: You said that the letter grade for Davis Drive and Old 86 was a B, what is the letter grade as it 367
currently stands. 368
369
Christa Greene: It is un-signalized. For an un-signalized intersection if you were to take and average of everything. 370
The eastbound approach today as it stands is a level of service C. 371
372
David Blankfard: So, it’s safe to say that the intersection is going to get better. 373
374
Christa Greene: You’re going to be able to get out easier. You also have a sight distance thing going on there. 375
When you are looking back to the right, I think a signal, even NCDOT acknowledged that when we met with them. 376
Having a signal is going to make it safer for people exiting Davis because they’re going to under a controlled 377
condition. 378
379
David Blankfard: The right turn only at the service road, does that have to happen on Day 1? Under Phase 1 of the 380
buildout? Or can it operate with a left/right turn for a certain amount of time? 381
382
Christa Greene: We did not look at any phasing. 383
384
Melissa Poole: So because it is not phased then the anticipation is when these building are built the traffic light will 385
be there? 386
387
Christa Greene: Yes, that’s how the traffic study was done so this would assume the offsite improvement would be 388
done before the site opens. 389
25
Approved 9/2/2020
390
Adam Beeman: I went through a lot of the email that residents have sent and I picked out a few questions that 391
maybe you could answer for me that may help some of these residents get an actual answer from you. Some were 392
random that were different than most everything. One was how do you plan to mitigate the construction traffic during 393
the build out, what’s the plan for that? 394
395
Michael Birch: Construction traffic will use predominately utilize the service road. 396
397
Adam Beeman: Another theme that kept popping up was how many home will be destroyed in order to put these 398
building up and how many people will be displaced from their homes? 399
400
Michael Birch: Zero. 401
402
Adam Beeman: Thank you, one of the questions was is there a plan to mitigate crime if any, some people seem to 403
think that with this project you’re going to draw some questionable behavior from others. 404
405
Michael Birch: I would say, first of all the folks coming to this site are coming to work. They are coming to work just 406
like you go to work every day, like I go to work every day, with the thought that they’re going to put in their time and 407
go back to their family. We’re not anticipating and if you look at your typical office parks where people go to work, or 408
even similar industrial establishments, you don’t see crime like you might think of with a more retail focus, shopping 409
center focus type of development. It’s an internally focused site and we don’t anticipate any crime issues. 410
411
Adam Beeman: The last question I have, is the developer footing the bill for the water and sewer expansion and any 412
electrical power expansions? 413
414
Craig Benedict: Let me handle one part of that question. Orange County has a capital improvement program since 415
2013 to extend the sewer underneath the interstate. That was long before this development was there and will 416
continue to provide that design to get the sewer under the interstate. That’s one element but on site the County 417
would not be doing something specifically for the project just to get the sewer and water underneath the interstate 418
and up and down the service road. 419
420
Melissa Poole: To go with what Adam was speaking, a recurring theme throughout the emails and contact were, and 421
I think it’s been addressed but let’s touch on it again, for all of the residents with the surrounding homes, how will 422
their property values be impacted? Positively or negatively? 423
424
Michael Birch: A couple of items on that question, first many of the homes in the surrounding area, particularly those 425
that are along NC 86 are already commercially zoned and so we expect positive impact to their property values that 426
there is now a commercial development that is a going concern that creates a catalyst in the area. Second, the 427
extension of utilities to extend if there’s ever a need for an emergency extension or anything else it can be a benefit 428
to the area. Third, the perimeter buffer, the height limitations, the architectural controls, the other aspects of the 50 429
plus conditions that have been agreed to as part of the project are all intended to mitigate impacts on adjourning 430
properties and that includes on the value. One of the items identified early on was in issue with the flushing of water 431
and that water line, that as a result of our loop system will be improved. That’s another benefit to the area. As well 432
as improved transportation infrastructure and signals. 433
434
Kim Piracci: I may have missed something because I didn’t see the emails; I appreciate Ms. Greene’s efforts to 435
educate us on transportation, architecture or transportation. However, I don’t know if I’m missing out or slow but I 436
feel like the little maps you showed us, which for me are like an inch big. I feel like I would like to get a big picture, the 437
85 the 40, Davis Road, the on-ramps. I would like to see the whole map what you’re proposing that the 438
transportation flow would look like. I can’t put it together. I get there is going to be a red light at Davis and 86. 439
440
Christa Greene: This is run through some special software but I have those if there is a certain area I can blow it up 441
bigger. We’ve done level of service charts that were in the traffic studies too that I would be happy to run one of 442
these models right now and blow it up bigger. The areas of concern the ramp and the residents looking at Davis 443
Road that I can blow it up for you to see. 444
445
26
Approved 9/2/2020
Kim Piracci: I don’t even know if that would help me. I know in other applications, models are considered even more 446
accurate than actual measurements and I don’t know if that is true in this case. What I feel like is I want to see a map 447
with arrows. This is where cars and trucks would go and this is where they would continue to go. It was mentioned 448
that there’s only a certain number of sq. ft. where traffic would be affected when this development is put in. Didn’t 449
DOT just put out some recent information? 450
451
Christa Greene: It was a response to what we submitted 2 weeks ago. It was a memo saying we concur with this or 452
we want an extra turn lane, it wasn’t any figures. All the figures were in the study. I can try to pull one up. 453
454
Craig Benedict: In your PowerPoint presentation you showed one of the maps showed how much traffic in the 455
morning and how much traffic in the evening and how much total traffic. Maybe you could pull that PowerPoint back 456
up to show those are the type of site traffic volumes that are available for the project and are part of the TIA. 457
458
Christa Greene: I pulled something up. This is showing the traffic in 2023 and this is the total traffic so it’s what’s out 459
there today including the site traffic. 460
461
David Blankfard: Does anybody else have conditions they would like to impose or have questions? I have one, I 462
have a problem with the exit onto Davis Road. I would like to impose a condition that exiting cannot happen onto 463
Davis Road and that a secondary entrance onto Old 86 be a condition. Whether somehow you take a right off the 464
service road and make a U-turn down the road or find another piece of property as time comes along, if you don’t 465
have that, you can still have a left turn right turn off of the service road during the early phases of this project. 466
467
Adam Beeman: Can I ask what your reasoning is? 468
469
David Blankfard: I think there’s going to be a lot of inconvenience and traffic problems on Davis Road. I think we’re 470
pushing for further and further into the Rural Buffer onto the greenway that’s out there by pushing this development 471
further and further out into the County. 472
473
Carrie Fletcher: I have a question, so I agree with you and my question, with property owners is this, you can’t tell me 474
who it is that is going to be your tenants, you can’t tell me what they’re going to make, or what they’re going to be 475
putting in these trucks. How do you know many trucks are going to be leaving the facility and when. How can you 476
tell DOT how many trucks are going to be leaving at specific times to do these studies? I agree then stay off Davis 477
Road, leave the residents to do when they have to leave to go to work and to take their kids to school and do these 478
things because I see that as a hardship for the residents out there if this project does go through. I don’t see a win 479
for the residents out there, because there are so many unknowns right now. 480
481
David Blankfard: Not to speak for the applicant but for this type of construction, there’s known quantities of what the 482
services can be and averages for all this kind of work. They’ve got a reasonable idea of what can happen inside of 483
that warehouse based on historical data. 484
485
Carrie Fletcher: I’m sure before they build out something as large as this they have to know statically how many 486
tenants can x number of shipments in and out under a certain amount of time every day, 365 days a year to make it 487
profitable for them. So they would have some kind of idea of what would need to come in and out of that building. I 488
agree, stay off Davis Road if possible. 489
490
Adam Beeman: I don’t believe staying off Davis Road is an option for this project. I personally drove down Old 86, 491
Ode Turner, Davis Road, I drove the service road, I went down and checked off everything and I understand that the 492
residents enjoy their rural setting. I personally don’t see any truck drivers choosing to swing a right on Davis and go 493
through down to Orange Grove Road, that’s wasting their fuel and time and they don’t have it. I really believe that 494
option off Davis, 1000 ft. they already have a church there it’s not like there’s not business coming off of that road as 495
it is. My opinion is that Davis Road is all or nothing for this project. I’m not against using Davis Road. 496
497
Michael Birch: Mr. Chair, if I may address your proposed condition. I understand and I know the issue of a driveway 498
on Davis was discussed last time but to be clear, DOT is requiring that cut on Davis. We certainly looked at the 499
possibility of access on 86 but we don’t have frontage on 86, if DOT wants to use their power of Eminent Domain to 500
condemn property and provide us access to 86, would approve a driveway permit there, that’s great. Forcing a U-501
27
Approved 9/2/2020
turn for those folks that are using the service road then you’ll at about 200 U-turns in a peak hours because the 502
majority of the traffic is going north. We have added the condition to do what we can on Davis to install signage 503
prohibiting right hand turns onto Davis and we are installing a signal there at Davis and 86. But we are not in a 504
position to agree to a condition that prohibits access onto Davis. 505
506
David Blankfard: That’s fine that is something that the County Commissioners would have to take up. We’re only 507
doing recommendations. I understand that creates a challenge for the applicant for future but I think the County 508
residents like their intersection at Davis and Old 86 even though it’s dangerous. They prefer it that way. Any other 509
thoughts about my recommendation? 510
511
Melissa Poole: If David’s recommendation is not viable can there not be a sign placement coming out stating truck 512
have to turn a certain way so as not to go down Davis. 513
514
David Blankfard: I don’t think they would ever turn right on Davis going down Davis. My concern is at that 515
intersection of Davis and Old 86. That’s the bottleneck, no truck unless lost would turn right. 516
517
Kim Piracci: I feel like there was discussion of a traffic circle with Settler’s Pointe. Wasn’t that offered as a solution? 518
519
Christa Greene: A traffic circle would take a tremendous amount of right-of-way that would get out of the existing 520
right-of-way when it was easily handled by a traffic signal with the existing configurations. 521
522
Craig Benedict: If I could also add the 2 roads we’re talking about Old 86 is an arterial road and DOT expects a 523
certain amount of traffic on it per day and Davis Road is not a residential road it’s call a collector road. DOT does not 524
restrict a collector road to residential traffic. It is allowed mixed traffic with no prohibitions so when the County and 525
NCDOT and the metropolitan planning organization put together what is known as a comprehensive transportation 526
plan, they take a look at these road networks and designate them for a certain amount of traffic to handle the traffic 527
that is on land use plans. Davis Road is designated as a collector road and the traffic studies that have been put 528
together show that there is capacity in that roadway to accommodate this project and the residential traffic that is in 529
the general area. 530
531
David Blankfard: Let’s open this up to the public, as a reminder to the public you will have a 3-minute window for 532
your comments. Please remember just to add new things, if we’ve already heard the complaints then please don’t 533
repeat them, second is the last time allowed the conversation to become a little personal and not professional so I 534
want to remind everyone to be polite to one another. If that can’t happen, I will mute you. 535
536
Stephen Williams: I just want to take to thank the Planning Board members here. It’s been nice to be able to see 537
you on camera and to see the ones who are paying attention to what’s going on and those who are distracted by 538
other things. I really appreciate the ones who have been involved and asked questions rather than just voting. 539
Taking a vote and saying yes or no. It is nice to know that some people are concerned. I wanted to point out that I 540
didn’t realize there was a sales pitch on the agenda by the Barrister Corporation. I also want to point out that I don’t 541
have time to tell you my life story, education unfortunately like Ms. Greene did, I have 3 minutes. First, I wanted to 542
say something about the map that the representative from Barrister shared with the stars on it about residences. 543
One of those stars where he says no one is building or no one lives. I am currently building, I just broke ground on a 544
new house last week. The star next to me, someone else just bought that property to build a house, not a 545
corporation. I want you to consider a Walmart 100 feet from your house and tell me would you be okay with that. 546
The closest building to a residence is 100 feet. That is the distance you’re supposed to stop behind a school bus, 547
legally, 100 feet. Would you want your kid in that back yard? Would you want your mom in that back yard? Your 548
elderly parent? I really want you to consider that. Also, I want to applaud Ms. Piracci. She made it pretty clear, we 549
don’t know what’s going in these buildings but they do. No one builds 2.5 million sq. ft. at one time without knowing 550
the tenants. That is a poor business decision so I find it very hard to believe that they don’t know. They don’t have to 551
tell us, no legally, they don’t but they know. They absolutely know who’s going in there. The other thing I want to 552
point out is that it’s not the traffic I’m worried about, it’s not the cars, it’s not trucks, its 18 wheelers that are going in 553
and out of this business. You’re not just talking about a small vehicle. You’re talking about a loud, large vehicle at 554
any time of the day. I will be asleep next door to this and I beg you to consider that. Also, in one of the slide shows 555
by Ms. Greene, she talked about averages of business on what this would look like. I am a former employee of a fast 556
food corporation, every business is different. Some Kentucky Fried Chickens I worked for averaged 50,000 dollars a 557
28
Approved 9/2/2020
week, others 25,000 dollars a week. There is no way to know. Ms. Fletcher you put it best, there is no way to know 558
what we’re going to be up against when they start building this. I don’t think that they’re giving us all the facts. I’m 559
done. 560
561
Bob Bundschuh: I’m actually a vice-president of supply chain and logistics have a million sq. ft. of warehouse and six 562
manufacturing things under my control so I know a little bit about this. Let’s just start with the proposal starts off 2½ 563
pages talking about the project is going to offer 2¼ million sq. ft. of health and technology, info sciences, engineering, 564
advanced manufacturing, science research and labs, warehouse and logistics and up to 4500 jobs. Then you 565
actually bring COVID of all things and say the solution in your quote “to bring more manufacturing of life saving 566
products back to the U.S.” quite impressive but when you get further in your proposal, it has nothing to do with 567
manufacturing. You don’t even talk about it, its 100% warehouse. And we know this because when you do the traffic 568
study, you use warehouse code 150, which is just warehouse. Not 140 which can be manufacturing or 130 an 569
industrial park and additionally, in your environmental assessment on section six it says “no production will take place 570
will occur on these parcels”. That’s what’s in there, so which one is it? Is it manufacturing and R & D or is it a 571
warehouse complex? Or is it mixed use? The Planning Board needs to decide to approve or reject the zoning 572
change and they do that from the presentation. So what you’ve done is you’ve made a very nice, call it a time-share 573
brochure, and you’ve cherry picked your message. When it comes to job creation type of industry and the need, you 574
talk about high end R & D, health technology, which I’m sure comes across as a great fit for the area. You’re thinking 575
high paying jobs and even hints of life saving products but then when you talk about traffic and environmental, you 576
pick the least impactful. The most benign possibility, no manufacturing, as far as traffic you use code 150 is towards 577
the bottom of traffic generations. The applicant knows that if they use the land use code for manufacturing or light 578
industrial, the ITE tables that you use show that peak traffic will go up and that would require recalculating the traffic 579
and it would go to the negative. Planning for manufacturing would also alter the water and sewer requirements. It’s 580
not quite a true bait and switch but its close. They noted that if this zoning, as approved, we can’t go back. Anything 581
allowed under the zoning can be built on this property, anything that’s within the zoning. Absolutely nothing limits it to 582
what they proposed tonight. Like several people have said, we don’t know what’s going in and neither do they. Now 583
both the applicant and the staff have repeatedly used the reasoning that the development is just fulfilling what was 584
laid down 40 years ago but 40 years ago, there was no Highway 40, there weren’t stores open on Sunday, there was 585
no Amazon, no next day delivery, tractor trailers weren’t 53 ft. long. So justify a decision on rezoning because of 586
something 40 years ago makes no sense. You can recommend this tonight on the premises in line but the question 587
is based on what we know and what we don’t know, more importantly, is it the right thing? I appeal to your sense of 588
what is right for the residents, what’s right for the area and what’s right for the County. Reject this and then work with 589
us on a different development that works for both us and the County. Thank you. 590
591
Sarah Shore: Hi, my name is Sarah Shore and I live 250 ft. away from the proposed development. One of the 592
places the developer said was vacant land just as an FYI. My home has been here since the 1980s. This is my 593
home, this is where I brought my babies to after they were born and now where they play outside. The land use plan 594
originally said Davis Road would be a suburban office not a warehouse. Suburban office draws to mind Monday 595
through Friday 9 to 5 cars, regular traffic not semis not three shifts of work. I have many concerns about this 596
nebulous development being feet from my back door. My first question is for the developer, have you actually been 597
to the parcels. We are not off of Davis Drive but Davis Road the Beaver Creek problems that you mentioned is 40 598
minutes away from us and we are not in a Raleigh metropolitan area, we are two counties away. Please understand 599
when you are speaking to us, where we actually live. Additionally, in regards to the jobs, I’m very concerned about 600
the numbers are inflated or simply made up because tenants are not lined up or you will not say. You cannot 601
guarantee that jobs are economic boom the only thing you can guarantee is raised land and empty warehouses. My 602
final comment is for the Planning Board and the County and the follow up of what David said because the question 603
was never answered. Is there a way to say Davis Road driveway is not a viable option and they must get Old 86 604
access instead? Because I would truly love an answer to that question. Thank you. 605
606
Ashley Trahan: Hi, my name is Ashley Trahan and I live with my family off Davis Road when we relocated from 607
Boulder Colorado in 2013. We chose Hillsborough as the best place to establish our life here in North Carolina even 608
though it meant one hour each day commuting to RTP where I work because its delineative native, quality of life 609
afforded by this small town and its rural surroundings. I must voice opposition to the zoning amendment being 610
considered which will support the development of RTLP. Please give priority consideration to the local, rural and 611
small town community and to the public interest at large over that of investors and developers. I now feel compelled 612
to echo concerns expressed regarding the traffic impact analysis, conceptually I cannot understand how anticipated 613
29
Approved 9/2/2020
volume of traffic assessments matched the reality of how these roads are utilized or how the capacity and road 614
designs regardless of designation allow for safety and driver comfort which is crucial to residents day to day. I cannot 615
reconcile in my mind why a new analysis is not required prior to any recommendation of adopting the zoning 616
amendments initiated by the applicant. Specifically due to the use of 2016 data exclusion of the impact from the 617
Collins Ridge development and applicant’s July request for an increase for area ratio it would allow, if I read this 618
correctly in the agenda package, 4,586,868 sq. ft. of building square footage area. The TIA I read looked to be 619
based on 2,400,000 sq. ft. of development so I can’t reconcile in my mind why a new one is not required and 620
clarification would be appreciated. Having reviewed the available online Comprehensive Plan, I’d argue that the 621
presented industrial development supported by this rezoning is not fundamentally aligned with the current goals of 622
Hillsborough and Orange County. The Statement of Consistency highlights the zoning amendment is consistent with 623
selects goals but no available data has convinced me that this type of development is the best path forward for the 624
area. Consider these objectives not mentioned in the consistency statement, community sustainability, how would 625
this rezoning support a commitment to sustainability? How much water will be needed from the Town? Are we going 626
to build something and not a have a water system to accommodate it, not based on the current plans I found 627
Strategic Growth Plan. Preservation of natural and cultural resources, how does this support protecting our Rural 628
Buffer? It’s too late to assess environmental impact on our natural settings after the fact. Economic growth over 629
investor wealth, data showing specific economic benefits to our community is warranted. Increasing global jobs is 630
not demonstrated value to the local residents. Since you’re charged with advising on these strategies, shouldn’t you 631
be using all the relevant data to ensure compliance? I’m asking you to recommend failing this application fast. 632
There’s too many knowledge gaps, many inconsistencies and I hope upcoming meetings with the Commissioners 633
can instead be about the community sharing our many ideas, establishing a task force and developing a relevant 634
action plan for progress with other than having to oppose this one. Thank you for your time. 635
636
Jon Lorusso: I wanted to point out before I begin, I started a petition and I have collected three, 873 signatures from 637
local residents. Hopefully, that has some impact, some bearing on your opinion. My name is Jon Lorusso and I live 638
off Davis Road. The intersection of Old 86 and Davis Road is very important to me, I use it to get to work, I use it to 639
get food for my family to eat, I use it to access I-40, I use it go see friends and family, I use it to get to the hospital. In 640
fact, I have had to do that on several occasions with my children so it’s pretty important intersection to my life, in fact 641
it’s my entire connection to the world. At the July 2th neighborhood information meeting someone asked what steps 642
are being taken to preserve our safely from additional traffic on Davis Road, the applicant replied, very minimal traffic 643
on Davis Road given that they have access to the service road. Another person asked why is this being used that it 644
provides another point of access. County staff clarified that a secondary driveway access would require, quote 645
“require secondary access point”. In a letter to Chuck Edwards on August 5th, this was sent prior to the meeting on 646
August 5th so Matt Peach already knew about this when he presented it to us, “all traffic exiting the site headed north 647
will have to turn left out of David Road” so to just go to what Mr. Blankfard said, the issue is not that traffic will be 648
making a right onto Davis Road. We know that it won’t happen, very little, what the issue is, is that Davis Road will 649
become a driveway for this facility, it will no longer be a public road, it will be an actual driveway for the facility. The 650
website for this developer makes it clear they want access to I-40 so all the traffic coming out, 90% of the vehicle 651
exiting will exit via Davis Road. They won’t exit via service road they’ll exit on their personal driveway which is not 652
Davis Road. Mr. Peach said that acceptable levels of service on all approaches and note this 23.3 second delaying 653
second per vehicle on Old 86 and Davis Road. 206 vehicles plus the existing 94 vehicles for a total of 300 vehicles 654
will be headed east on Davis Road. That’s five vehicles per minute, 1 vehicle every 12 seconds. If you have a 23.3 655
second delay that means you can only clear 2.58 vehicle per minute from that intersection or 155 vehicles per hour. 656
That means at the end of that hour, 145 vehicles will be queued at that intersection. Even if it’s only, my estimate is it 657
will be 960 trucks per day that means at the peak hour there will be 40 trucks, 1 truck every 1.5 minutes. That means 658
20 trucks will be queued in the peak hour west of Old 86 on Davis Road, 20 trucks, if they are 72 feet long trucks, 659
only 14 can fit if they are back to back on Davis Road. That means at least six trucks are going to back up into the 660
facility. 661
662
Ron Sieber: This is Ron Sieber, I live on New Hope Springs Drive which is right off of Davis Road. I wanted to say 663
just to begin that the RTLP anticipated traffic data is undercounted because it’s based on the Settler’s Point traffic as 664
previously mentioned and that project is distinctly smaller in scale to RTLP. Therefore, RTLP’s data is deficient. 665
RTLP has based their traffic data using minimal traffic specs for a largely unspecified end user but we already know 666
that their touting having a warehouse when actually there might be more, we just don’t know at this point. The State 667
Department of Transportation registered its concerns about traffic congestion in the general area of I-40 where it 668
crosses over NC 86 and the questions that they had were about the westbound ramp, the eastbound ramp, traveling 669
30
Approved 9/2/2020
north onto Churton Street and onto 85 and maybe even into the town itself. These things have not really been 670
addressed carefully because we really don’t know how many large trucks are going to be exiting this development. 671
Now if Davis Road were to be co-opted for this project this would present huge traffic and safety problems for this 672
area. The approach to the Davis Road intersection at Old NC 86 itself has four blind curves and two significant 673
upgrades on the approaches to this intersection. No traffic light is going to make this any safer for cars, large trucks 674
and school buses to be places together on any part of this road. The RTLP as proposed is too big of a project for 675
where it currently seeks to be placed. Two comparisons come to mind when I think about this, the UNC Hospital 676
which is big, it’s 342,000 sq. ft. the RTLP project would be 6.5 times larger. The RTLP warehouse square footage of 677
55 acres would equal 92% of combined parking and building space of the Walmart/Hope Depot complex in 678
Hillsborough. Their total footprint is 60 acres. Now in concluding, many of the residents that surround the EDD that 679
is being discussed are in support of sensible development of this area. As we stand ready to work with the Planning 680
Department and the County Board of Commissioners to make this happen. However, the RTLP project is too big and 681
too overwhelming of a project to consider. We as a community urge the Orange County Planning Board to deny this 682
project’s approval in its current state. We are opposed to its size and to its proposed use of Davis Road as an 683
entrance or exit for the development. Thank you. 684
685
Angela Sneed: Good evening, my name is Angela, I live out on West Scarlett Mountain Road. For reference, that 686
driveway is directly across from David Road and it will be right there where the proposed light is. It currently can 687
difficult to enter and exit with the blind curve and the hill coming from Old 86 south so a stop light will essentially 688
block that driveway and many others down Old 86 preventing residents from entering or exiting their homes safely 689
and consequently it can cause traffic backup in the opposite direction while they have to wait. My concern is traffic in 690
a different flow, the report and numbers provided don’t seem accurate in that they don’t currently include the projects 691
that are already approved and happening in Hillsborough right now. Collins Ridge for example, that project is around 692
1200 units and will have anywhere from 1200 to 2400 additional resident commuting through the Hillsborough area 693
many of which will head to Chapel Hill for work and the best route to get there in the morning is Old 86. This will add 694
to the number that will have to go through the I-40 intersection and the Davis/86 intersection along with the proposed 695
trucks and employees that will be getting there. Having the accurate traffic information and numbers is pertinent 696
because otherwise you’re just pulling random numbers out of a hat from years ago and hoping that they stick. My 697
next concern is the I-40 intersection, I understand that the proposal was to have a light at the 40 eastbound ramps; 698
however, the 40 westbound intersection is dangerous as it is with existing traffic numbers. Adding the Collins Ridge, 699
increase and then potentially 100s of additional cars and trucks from this proposal make the area a death trap. 700
Existing 40 west, exiting there and trying to make a left onto Old 86 in the evening and you’ve got the sun in your 701
face, it’s nearly impossible and then you add oncoming trucks and increased traffic from both directions and you’re 702
never going to make that. The lane to enter 40 westbound right now, that turn lane is 280 long from start to the end 703
of the medium with and additional maybe 31 feet to the middle of the intersection. A truck and trailer on average is 704
70 to 78 feet. That means three trucks can be lined up waiting to make that left from Old 86 South, it’s going to 705
bottleneck and eventually stop traffic. Cars aren’t going to be able to more around because there’s a bridge, traffic 706
exiting 30 East are going to have to wait through light cycles and the road is going to become a constant cycle of 707
traffic jams and increase the number of accidents for the residents, the truckers and even potential visitors so and 708
there’s not currently a light proposed there so aside from the inconvenience that many residents will face due to the 709
increase of traffic, ultimately it safety risk on the road in this area. The intersections aren’t designed for this type of 710
development, the proposal does not address the issues and numbers, and the tax dollars are going to be spent for 711
years to come attempting to fix this disaster. 712
713
James Henninger: My name is Jim Henninger, I live south of Davis just off Old 86 on Currie Hill Lane, I’ve lived there 714
for about 25 years. I’ve been proud to call Hillsborough home all this time but I’m not really in Hillsborough and I want 715
to point out that there’s more people affected than just those that are in 1000 feet area that were notified. I like to 716
shop local, Weaver Street, Hillsborough Barbeque, Radius Pizza, Wooden Nickle, Paws at the Corner, Food Lion, 717
Steve’s Market, Saratoga Grill, Hillsborough Wine, Hillsborough Yarn these are places off the top of my head. These 718
are the places where I spend my money in Hillsborough. These are the merchants that will be affected by any 719
impotence on the artery which is 86, 86 is the southern part of the County’s way to get into Hillsborough. There isn’t 720
any other practical way from the south to go into Hillsborough, it’s 86 for us. For me to go into town, if I’m impeded 721
by going up 86, I basically have to go Chapel Hill and back to Hillsborough and in a practical matter, people don’t do 722
that. Realistically, what would happen for me is that I would be shopping at Harris Teeter on MLK instead of Weaver 723
Street or Food Lion or Hillsborough Wine. I’d be hitting The Pig on Weaver Dairy Road instead of Hillsborough 724
Barbeque; I’d be shopping at Clifton Hills or Left Bank Butchery in Saxaphaw instead of Steve’s Market. I sat down 725
31
Approved 9/2/2020
and figured it out and I figured out that for every $100 I spend in Hillsborough currently, on my daily shopping, that 726
would drop to $20 and the other $80 would be spread out between Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Durham and for me Old 727
86 which is Hillsborough Road to me, would become Carrboro Road. I’m not against developing that area because 728
it’s inevitable but anything that’s going to cut me off from what I consider to be my town, I have a problem with and 729
it’s concerning to be that we can’t really get a definitive answer on what exactly is going to be developed. I don’t see 730
how the traffic plan is legitimate if we don’t even know what is going to be developed. I understand the averages 731
thing but there’s a lot of leeway going on in there. I agree with Ms. Fletcher, on her comments on that and that’s all I 732
have, thank you. 733
734
Kaila Mitchell: My Kaila Mitchell I live on Jedi Way off Davis Road. I would like to speak about the impact to air 735
quality and potential health risk that RTLP poses to our neighborhood. We know that this project will significantly 736
increase the amount of big trucks, tractor-trailers on Old 86 and Davis Road. As many as 950 trucks per day. It is 737
also reasonable to thing truck will increase on other roads nearby as they attempt to use alternate routes as Old 86 738
and Davis Road become clogged. A lot of these trucks will emit diesel exhaust that contains more than 40 toxic air 739
contaminates including cancer causing substances such as benzene, arsenic, formaldehyde. According to California 740
EPA’s office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, long-term exposure to diesel exhaust poses the highest 741
cancer risk of any toxic air contaminant evaluated by their office. To the Planning Board, as you are considering this 742
project, I urge you to keep in mind some of our most vulnerable residents when we think of air quality such as 743
children, the elderly and those with chronic health conditions and think about the locations where these vulnerable 744
individuals are most likely to spend time. For distribution centers that accommodate more than 100 trucks per day or 745
more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units per day or where transport refrigeration unit exceed 746
300 hours per week the California EPA Air Resources Board recommends in their air quality and land use handbook, 747
that these distribution centers be farther than 1000 feet from sensitive locations such as residences, school, day care 748
centers, playgrounds and medical facilities. They also recommended that entry and exit points not be located near 749
these sensitive locations as well. We have a preschool, Sounds and Colors, right at the corner of Old 86 and Davis 750
Road and we have dozens of families living all around the proposed industrial park within 1000 feet many within 300 751
feet. California EPA Air Resources Board also showed the key findings from a number of studies which included 752
reduced lung function in children associated with traffic density especially trucks within 1000 feet and that association 753
was strongest within 300 feet. Also increased asthma, hospitalizations associated when living within 650 feet of 754
heavy traffic and heavy truck volume. Exposure to diesel exhaust can also have immediate health effects, it can 755
irritate the eyes, nose, throat and lungs and it can cause cough, headaches, light-headedness and nausea. In 756
studies with volunteers, diesel exhaust particles made people with allergies more susceptible to the things they were 757
already allergic to such as dust and pollen. Exposure to diesel exhaust also causes inflammation in the lungs which 758
may aggravate respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks. I have a family 759
member who lives right here on Davis within 1000 of this as well who has chronic lung disease. He already suffers 760
enough on a daily basis, I urge the Planning Board to recommend that a risk assessment and a thorough 761
environmental analysis be performed before RTLP can move forward. Thank you. 762
763
Matt Mitchell: My name is Matt Mitchell and I’m an audio engineer living off of Davis Road less than 1000 from the 764
proposed development. I am going to talk about noise pollution and the impact on the residents and the preschool. 765
Orange County Noise Ordinances state it shall be unlawful for any person to make create permit or to continue any 766
source of a unreasonably loud and disturbing noise in Orange County and further any sound which is substantially 767
incompatible with the time and location where created and which is perceived by a person of ordinary sensibilities as 768
interrupting the normal peace and calm of the receiving land. The receiving land being all of the residential 769
properties surrounding this proposed development. Orange County does not allow noises above 60 decibels during 770
the day and 50 decibels in the evenings at the residential properties surrounding the proposed development. The 771
noise generated from a diesel truck is between 96 and 104 decibels. This is 60 times louder than the 50 decibels 772
that the evening ordinance permits. There are residences as close as 30 feet to the proposed driveway that will be 773
carrying as many as 950 trucks per day, house #1 is 30 feet away from this driveway that is being put in where these 774
diesel trucks will be queuing up. These distances are taken from the Orange County GIS and they reflect the true 775
impact to residences. Please don’t be fooled into thinking that most residences are more than 1000 feet away. I’d 776
also like to add that none of these properties depicted are commercially zoned. Focusing on the resident 777
immediately beside the access point on Davis Road is only 5 trucks in the queue on this road, this resident will 778
experience 81 decibels of sustained noise, the equivalent of standing next to a lawnmower 24/7 and also loud 779
enough to cause hearing damage at 2 hours of exposure per the CDC. It doesn’t seem possible that the developer 780
could possibly reduce noise to acceptable levels at the surrounding properties and the preschool. The preschool is 781
32
Approved 9/2/2020
only 60 feet from where the trucks will be queuing up and their playground is 100 feet from where the trucks will be 782
queuing up on David Road. There was a similar development that was a third the size of this development and the 783
closest resident as 550 feet from the nearest loading dock. The noise impact analysis that was done still required 784
reduced traffic even at the greatly reduced numbers and distances compared to the proposed development. I’d like 785
to add that diesel trucks typically use engine breaking that create an extremely loud machine gun like noise as much 786
as 105 decibels. These noises are only regulated during the day in Orange County and stand to create massive 787
disruptions to the preschool and the residents especially on David Road. 788
789
Myra Gwin-Summers: I am Myra Gwin-Summers, we live two doors down from the proposed property on the corner 790
of Davis Road. We’ve been here for about 35 years and I see that I was down to speak on property values which 791
was not what I intended to speak on but would quickly say I cannot imagine that this project would enhance anyone’s 792
property values. I have a questions and comments for Mr. Birch and I don’t know if he’s still present but I am going to 793
show this (visual of a mailing’s return address). Why did we receive a letter regarding this project that says it is from 794
the City of Raleigh Planning Department? Who paid for the postage and does the City of Raleigh Planning 795
Department know that he has represented this project to us as if it were from them? I received an answer to that 796
today, the City of Raleigh Planning Department has no connection with the project and were very interested in the 797
fact that Michael Birch is sending out letters to residents in our county using their return address. I would like to be 798
sure and highlight that Mr. Birch has misrepresented himself here and possibly used their taxpayer money for a 799
private investment project without the knowledge or consent of the City of Raleigh. It shows poor judgement at best 800
and lack of integrity. Moreover, it’s deceptive and it does beg the questions what else is deceptive about this project. 801
The next thing I wanted to address to Michael Birch, I’d like from you regarding your use of the City of Raleigh 802
Planning Department on your return mail address. I wanted to speak specifically to comment that you made that can 803
be found on page 25 of the draft minutes, lines 1226 thru 1230 when Mr. Birch was questioned about the buffers and 804
the encroachment of noise and vehicle lights due to the 24 hours 7 days a week activity. He responded that a lot of 805
the lots that surround us are deep lots with the houses situated far from the common boundary line. This is 806
completely false and the as speaker just pointed out, the driveway exit onto Davis Road runs right next to the 807
Barlow’s house and will run right next to the house that will be built behind us. Next, I’d like to say that I spoke to a 808
senior engineer at Summit Engineering today who clarified for me that Summit has completely withdrawn their 809
project. They withdrew because the topography did not lend itself to large buildings it was going to be cost 810
prohibitive and they thought they would not actually be able to build the buildings. My final comment would be that 811
this is being addressed as if it is on zero grade, that’s not true the corner of Davis Road is a steep hill and I wanted to 812
make the Planning Board aware in case you’re not aware that Davis Road is closed for over 6 months last year due 813
to a sinkhole that is due to runoff on Davis Road. Once the corner of Davis Road is turned into an impervious 814
surface, the runoff is going to be more severe and could create more problems. 815
816
Michael Birch: I think there were two things to address, primarily about the return addresses. Let me be clear that 817
we paid, our firm paid for the postage, the City of Raleigh return address stamp was on those envelopes related to a 818
similar or prior projects that we were doing in Raleigh and was inadvertently used for the mailing for the notices for 819
this project. I will note that the letterhead, the letter the notice that was included in the envelope very clearly stated 820
that it was from Longleaf and didn’t have any reference to the City of Raleigh. I apologize for the confusion that it 821
may have caused to have the return address say City of Raleigh but we did pay for the postage and I have reached 822
out to the City of Raleigh to their Planning Director to let them know. We didn’t obtain any of their envelopes or 823
anything like that they have asked us in the past to put their return address on there for other mailings. The question 824
on the buffers, I want to be clear that when I was speaking to those in the last meeting we had the exhibit up showing 825
the buffers and the transition areas and again was very clear that the majority of our property does not abut parcels 826
with homes on it. The one that are nearby are deep lots but we did recognize that there is one existing home again 827
within 100 ft. of a proposed building and we did not shy away from stating that. 828
829
Joan Kalnitsky: My name is Joan Kalnitsky, I’d like to thank the Planning Board for listening to all of us this evening. 830
I doubt there’re are too many of us who really don’t believe the property in question will be developed but developing 831
it in the manner that has beneficial to the County and the Town of Hillsborough and the residents of Orange County is 832
really important. As almost immediate access to the highways and all four directions, with seemingly little impact to 833
the local area, with that said, I am seriously urging the Planning Commission to not support rezoning of this property. 834
I am asking this for safety reasons, people on the Board of the Planning Commission and the applicant want us to 835
believe that the traffic is going to go left onto Davis Road and left onto Old 86 and not impact the area but truth is 836
traffic is also going to right down Old 86 and right down Davis Road. The roads we’re talking about are part of the 837
33
Approved 9/2/2020
largest recreational area in Orange County. If you don’t believe me go to the Tarwheels website and try to find a 838
suggested bike ride that does not include at least two or three of these roads. The safety of all the residents and of 839
Orange County and all those who come from the Triad and the Triangle to ride these roads is going to be severely 840
impacted. If you’re a doubter, drive by Mapleview Dairy any time any day and count the number of cars with bike 841
racks on it parked there. If that’s not enough of a safety concern let’s just consider Davis Road itself. We’ve heard a 842
lot about it tonight but for those of us who live off it, we know there are cyclists, walkers, joggers every day. You’re 843
going to have vehicles turning out of this development in front of people trying to get in and out of the daycare center. 844
It’s a recipe for disaster. What I’d like to urge each and every one of the Planning Board to do is to drive the 3 miles 845
of Davis Road, count the cyclists, count the joggers, and the walkers and then realize there’s shoulder and there’s no 846
sidewalk on Davis, Ode Turner, Old 86 none of them. When you get to the church, try to imagine a semi-truck in 847
front of it and when you (bad connection/lost audio) 40, that’s what rezoning is offering to do. Our safety in this 848
corner of Orange County. Thank you all for your considerations. 849
850
Janet Marks: I’m Janet Marks, I live in New Hope Springs right off Davis Road. Many of you that have traveled on 851
Old 86 off I-40 know the beauty of the thick forest and the rolling hills along this road. You may have also notice the 852
scenic by-way sign as you left the freeway traffic behind. What you may not know, is that starting at the exit from 40 853
you are now on a historic road dating back at least to the 1700s. Prior to it being mentioned in historic records this 854
was a Native American trail and was also used by early settlers. You are on the beginning of 10-mile stretch called 855
the Scots/Welsh Heritage Byway. I’m going to take this from NCDOT description of this road, this byway travels 856
through Orange County along trade roads used by American Indians and early backcountry pioneers. The King of 857
England gave much of this land along this byway to the 18th Century Scots/Welsh settlers. Generation after 858
Generation has lived and farmed this land, each leaving its own mark making this byway a unique journey through 859
American history. Old NC 86 appears on Colonial maps dating back to 1770. Per NCDOT description of scenic 860
byways, motorist will see little or no development along the routes enhancing the natural character and quality of the 861
byways. They will experience North Carolina history, geography and culture while also raising awareness for the 862
protection and preservation of these treasures. Limit the traffic using this historical route, reserve important 863
landmark. Any development near this area should mindful of that is harmonious with the surrounding land and the 864
rural neighborhoods and I want to make a note of an African American cemetery dating to at least 1900 at the corner 865
of Davis Road and Old 86. When people drive on I-40 east from Alamance County, this exit is the first impression 866
they get of Hillsborough. Do we want the gateway to Orange County and Hillsborough to be represented by vast 867
warehouses, is this the Orange County that any of us know or can envision for the future. Thank you so much. 868
869
Christine Poole: I’d like to start by reminding you that I’m Christine Poole and I live off Davis Road. I want to thank 870
the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board for having developed many wonderful projects over the 871
past several decades. Let’s start with the creation of an attractive retail and residential zone on the east edge of 872
Hillsborough, the Super Walmart and Home Depot along with all the other small business that surround this 873
economic zone have definitely benefitted our community as we no longer have to travel to Durham or Chapel Hill. 874
Then you added the Riverwalk and Weaver Street which merged the neighborhood goals of an open-air community-875
gathering place with retail while also providing a space for government offices then you created Gold Park with 876
connects with the Riverwalk and then developed the historic industrial space in West Hillsborough on Nash Street 877
that was brilliant. You added Hillsborough Barbeque and these other non-franchised eateries along with a beautiful 878
events venue, the Cloth Mill at Eno River. Then north of Hillsborough on Hwy 70, you approved the Gatewood 879
project which created a beautiful restaurant and evidentially retail, brewing and distilling and another event center 880
that merges architecturally and culturally with historic Hillsborough. Even the Waterstone community and hospital 881
improve the ugly eatery franchise oasis around the I-85 and Old NC 86 interchange. I understand the interest in 882
developing an economic zone off of I-40 and 85 but Old NC 86 is the worst choice, as those of us who travel this 883
road every day know. It’s called old for a reason. Where in the County have we competed a successful industrial 884
project? Let’s consider Moninaga America. In 2013, the BOCC unanimously agreed to offer state and local 885
economic incentives to encourage this company to build a new candy factory off of I-40 and 85 in Mebane. It was 886
built on a 400 acre Buckhorn Economic Development District which leaves me wondering, if there is an economic 887
zone where 2 interstates merge without significant residential development which is already invested in water and 888
sewer why are we even considering this project where there is significant residential development on land that would 889
be incorporated into the historic Town of Hillsborough and is across the street from a church, daycare center and a 890
cemetery? Why are we considering a project that consist of four six-story buildings? What are the advantages? 891
Why is this location better than the Buckhorn Economic Development District? Lastly, I would remind everyone that 892
when go fishing for bass you don’t settle for carp, you should wisely choose a development project that matches our 893
34
Approved 9/2/2020
needs and our values. I would also remind everyone not to put the cart before the horse, until the issue of 894
improvements on Churton Street and Old NC 86 are addressed, further development around this outdated artery 895
should not be approved. I want to thank you for your time and the consideration of all the points we are making here 896
tonight. 897
898
Matthew Kostura: I just want to sum up a little bit what has been said so far. I also want to start at the top with jobs. 899
We had a really nice pitch at the beginning of there, it was a pitch, it was designed to be a pitch, its marketing. The 900
number thrown out for you guys to consider is 4500 jobs. Seriously, you guys just approved, recently a development 901
on West Ten Road that is very similar to this one. That’s for the medical device distribution center. 150 jobs for 1.5 902
million sq. ft. that’s about what you’re going to be getting here x 2 ½ maybe so figure 450 so what this is all about 903
really is tax revenue, you know that, I think everybody else does. So, as the last speaker said there’s other ways to 904
skin this cat and you can get your tax revenue with better development. Something that is more compatible with this 905
area. As far as the kind of development going in, again, as has been mentioned, they are using the code, they’re 906
telling you what’s going to go in here and it’s LUC150. That’s a warehouse; it’s not going to be an office. It’s 907
warehouse so your impact is traffic, it’s trucks and you have to worry about trucks. How many trucks in and out? 908
Bob Bundschuh has basically said about 1000 minimum per day. That’s a lot of trucks and they all come out on 909
Davis Road by the way every last one. Thirdly is I want to bring up something about Christa Greene, she made a 910
comment about the traffic impact on Davis is going to be minimal. Certainly, at the head that’s going to be true. 911
When they did their traffic modeling what they did not do was include the biggest driver of traffic gain on that road in 912
the last 10 years or so and that’s the school complex over on Grady Brown. All that traffic is being built up there is 913
going to school. It was not modeled, at all, into their models so that’s not included, it’s a lot of traffic. Finally, I want 914
to point out that Davis Road has been mentioned, Craig Benedict called it a collector road. That’s what it’s viewed as 915
by NCDOT. But basically, past Ode Turner where they have another counting station, it’s about an annual average 916
1000 daily trips. You count the number of houses on Davis Road, the ones that access it from Tree Farm, that’s 917
roughly 200 homes by 2 cars by 2 trips a day. Virtually every trip on Davis Road comes out of these development 918
and these homes. There is no through traffic here, it’s very minimal. So, what you’re asking now is to put a lot of 919
through traffic on it. Adam Beeman is going to sit there and say no, no, no; no truck driver is going to make a right 920
hand turn, fine. We had Michael Birch say they’d be willing to put a sign up that say no right turn for trucks out of the 921
development. Take him up on the offer, put that sign up and while you’re at it put a sign up that says no right turn on 922
Old 86 either. You guys are pitching this all about 3000 linear feet of road, well keep the trucks there. Thank you 923
very much. 924
925
Gerald Scarlett: This is Gerald Scarlett, I’ll make this as brief as possible. I live on West Scarlett Mountain, which is 926
30 feet south of the Davis Road intersection. I have been here for 65 years, which is my entire life. I’d like to make 2 927
points as quickly as possible, although I have 100s. Number one is the Rural Buffer, it makes no sense to be able to 928
stand in a Rural Buffer and move 6 inches north and now I’m in an industrial park. In most places there’s a physical 929
soft approach to these types of divides and not just a line on a map. There is none of that here. If you approve this 930
then you should change the name of the Rural Buffer to just Buffer because that’s what it is. It is nothing more than a 931
compression point between Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough and 2 interstate systems. We have been involuntarily 932
drafted into perpetual service to provide guard duty to for the rest of the County and yet we still pay the same tax 933
rates as other outside the buffer who actually get to enjoy some of the rural setting that we no longer have. Point 934
number 2, we’re talking about potentially 100s of trucks that have to drive through part of the Rural Buffer and each 935
one of those has got to stop and start somewhere between 6 and 24 times to enter and leave the Hillsborough area 936
leaving a trail of exhaust each time. I believe in a recent past budget cycle Orange County set aside half a million 937
dollars of taxpayer money to “fight climate change and global warming” this proposal seems counterproductive to the 938
stated goals bordering on being hypocritical. I’ve always found the easiest and cheapest solution to a problem is just 939
don’t create it to start with. Also understand, as previously stated there is a daycare within 100 yards of 4 to 6 of 940
those stop and starts in addition to all the kids living in the immediate vicinity. On a personal note, I’ll tell you that my 941
38-year-old son who lives here is right in intensive care in Chapel Hill. He had surgery yesterday to remove infection 942
from in and around his lungs, likely caused by aspergillus and other unknown environmental factors. You should 943
google aspergillus or look it up on the CDC website. In the next couple of days they’ll likely operate again to remove 944
2/3rd of one of his lungs because it’s been damaged by the infection. There are a lot of factors in his current 945
condition but I will for the rest of my life wonder what part interstate 40 has played in this. Interstate 40 is on my 946
property or what used to be my property, I hear the roar of traffic spewing exhaust 24/7 so the question is, are you 947
willing to gamble with the futures of these kids to attain an increased tax base and jobs neither of which do I ever 948
believe will every come to fruition in the levels that you’re being led to believe. In closing, I’ll say this, in the course of 949
35
Approved 9/2/2020
my 40-year career at UNC and Duke, I’ve reviewed 100s of presentations and proposals, many worth 100s of 950
millions of dollars per year and I can tell you this proposal contains a lot of smoke and mirrors. There’s a lot of 951
meaningless rhetoric in the narrative, if you remove the rhetoric and look at the details, that are available you’ll see 952
the County will spend more money than will be recouped in taxes and you’ll also find that the jobs that we all seek 953
don’t actually exist and likely never will. No matter your perspective or goal, whether you’re a community member or 954
a county official, if you look at it closely, it’s easy to see no one’s goals are met. Nobody win with this proposal, no 955
matter how you slice it, dice it, look closely, this proposal is nothing more that lipstick on a pig. If you take the lipstick 956
off and look at it, it’s still a pig. Thank you. 957
958
Franklin Garland: The reason (bad connection/unintelligible) it doesn’t fit, it’s not (bad connection/unintelligible). I’ve 959
been here since 1973 from Pittsburg and previously (bad connection/unintelligible), settled here bought some land, 960
bought a car. In 1981, I understand now was the first go round of establishing the EDD, I never knew about it. In fact 961
(bad connection/unintelligible) I didn’t know about it until maybe 2 weeks ago, I can’t be sure I was ever notified. If 962
that’s a valid point about knowing, everything that has happened, (bad connection/unintelligible) I’ve never received 963
any notice. At the time, I’d probably said sure let’s put a waste, let’s put a dump out there that was 40 years ago. 964
Things have changed and I know I am repeating myself a little bit but me just thank the residents of the area that has 965
spoken so far and given you guys on the Board, we don’t want this. Most of those numbers came off your literature 966
or the state’s literature not ours, okay. Observation or different things, we know how many cars are on Davis, I live 967
on Ode Turner. I know how many cars are on Ode Turner. I really think that the guys that have presented for 968
residents out here, the numbers and have said so (bad connection/unintelligible). Also, I want to thank the people 969
from (bad connection/unintelligible) that gave us the projected numbers and models and let me put it even more 970
simple, simulations that’s what they are simulations, they not real. We know what’s real over here, we sent out a 971
petition it’s called save Hillsborough.com out there. Everybody’s welcome to go on there, we have people from 972
Hillsborough signing we have close to 4000 or so by now these are our neighbors. This is actually getting effective 973
by putting this (bad connection/unintelligible) not Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill is going collect money from that. We could 974
have some other alternatives, let me suggest something, we could put a visitor’s center out there. Not a rest area, 975
not a place to go to the restroom and gas up but a visitor’s center that has that presents for example, the artisans and 976
farmers that have goat cheese that sell here. Jewelers, we have marvelous that could sell the wares at a visitor’s 977
center of an on/off ramp (bad connection/ unintelligible) and they could sell local wines in there, have a wine tasting 978
and that would bring revenue not only for the people that live here in this community (bad connection/unintelligible) 979
you could have people providing … 980
981
Ellen Mayer: I live off David Road and I don’t have anything original after what everybody’s talking about. I’d like to 982
thank the Mitchells for their talking about air quality air pollution and also noise pollution, which is very important. I’m 983
one of the elderly, in my 70s, I’m also a bit upset that I believe his name was Frank, not knowing the difference 984
between Raleigh and Hillsborough where they built things in Raleigh, I didn’t buy a house in Raleigh, I don’t want to 985
live there. I want to live in rural community, I worry about my grandkids visiting and living here and breathing in this 986
air from all these trucks that are polluting and also the safely. I’ll never get out as those trucks on Davis to Old 86, 987
they’re 72 feet. There’s not going to be a light where they’re coming out and turning. They’re going to come out and 988
I’m going to try to get in between them and sometimes winter comes to North Carolina and the roads are icy. We’re 989
just asking for a disaster. Any where near the preschool with cars turning with little kids and trucks coming out, good 990
luck. I appreciate you staying up this late, listening to us; I really hope you’re listening. This does not belong in this 991
area or I don’t know where in Orange County for something this big belongs but certainly not a that intersection and 992
on Davis Road which is a country road, I don’t care what officially it’s called. It’s a winding country beautiful road. 993
Okay, thank you and have a good night. 994
995
Joseph Shore: So my name is Joseph Shore and I live on Old 86 between Davis Road and interstate 40. The 3500 996
linear feet that the gentleman quoted earlier, the developer said it wouldn’t affect anyone but this is literally in front of 997
my house so I’ll be directly impacted by this. I believe something like 16 or 17 homes on this little stretch of road that 998
will be directly impacted by that so 16 families, once again he acted like it won’t affect anyone but obviously that just 999
wildly incorrect. My biggest concern is with our home value. Someone mentioned this earlier but I have a proposal. 1000
Like many people in the middle class, my home is my {inaudible} and I greatly fear that this development will make 1001
my home significantly worth less than it is today. You would want to buy a home where there’s 18-wheelers on both 1002
sides of my house. They’ll be behind my house and in front of my house, the noise traffic, the light pollution; it can 1003
literally make my home worthless. So, my proposal is this, I think, and this is directly to you Michael Birch, if you’re 1004
still on. The developers should create a 1 million dollar fund, it should be held in escrow for at least the next 5 years 1005
36
Approved 9/2/2020
and it should be there to compensate we homeowners for a likely decrease in our home values. For example, I think 1006
my home’s probably worth around 275,000 dollars now, let’s say 3 years from now I try to sell my home and I’m only 1007
able to sell it 150.000 dollars, I think that the developer should pay 125,000 dollars, they should pay the difference in 1008
the deceased value of my home. I think that’s a very reasonable request, 1 million dollars held in escrow as a 150 1009
million dollar project, they should be required to compensate those of us that will be negatively impacted by this. 1010
Thank you. 1011
1012
Leslie Roberts: Thank you for taking my comments. I have two points that have not yet been brought up. These go 1013
back to the August 5th meeting. I was not able to speak at the end there, on the agenda notes from August 5th on 1014
page 258 there was an assessment from Christian Hirni and Peter Sandbeck from the DEAPR and they did a land 1015
conservation and cultural resource assessment but I noticed that was only done on parcel 1 and 2 and the Davis 1016
Road parcel is considered parcel 3. I have concerns about that not being done and if that can be done before this is 1017
moved forward with. There was identified to be part of a hard wood forest there that will be impacted and I think it’s 1018
important to know what else will be impacted in that third parcel. The 2nd point is where I live on Old 86 I can’t 1019
actually see light pollution on building that I cannot see at night and I think it would be nice to have that the lights that 1020
are put in both internally and externally at the site, if this goes through, be motion sensor lights. This is already in 1021
practice in perimeter parking Morrisville and I think it would be something that could really help reduce the light 1022
pollution for those of us that would have to see this at night. Thank you for your time. 1023
1024
Payton Rose: I appreciate your time, my husband and I own the historic Davis Farm just a mile down Davis Road. 1025
The heritage that Davis Road was named after. I’m sure you are all aware that this area is surrounded by historic 1026
farms well over 200 and 300 years old as others have brought up. Our main concern has not been brought up yet is 1027
the allowable use of light manufacturing; I’ve spent the last 10 years in global apparel development from private 1028
companies to a multibillion-dollar corporation. I know what apparel manufacturing looks like and its potential hazards 1029
to our environment. I appreciate that the applicant has provided a list for light manufacturing that will not be allowed 1030
however, the space for allowable businesses is wide. There are no protections in place, I urge you to consider that 1031
many of us in the Rural Buffer have private wells that we water our crops with, that we feed our families with, that we 1032
drink. I do not see any protections in place that protect us against any non-recycling of water, wastewater treatment 1033
or closed loop pollution systems. It’s nothing that any of us could protect without knowing the specific tenants going 1034
into these spaces and exactly what they will be manufacturing. If the County votes to go ahead with this then we 1035
propose that light manufacturing is prohibited all together or that strict rules are put into place to make sure that our 1036
land, that our water aquafers will not be polluted. Thanks for your time. 1037
1038
Margo Lakin: Hello, thank you to the Board, I’m Margo Lakin and I am 100% for intelligent sustainable economic 1039
development that truly helps the people of Hillsborough. RTLP is a boondoggle with a dangling carrot of job creation 1040
to grease the wheels. With 250 parking spaces in the proposal, I’m going to be generous and assume that all 250 1041
represent jobs. If the facility runs 24/7 that’s 250 times three shifts for a grand total of 750. 750 jobs for a 2.5 million 1042
sq. ft. facility that doesn’t add up. Logistics in the title, I’m also assuming the purpose will also be a warehousing 1043
supply chain fulfillment center on a massive scale. Jobs in this sector are moving toward automation which would 1044
explain the low number of humans in relation to the square footage. These position tend to be low paying, lackluster 1045
benefits, little career advancement and high turnover. With at least ten empty warehouses totaling over 1.1 million sq. 1046
ft. laying empty just 13 miles west, why is this being built on speculation. I question if it is speculation, in the minutes 1047
from August 5th, Michael Birch, when responding to a question of electrical fleet management on the site said “our 1048
sense is that something like that or having that available will be driven by the end user, a particular end user that we 1049
don’t have in mind right now or don’t have at the table” so who do you have at the table? I find it hard to believe that 1050
Barrister is investing over 150 million dollars to build a 2.5 million sq. ft. industrial park with no client interest. Is there 1051
a client and Barrister isn’t being transparent? Or is this site being prepped to be sold as a shovel ready package to a 1052
bigger entity like Amazon? High profile logistic centers like Amazon and UPS typically come with the demand on the 1053
local government for massive incentive packages that equate to years of tax breaks on the backs of the taxpayers 1054
like us with minimum job growth. I see no evidence of RTLP improving Hillsborough’s job market or tax base in direct 1055
relation to the square footage it will occupy and the negative impact it will bring to Hillsborough once those 180 acres 1056
are destroyed to build this, we’re stuck with it, we can’t easily repurpose or reconfigure that footprint for businesses 1057
that are sustainable, that are better suited for the area, that are more in line with Hillsborough’s values. There are 1058
better ways to develop that land for economic growth. Please let’s investigate them together. Do not recommend 1059
that this project move forward. Thank you for your time. 1060
1061
37
Approved 9/2/2020
Geoff Sebesta: My name is Geoff Sebesta, I’ll be very brief. The first is the NTSBNHTSB released a study long ago 1062
that showed that the damage to a road increases by the fourth power of the size of the vehicles. That’s the square of 1063
the square. These vehicles which will be on historical road will destroy your road. You’ll pay a lot of money fixing 1064
and upgrading your road. This is completely unavoidable, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, if you put 1065
this traffic on this road, you will be paying a lot to fix this road. Now the second thing I have to say is that in 2008, I 1066
had the pleasure and privilege of being involved with the city councils of both San Diego California and Lexington 1067
Kentucky as they both considered proposals from businesses that did not want to reveal the sources of their funding 1068
or their eventual tenants. San Diego took one look at the proposals, said if you’re not revealing your tenants this is a 1069
joke. Lexington was not so wise, they got involved in something called the Center Point fiasco, you can look it up. 1070
It’s destroyed the downtown of Lexington Kentucky to this day. If they’re not willing to reveal who the tenants are, it 1071
is not a serious proposal, it should not be seriously considered. Finally, I will say that although I thank everyone for 1072
staying up so late, it’s 10:40 at night and there’s not been one single resident yet who has spoken in favor of this 1073
proposal. The Planning Commission is there as the representative of the people of Hillsborough, many people have 1074
mentioned that they don’t have enough time to speak, I thinks it’s odd that the Planning Commission is limiting the 1075
time of people to respond when they are not limiting their time after all you there, are you not, to represent these 1076
people? You should take this seriously, you should look at the fact that absolutely no resident appear to be in favor 1077
of this at all. You should consider that, thank you very much for your time. 1078
1079
Jean-Francois Provost: My name is Jean-Francois Provost and we just moved in last July on Old 86, we are south of 1080
Davis Road. I have several things to say, first we have {inaudible} of trucks coming into our driveway and a truck 1081
coming right angle you have to go in other lane so we had to stop the traffic on Old 86 to have some trucks on our 1082
property, that’s the first thing. When we bought the land a few months after we got invited to a public hearing 1083
because there was already a project, that actual project is bigger than the previous one but it was just one project out 1084
of three projects so there was commercial zone on Old 86 near the exit of I-40 and there was a third one very close 1085
{inaudible}, so the traffic, the lady who explains that the traffic is going to be ok, she doesn’t take account the next 1086
project which is coming maybe. If there is three projects, the traffic impact created by this project, why we came 1087
tonight, is also two other projects so increase the traffic significantly. So we have to take account not only this project 1088
but the whole amount around the perimeter. Thank you for listening to me. 1089
1090
Jon Boxter: Good evening, thank you for your time, we really do appreciate you giving each of us an opportunity to 1091
share our feelings. I’m a middle school teacher and my wife, Shannon, is an ICU nurse, we live on Old 86 3 houses 1092
from Davis Road with our 3 year old son, we’re one of the handful of houses in 1000 feet of the development that 1093
received the original notification letter. We live along the 3500 feet of linear road that has been quoted, the back of 1094
Building C as currently planned, would be highly visible from the Duke Utility road that runs beside our property 1095
where we watch our son and our neighbors children play every single night. The staggering amount of 200 vehicles 1096
that would be routed onto Davis Road during peak hours as has been quoted, would then pass directly in front of our 1097
home. So that’s effecting, at least surrounding us on three sides. My family and I unequivocally disapprove of the 1098
actions being proposed, our opinion has been shaped not out of a hard line “NIMBY” attitude towards development of 1099
the area as many other people have pointed out, we bought our home with the understanding and tacit expectation 1100
that the area north of us would inevitably be developed as zoned. However, this sheer lack of adequate 1101
infrastructure surrounding this particular project make is impossible to support. The addition of Davis Road as a 1102
second access point has been admitted to be done after the fact in order to satisfy NCDOT. Anyone who lives near 1103
Old 86 has noticed the increase in traffic over the past few years. That road along with those that feed into it despite 1104
what cherry picked traffic study suggest about specific intersections we’ll have trouble handling the number of cars 1105
and trucks that are being estimated. From a safety standpoint, it will be disastrous for those of us living along the 1106
route. After crossing under I-40 you pass that service road that’s been repeatedly mentioned by a number of houses 1107
on both sides, you come a slight hill and there is essentially a blind curve that the utility line overpass, my home as 1108
well as two are located right after the Duke utility road. I find myself looking multiple times in each direction and 1109
saying literally a prayer before pulling in and out of my driveway. I signal a ¼ mile before I even turn so that cars 1110
don’t rear-end me or side swipe my vehicle as I exit. Almost daily, horns honk, cars lock up their brakes as they 1111
speed south on Old 86 before coming upon a car turning past the blind curve in a driveway or onto Davis Road. It’s 1112
incredible that more accidents don’t already occur here and adding further traffic and stopped cars is a literal disaster 1113
waiting to happen if this plan goes forth as presently constructed. A red light is going to do little more than to cause 1114
those cars to slam on their brakes and cause bigger issues. I say all this to reaffirm my opposition to this plan as 1115
currently proposed. It makes no sense from an infrastructure standpoint to utilize Davis Road purely more that out of 1116
necessity or that portion of Old 86 for heavy truck traffic. Unless this can be remedied and a more logical solution 1117
38
Approved 9/2/2020
can be found, I urge the member of the Planning Commission to deny this proposal. Please help to protect my family 1118
and my neighbors. Thank you. 1119
1120
Beth Rosenberg: Thank you for taking the time to listen to all of us. I know it gets old for you after a while but I think 1121
listening to our concerns and some of our suggestions should prove valuable. I just have a few points to make, first 1122
is that although the Rural Buffer portion of that Davis Road property is supposedly going to be left to be wild land or 1123
whatever, all the traffic from this development now will be exiting onto Davis Road and going through a Rural Buffer 1124
area which seems counter to the purpose of that zoning designation. Another point I want to make is that Mr. 1125
Beeman mentioned that he drove Davis Road and Old 86 and the service road, if that was any time after February or 1126
March of this year, it was during the pandemic and the traffic has admittedly been much less during that time even 1127
through this current period of time because there’s no school traffic currently. Next point is that reading through the 1128
UDO, the purpose of the MPD-CZ zoning is to provide economical and efficient use of land, efficient land use, 1129
improve level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious variety, creative design and a better environment and I don’t 1130
see where this project is likely to provide any of that for us. I, like everybody else tonight, urge you to not approve 1131
this plan and not sent it forward to the Board of Commissioners. Thank you for your time. 1132
1133
Declan Cambey: My name is Declan Cambey, I’m 18 years old and I’ve lived in Hillsborough my whole life. I’ve 1134
grown to know all my neighbors, have usual and local restaurants and I’ve walked down the Riverwalk with friends or 1135
into the new Orange County library to check out a new book probably 100s of times. Now both the Riverwalk and the 1136
new library and the development with Paw at the Corner and Whit’s Frozen Custard, these have all greatly improved 1137
my quality of life so I’m all for development that can benefits the members of this community of this town. But from 1138
what I’ve read and what I’ve heard today this proposal for Research Triangle Logistics Park will actively hinder the 1139
quality of life for Hillsborough natives by increasing traffic, noise and pollution while simultaneously destroying 1140
precious green space along Davis Road and along Old NC Hwy. 86 which is a designated scenic byway and houses 1141
many cyclists as has been mentioned. Now I know the applicant team has brought many experts to try to address all 1142
of our concerns but that doesn’t change the fact that this is not what our community wants. I found out about this 1143
meeting on Instagram and this account has 50 followers mostly young folks like myself that I went to school with at 1144
Cedar Ridge. The Facebook group against this industrial park has 386 members and there have been thousands of 1145
signatures on the petition that has been mentioned earlier. On another note, the possibility of jobs is not the promi se 1146
of jobs. As has been mentioned, these developers have not shared any companies or agencies that will set up shop 1147
in this research park. Also, when many traditional jobs are transitioning online why are we investing in warehouse 1148
space that could just be bought over by large companies like UPS and Amazon, this is not a necessary project right 1149
now and I call on the Planning Board to reject its proposal. As a young person, I speak for all future generations that 1150
will suffer if this project is approved. Thank you. 1151
1152
Rebecca Drapp: I live off NC Hwy 86. I moved to Hillsborough like others have said for the community aspect of it. I 1153
feel like this is going to destroy our community for all the reasons other people have said, decreasing property values 1154
even when they were given that presentation they couldn’t guarantee that this would raise the property values. I 1155
worry about the quality of life for everyone with the trucks with the big industry. I think the charm of Hillsborough is 1156
the very rural, local businesses that is how we make our community better. That’s according to local businesses and 1157
reinvesting in small places and it sounds like this is just going to be a big warehouse where, I don’t even know if it’s 1158
going to have good quality jobs. I’ll cede because it’s late, thank you for listening. I just wanted to voice my dissent to 1159
this project. 1160
1161
Jeb Kelly: I live off Davis Drive, a couple things I wanted to point out that haven’t been mentioned, the developer in 1162
their pitch tonight referenced the 40-year history of planned development here. I don’t think that 40 years included 1163
routing 90% of the traffic onto Davis Drive. In Ms. Greene’s presentation, she referenced the amount of traffic 1164
coming onto Davis Drive as approximately 1600 vehicles a day, I went back and reviewed the TIA from the DOT and 1165
they estimated over 3600 vehicles a day, 90% of that would be about 3100. I think we deserve a little more of an 1166
explanation on the discrepancy there. Ms. Greene also in her own words, mentioned that people will tend to find a 1167
different route of willing to drive further when traffic backs up and that’s exactly our concern. When traffic backs up at 1168
that exchange of 86 and 40, regardless of the signage, they’re going to be looking for other routes, they’re going to 1169
come down Davis, Ode Turner they’re going to head to that 4-way stop at New Hope. They’re going look for other 1170
ways. On top of that there’s a reason that they’re looking at the 40 exchange here, a lot of people are skeptical of the 1171
jobs being created, I think we have a right to be skeptical, I think there’s a lot of jobs would go to Mebane, Burlington, 1172
Durham. I think we’ve be compromising our community here for commuters and I think Orange County Planning 1173
39
Approved 9/2/2020
Board should be looking out for Orange County residents, number one and that’s why I’d like to echo the concerns of 1174
others and urge you to consider a plan that would limit the size and scope of this to what fits on the current acreage 1175
available for economic development access via the service road. Thank you. 1176
1177
Justin Mitchell: My name is Justin Mitchell, I own several acres of land on Davis Road adjacent to my brother’s 1178
property and I’ve dreamed of one day living there near my family. The appeal of that dream would certainly be gone 1179
if there were huge warehouses peeking through the woods just a few hundred feet from my property. That said, one 1180
thing that we’re concerned about is the runoff that will be generated due to the massive amounts of impervious 1181
surface that would be created by the project. The excess runoff would flow down Davis Road where we had a 1182
sinkhole last year where you can see the floodplain crossing Davis Road. That’s due to the currently excessive 1183
amounts of water that flows down there. I think it’s important that an analysis be done to assess the impact of the 1184
impervious surface. One other quick thing that I would like to add is about noise because I think it’s serious, let me 1185
just point out Orange County specifically prohibits the use of lawn equipment after 9 p.m., if that’s the case how can 1186
we possibly allow diesel trucks operating overnight creating noise that is up to 26 times louder than gas powered 1187
lawn equipment. I think it’s imperative that a noise impact analysis the development is approved we need to protect 1188
the hearing of our residents and prevent the potentially massive disruption to the children at the preschool and of 1189
sleep, peace and the calm of the residents in the area. That’s all thank you. 1190
1191
Nan Fulcher: My name is Nan Fulcher and I’m a resident of Cornwallis Hills that’s on the north side of I-40 but 1192
according to the traffic predictions, there is an impact going up the corridor here of NC 86 about 20% of the traffic 1193
looked like on the traffic reports. Thank you for hearing everyone out tonight, as you, members of the Planning 1194
Board consider the project and make your recommendations to the Commissioners, please consider that the 1195
rezoning proposal at hand, or any proposal for that matter, please consider it from the standpoint of whether it can 1196
withstand legal challenge. The few things in this arena to think about are that rezoning is supposed to be based on 1197
the needs of the neighborhood and community not just secure special benefits for a single property owner. How can 1198
the County assure citizens this is not the case since the rezoning was requested by the applicant rather than being 1199
initiated by the County. Second consideration is whether there are other legitimate ways in which the property owner 1200
could develop the area for economic benefit without requiring rezoning. Third is that the rezoning must still maintain 1201
a harmonious land use pattern that is the juxtapositions still need to make sense. Does shoehorning a 300,000 sq. ft. 1202
warehouse and truck driveway next to private homes make sense? Also, ask whether the zoning change is in 1203
harmony with the legitimate expectations of the neighbors who live in a residential area next to Rural Buffer and part 1204
of the NC Scenic Byway. Lastly, in rezoning, the substantial benefit for one party cannot offset the substantial harm 1205
to neighbors. Even if you believe that a warehouse complex benefits the community, via job creation, or shoring up 1206
the tax base, the rights of the adjacent landowners cannot be ignored. As one Davis Road resident said, the County 1207
only gets one chance to zone this area appropriately so please consider carefully your guidance on this issue. Thank 1208
you. 1209
1210
Sascha Godfrey: My name is Sascha, I’m 16 years old, a student at Orange High and I grew up in New Hope 1211
Springs, a neighborhood off Davis Road. I first want to thank the Planning Board for allowing us to speak and 1212
secondly, I want to plead the Planning Board to really pay attention especially given that we have listened to 2 hours 1213
for our 3 minutes of time to bottle together all of our concerns. With my 3 minutes, I could speak about the for my 1214
safely as a probable collegiate runner training on Davis Road or I could speak about my concern as a new driver and 1215
for the safety of my younger sister who will be driving soon on a road with an influx of trucks at the upper end given 1216
that young drivers have a much higher rate of accidents. However, I have one main probably more practical point to 1217
make in the development presentation earlier, it was mentioned that the development will be 2.25 million sq. ft. of 1218
building area. In parentheses, it was listed initially and that the current traffic analysis that is being used for the 1219
approval of this project is based only on the 2.25 million sq. ft. In the News of Orange article posted today, Michael 1220
Harvey mentioned that this space could occupy up to 4 million sq. ft. The applicant refused to comment. So what is 1221
actually being approved here? Along with the proposed uses how can you be sure that we have control over the 1222
tenants and the size of this development once it’s built? I am very concerned by the precedent this sets for rezoning 1223
a residential neighborhood into an industrial area. The developer seemed to try to slide through the idea that the 1224
closest home will be 1000 feet away, however, that will actually be walls of the warehouse 100 feet from the person’s 1225
property. I cannot see a place for a 60-foot warehouse next to 10 to 20 foot one and two story homes. Harvey 1226
mentioned at the August 5th meeting that buildings must be kept in harmonious style with the surrounding residential 1227
areas. I’m asking that we flesh out the development ordinances so it’s in cooperation with the surrounding residential 1228
area. Thank you. 1229
40
Approved 9/2/2020
1230
Dana Brinson: My name is Dana Brinson and I live in rural Hillsborough off of Dodson’s Crossroads. I’m about 10 1231
minutes’ drive from the proposed development. I wanted to thank the residents on Davis and Old 86 for their 1232
thorough questioning of this project. An analysis of the concerns related to potential noise, air and water pollutions, 1233
traffic concerns and protecting the Rural Buffer. I wanted to share my voice and that of many of my neighbors here in 1234
Rider’s Trail who stand with all who have spoken tonight about these serious concerns. I want to state clearly that 1235
this is not just a not in my back yard issue but a serious concern for all of Hillsborough and greater Orange County. 1236
Thank you. 1237
1238
Ashley Lorusso: My name is Ashley Lorusso, I live on Davis Road about two miles west of the proposed 1239
development. I am just calling in tonight to voice my opposition to the development. This is going a severe impact, 1240
not only on Davis Road, but on the surrounding community well beyond Davis Road, well beyond surrounding 1241
community, well beyond the intersection of Davis Road and Old 86, into Hillsborough and Chapel Hill. It has not 1242
been thoroughly vetted there are plenty of options that would explore further for development in this area and come 1243
to a conclusion that is much more suitable and harmonious for this area and the community. Thank you for your 1244
time. 1245
1246
Jesse Kaufmann: I agree with everyone who has spoke against this tonight. I want to add on to what they’ve said, I 1247
want to throw in small remark because I heard Adam say that he came down on Davis Road and checked it out and 1248
also, said he couldn’t see why a truck would want to take a right on Davis Road because they want to get on 40 as 1249
quick as possible which would make sense unless he lived on Davis Road which makes no sense to me because I 1250
actually go the back way if I want to go to the Tanger Outlets for example, I don’t go to Davis Road to Old 86 to 40, I 1251
go what I call the back way which I consider quicker through all these country roads and especially Davis to Orange 1252
Grove to Dimmicks Mill to then Ben Johnson Road gets you right to 40 and 85 very fast all through these beautiful 1253
country roads. I just wanted to throw that out to you. Thank you very much. 1254
1255
Amanda Shakhloul: I want to give my mom permission to speak for me, I agree with whatever my Mom’s going to 1256
say. My mom lives in this area too. Yes, my name is Vicky Riley Berry, I’m 65 just like Gerald Scarlett we all grew 1257
up together here on Old 86. I’m a Hillsborough native and I just retired from Duke North University Hospital as an 1258
RN, BSN and I have several issues. I am heavily, heavily concerned with my husband, Ricky Berry and my 1259
daughter, Amanda Berry Shakhloul and her daughter and she’s going to have a baby in a month. I am concerned 1260
about the destruction of life and many people may end up suffering with a lot of unnecessary cancerous diseases. 1261
We do want to preserve our very quiet, peaceful and clean living here. We do have a spring {inaudible} that is joining 1262
about 100 feet from the service road right here at I-40 and on up we have our own well and this was my childhood 1263
farmhouse that I grew up and lived. I know every inch and every piece of the woods here on Old 86 being a child 1264
here. I am concerned about noise pollution, the high decibel pitch sounds that can cause severe deafness and air 1265
pollution is not going to help the global warming situation either. All these warehouses that heaven knows there 1266
could 1000s of chemicals stored in them or nothing at all and because of the industry proposal, soil and water 1267
contamination, increased toxic, all kinds of horrible things that are in the soils that can cause a destruction and even 1268
animals, cats, dogs, lowercase animals, insects everything that’s necessary to the ecology of life too. All these 1269
diverse cultural residents that are my friends that I went to school with, I work with for many years, everyone all of us 1270
can be {inaudible} affected because of this noise, air, the large trucks carrying all this horrible toxic products that in 1271
their trucks through the Town of Hillsborough. 1272
1273
David Blankfard: All right, are there any questions or comments or further from the Board? 1274
1275
Randy Marshall: I’ll make some comments, first I’d like to say we’ve heard from about 60 folks over 2 different nights 1276
of hearing testimony and I want to tell people we appreciate them sharing the information with us and certainly 1277
understand and appreciate them sharing their concerns. Just a personal note, I’ve been in Orange County as a 1278
resident for about 50 years and in the time, I’ve been in Orange County there have been pressing concerns that have 1279
continually come before the governments in Orange County. One is that taxes are too high and the other is we don’t 1280
have enough money for the schools. The Economic Development Districts have created, decades ago, to encourage 1281
commercial development in Orange County away from Chapel Hill and Carrboro who seem to take and send any 1282
proposal for economic development to Durham or Chatham County. Walmart went to Chatham County, Lowes went 1283
to Durham and there are numerous others that were not able to get a foot in the door in Orange County. These 1284
Economic Development Districts were created to provide commercial tax base, provide jobs and they were set up 1285
41
Approved 9/2/2020
close to the interstates in areas that at the time they were established didn’t have many residents. We understand 1286
that many of the people who have spoken, 2 weeks ago and tonight, have been recent residents moving into those 1287
areas and so we understand their concerns. On the other hand, there’s been very little interest in developing these 1288
Economic Development Districts in the last 30 or 40 years and now we have a proposal which offers the opportunity 1289
to increase our tax base, take some other pressure off property taxes, increase the possibility of additional sales 1290
taxes even if it doesn’t create 4500 jobs, the jobs that is does create will be beneficial. So, I would like to cast my 1291
views on what’s going on and those terms that we serve all of the residents of the County and we’d like to be able to 1292
just serve a couple of neighborhoods at a time but the residents of all of Orange County those concerns of more 1293
money for the schools, more taxes and more job opportunities hopefully will serve the entire community. At some 1294
point I’m willing to introduce a proposal for us to vote upon when other people have spoken. 1295
1296
Kim Piracci: Nobody’s going to be surprised when I disagree a little bit with Randy. Unlike Randy, I’ve only lived in 1297
Orange County 24 years and my husband moved us around a lot of places in the Country before we settled here. I 1298
never heard of a place that had enough tax base or small enough taxes. People’s taxes can never be small enough, 1299
trust me it’s a financial truth. So, although I know that is a persuasive argument, for many if not most people. For me 1300
it falls on deaf ears, what concerns me, actually a little more is there’s a lot of things about this development that 1301
concerns me but I think the biggest one came very early in the comments when one of the residents said that they 1302
assured us that he lived on a property that the developer thought there was no house on. In fact, it seems that a lot 1303
of people live on properties that the developer thought there were no home on and so what it says to me is that either 1304
the developer is misinformed or disingenuous. In either case, I feel like we need to give them an opportunity to go 1305
back and maybe come to us with more correct facts. Also, the transportation continues to disturb me. I apologize to 1306
you all, I did not get the updated information, I don’t know if it’s the post office but I feel like I need to examine that 1307
better than on an inch of screen and like one of the homeowners said, that was very extremely cherry picked 1308
information that was provided. So, again, I just feel that to make a good decision, we all want what’s best for Orange 1309
County, I feel like to make the best decision I can make, I need a little bit more time and I need them to provide a little 1310
bit more accurate information before I can comfortably vote to promote the project. 1311
1312
Adam Beeman: I want to state that for 13 years of my life, I lived less than 200 ft. from an industrial park. It wasn’t 1313
the end of the world, the traffic wasn’t the end of the world, the noise wasn’t the end of the world and as a matter of 1314
fact, that was where I go my first job in high school. I would leave high school on work study and I would go work in 1315
one of those businesses in that industrial park that was right behind my house so for me I’ve lived there, I’ve dealt 1316
with it and dealt with the traffic, we dealt with diesel exhaust before they even came up with the DEF for the trucks. 1317
It’s not as bad as people are making it out to believe. I believe we need the tax revenue in this county and I am for it 1318
all the way. That’s the end of my pitch. Thank you. 1319
1320
Carrie Fletcher: My 2 cents is very simply that I have a hard time buying into it when I don’t know what they’re doing. 1321
I know Orange County needs the revenue, I know all counties in North Carolina, I know all counties everywhere 1322
needs the revenue but to say, here you go and we’re going to offer this package to them and say go for it. I don’t 1323
know what you’re doing there and here’s carte blanc to go for it. I don’t know what they’re going to manufacture 1324
there. I don’t know what they’re going to put in those trucks. I don’t know what they’re going to do a year from now 1325
once they open their doors. I don’t know, I mean other that what the County say they can and can’t do in that 1326
building, whether they tan hides or they… I think they know what tenants they have coming in there and I think they 1327
have a good idea. But, I just don’t feel comfortable saying go for it guys and make it work. So be it, it’s a huge 1328
project to put out there and I’ve seen, where I came from, in South Florida what happens when projects don’t work 1329
and you end up with a very big, ugly, empty building that is good for nothing and nobody. I would hate to see that 1330
happen out there, five years from now and so I really need more information to really help to make me be persuaded 1331
to just say thumbs up and tally ho but I want to support it, I want to make sure that it’s a good thing for Orange 1332
County. It’s a hard thing environmentally for me to say that I’m behind it because it’s a big decision to say that I’m 1333
going to tear down 50 acres of beautiful land out in Hillsborough to build a giant warehouse. It’s a big decision. I 1334
want to make sure that it’s right. 1335
1336 MOTION by Randy Marshall to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency indicating the Zoning Atlas 1337
Amendments are reasonable and in the public interest as contained in Attachment 5. Seconded by Adam Beeman. 1338
1339
ROLLCALL VOTE: 1340
Randy Marshall: Yes 1341
42
Approved 9/2/2020
Hunter Spitzer: No 1342
Melissa Poole: No 1343
Kim Piracci: No 1344
Susan Hunter: Yes 1345
Carrie Fletcher: No 1346
Adam Beeman: Yes 1347
Alexandra Allman: Yes 1348
Patricia Roberts: Yes 1349
David Blankfard: Yes 1350
MOTION PASSED 6-4 1351
1352 Craig Benedict: You also would need to vote on the proposed ordinance Attachment 6. 1353
1354 MOTION by Randy Marshall for approval of the Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas as well as imposing 1355
development conditions as well as the ones we approved today for the identified parcels as contained in Attachment 1356
6. Seconded by Adam Beeman. 1357
1358 ROLLCALL VOTE: 1359
Randy Marshall: Yes 1360
Patricia Roberts: Yes 1361
Hunter Spitzer: No 1362
Melissa Poole: No 1363
Kim Piracci: No 1364
Susan Hunter: Yes 1365
Carrie Fletcher: No 1366
Adam Beeman: Yes 1367
Alexandra Allman: Yes 1368
David Blankfard: Yes 1369
MOTION PASSED 6-4 1370
1371 Randy Marshall: I was particularly persuaded by a couple of the things the Mitchell spoke to tonight and I 1372
would encourage the developer to get more information environmental assessment such as air quality, 1373
noise pollution and stormwater control. The three of those presentations that were presented to us tonight 1374
seem particularly important and well thought out. I don’t know if they were included in the 100s of pages, 1375
we received but this has not been completely and fully addressed. I would hope that the developer would 1376
consider getting that information before the public hearing and the presentation to the Board of County 1377
Commissioners. 1378
1379
Craig Benedict: For the purpose of the Board, we’ve taken notes and minutes for the first meeting as we 1380
have with this meeting and we will be putting together a frequently asked questions document that will try to 1381
answer objectively the comments that have come up from both the Board and the public. September 15, 1382
2020 is the scheduled virtual meeting for the formal public hearing for the Board of County Commissioners. 1383
1384
1385
AGENDA ITEM 11: ADJOURNMENT 1386
Meeting was adjourned by consensus 1387
1388
1389
David Blankfard, Chair 1390
43
STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY
OF A PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT
WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A Planning Director initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas to rezone 8 parcels as follows:
Lot
Number
Parcel
Identification
Number (PIN)
Township Owner of
Record
Current Zoning District Proposed Zoning District
1 9873-11-4636 Hillsborough Michael Dodson Master Plan Development
Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ)
Settlers Point;
Major Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Overlay District
Economic Development
Hillsborough Limited Office
(EDH-2)
Major Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Overlay District.
2 9873-11-7506 Hillsborough Michael Dodson Master Plan Development
Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ)
Settlers Point;
Major Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Overlay District
Economic Development
Hillsborough Limited Office
(EDH-2)
Major Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Overlay District.
3 9873-11-5415 Hillsborough Michael Dodson Master Plan Development
Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ)
Settlers Point;
Major Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Overlay District
Economic Development
Hillsborough Limited Office
(EDH-2)
Major Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Overlay District.
4 9873-11-9450 Hillsborough Paul Dodson Master Plan Development
Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ)
Settlers Point;
Major Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Overlay District
Economic Development
Hillsborough Limited Office
(EDH-2)
Major Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Overlay District.
5 9873-11-7247 Hillsborough Cathy Fuquay
Cynthia Bessoir
Master Plan Development
Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ)
Settlers Point;
Major Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Overlay District
Economic Development
Hillsborough Limited Office
(EDH-2)
Major Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Overlay District.
6 9873-10-7937 Hillsborough Steven and
Jesse Kaufman
Master Plan Development
Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ)
Settlers Point;
Major Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Overlay District
Economic Development
Hillsborough Limited Office
(EDH-2)
Major Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Overlay District.
7 9873-10-4310 Hillsborough Beatrice Brooks Master Plan Development
Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ)
Settlers Point;
Major Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Overlay District
Rural Residential (R-1)
Economic Development
Hillsborough Limited Office
(EDH-2)
Major Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Overlay District.
Rural Residential (R-1)
8 9873-20-2388 Hillsborough Robert and
Lucille Ayers
ETAL
Master Plan Development
Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ)
Settlers Point;
Major Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Overlay District
Economic Development
Hillsborough Office/Retail
(EDH-4)
Major Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Overlay District.
Attachment 3
44
The Planning Board finds:
a. The requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete; and,
b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the
North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within
the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
1. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the
following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives:
Objective ED-1.5:
Identify barriers to development of desirable businesses and local businesses, and
mitigate these barriers.
The atlas amendment is consistent with this goal and objective as it
eliminates the need for the parcels to comply with development criteria
associated with a previously approved Master Plan Development
Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district. This district, commonly referred to as
Settlers Point, is being modified. These 8 parcels will have difficulty meeting
established development conditions/standards due to the proposed
modification. By rezoning these parcels, the County will be providing
opportunities for each lot to be developed consistent with applicable County
land use standards as embodied within the UDO.
c. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it:
1. Modifies existing non-residential zoning designations in an effort to provide
each property owner with an opportunity/path forward for the reasonable
development of their property.
The Planning Board of Orange County hereby recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners consider adoption of the proposed Zoning Atlas amendments.
______________________ ________________________
David Blankfard, Chair Date
09.09.2020
45
STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY
OF A PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT
WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
An applicant initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas to rezone 3 parcels as follows:
Parcel
Identification
Number
(PIN)
Township Owner of
Record
Current Zoning District Proposed Zoning District
9863-71-8857 Hillsborough Suzanne
McGrady
Master Plan Development
Conditional Zoning (MPD-
CZ) Settlers Point;
Major Transportation
Corridor (MTC) Overlay
District
Master Plan Development
Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ)
Research Triangle Logistics
Park;
Major Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Overlay District.
9863-91-6573 Hillsborough Christy Bailey
– ETAL
John Clayton
Master Plan Development
Conditional Zoning (MPD-
CZ) Settlers Point;
Economic Development
Hillsborough Limited
Office (EDH-2) - north of
Interstate 40
Major Transportation
Corridor (MTC) Overlay
District
Master Plan Development
Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ)
Research Triangle Logistics
Park;
Economic Development
Hillsborough Limited Office
(EDH-2) – north of Interstate
40
Major Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Overlay District.
9862-99-8894 Hillsborough Facility Care
Services Inc.
Rural Residential (R-1)
Rural Buffer (RB) –
approximately 26,000
sq.ft. along Davis Road
Master Plan Development
Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ)
Research Triangle Logistics
Park;
Rural Buffer (RB) –
approximately 26,000 sq.ft.
along Davis Road
The BOCC finds:
a. The requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete; and,
b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the
North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within
the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
1. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the
following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives:
• Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location,
pattern and designation of future land uses, with availability of
County services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of
Attachment 2
46
Orange County’s population and economy consistent with other
Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives.
The County and Town of Hillsborough have engaged in
numerous studies/joint planning efforts over the last 20 years
identifying area viable for the extension of utilities (i.e. water
and sewer) in support of high intensity residential and non-
residential land uses.
In 2017, these efforts led to the adoption of the Town of
Hillsborough and Orange County Central Orange
Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan.
This plan indicates the area in question is intended to
support ‘Employment’ and ‘Suburban Office Complex’ land
use categories, specifically areas that are best suited to
allow for the development of light industrial/manufacturing,
office, research/development, and service/warehousing
operations.
The requested rezoning will allow development consistent
with the overall spirit and intent of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan as well as applicable joint planning
efforts completed by the County and the Town.
• 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.)
The atlas amendment is consistent with this goal and
objective with the approval of a rezoning of property creating a
district allowing for the development of high density non-
residential land uses in an area of the County designated for
the location of adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e. water
and sewer).
c. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it:
1. Expands economic development prospects within the County while
continuing to protect adjacent and nearby land uses.
The atlas amendment involves the approval of a master plan
establishing a detailed list of allowable non-residential land uses to
aid in the marketing on an area designated within the
Comprehensive Plan as being suitable for high intensity non-
residential development.
The expansion is consistent with County and Town of Hillsborough
plans outlining those parcels suitable for service by water/sewer
that are prime for high intensity non-residential development.
47
Further, the approved master plan establishes mandatory land use
buffers and setbacks for development within the project to ensure
off-site impacts are mitigated.
The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this Statement of Consistency and
findings expressed herein.
______________________ ________________________
Penny Rich, Chair Date
48
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS
WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition submitted by
Terra Equity Incorporated (hereafter ‘the Applicant’) seeking to amend the Orange
County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO); and
WHEREAS, This petition seeks to rezone 3 parcels totaling approximately 161 acres
of property to Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZD) for the
purpose of developing the Research Triangle Logistics park (RTLP) development (hereafter
‘the Project); and
WHEREAS, The properties subject to this rezoning are identified, utilizing Orange
County Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN), as:
i. A 90.37 acre tract of land PIN# 9863-71-8857,
ii. Approximately 60 acres of land PIN# 9863-91-6573, and
iii. A 12 acre parcel of land PIN 9862-99-8894,
hereafter ‘the Property’; and
WHEREAS, The applicant has voluntarily chosen to establish development and land
use limitations on the Project to address potential conflicts with surrounding properties; and
WHEREAS, This petition has been submitted in concert with a formal master plan in
accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.2 (C) of the UDO; and
WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 and 2.9.2 of the UDO have been
deemed complete; and
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be
reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the
Orange County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone aforementioned 3 parcels of
property to Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) and allow
development of the Project as detailed within the submitted application.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT The terms and conditions contained herein
shall encumber the Property and bind the owners and lessees thereof, their successors
Ordinance #: ORD-2020-022 Attachment 3
49
in title and interest. The development of the Project as well as all necessary site
improvements, both internal and external to the Project, shall be reviewed, approved,
and developed in accordance with:
a. The applicable provisions of the Orange County Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO),
b. Any and all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations, and
c. The application package as submitted by the Applicant and as approved by
the Orange County Board of Commissioners on October 6, 2020.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT in accordance with Section 2.9.2 (F) of the
UDO the approval of this Conditional Zoning applicant is subject to the following
mutually agreed to conditions:
I. GENERAL:
a. Approval of the Project does not constitute an explicit guarantee for utility
services (i.e. water and sewer) by the Town of Hillsborough. Provision of
services shall be consistent with applicable Town utility connection
policies and the utility agreement between the Town and Orange County;
b. The Project shall be composed of 3 individual properties totaling
approximately 161 acres of land area further defined as follows:
i. PIN 9863-71-8857: An approximately 90 acre parcel currently
zoned MPD-CZ (Settlers Point) and Major Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Overlay District;
NOTE: MTC Overlay district boundaries not impacted by
this approval.
ii. PIN 9863-91-6573: An 80 acre parcel currently zoned:
1. Approximately 60 acres (south of Interstate 40) zoned MPD-
CZ (Settlers Point);
2. Approximately 20 acres (north of Interstate 40) zoned
Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Officer (EDH-
2). This portion of the property will remain zoned EDH-2 and
shall be developed consistent with that general use zoning
designation.
3. Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District.
NOTE: MTC Overlay district boundaries not impacted by
this approval. EDH-2 zoned portion of property, north of
Interstate 40, is not impacted by this approval and will
remain zoned EDH-2.
iii. PIN 9862-99-8894: An approximately 12 acre parcel currently split
zoned Rural Residential (R-1) and Rural Buffer (RB).
50
NOTE: The RB zoned portion of property, along Davis
Road, is not impacted by this approval and will remain zoned
RB. This area shall remain either in undisturbed open
space, used to support required utility improvements
consistent with Town of Hillsborough or County
requirements, or to support external roadway
improvement(s) consistent with County and NC Department
of Transportation requirement(s).
c. The Zoning Atlas for Orange County shall be designated MPD-CZ.
Development shall be in accordance with the approved application packet,
master concept plan, and the conditions detailed herein.
II. SITE PLAN:
a. All site plans proposing development within the Project shall be reviewed
by Town of Hillsborough staff as part of existing courtesy review
agreements;
b. All site plans shall provide detail denoting the anticipated daily water and
sewer needs for proposed land use(s);
c. Consistent with existing inter-local utility agreements between Orange
County and the Town of Hillsborough, the Project has a utility allotment of
108,000 gallons a day of water/sewer service. Site plans proposing
development/land uses exceeding this daily allotment shall be required to
provide documentation from the Town of Hillsborough indicating there is
sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve the proposed development. A
lack of water and/or sewer capacity shall result in the denial of the site
plan;
d. Prior to the approval of a site plan allowing development within the
Project, the County will need documentation from the Town of
Hillsborough indicating there is sufficient water and sewer capacity to
serve the project. A lack of water and/or sewer capacity for a proposed
use shall result in the denial of the site plan;
e. The Orange County and Town of Hillsborough Fire Marshal(s), in
consultation with the Town of Hillsborough Utility Director, shall review and
approve location(s) of proposed water and sewer lines prior to the
initiation of land disturbing activity;
f. The Orange County and Town of Hillsborough Fire Marshal(s) shall review
and offer comment on:
i. Road layout and construction methodology,
ii. Location of fire lanes,
iii. Location of fire hydrants, and
iv. Location of the proposed stand-pipe(s).
51
as part of all site plan review.
g. Each site plan shall be required to demonstrate compliance with Section
6.16 Environmental Assessment of the UDO. In those cases where
development exceeds established thresholds, a formal Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) may be required allowing for site plan approval;
h. In addition to the standards detailed in Section 2.5 of the UDO, all
landscaping plans shall include information denoting the proposed method
of care (i.e. underground sprinklers, maintenance personnel, etc.) for the
development.
i. Identified conflicts associated with landscaping shall be resolved prior to
the approval of the site plan for a given project;
j. For all site plans submitted for the Project the Orange Rural Volunteer Fire
Department shall be considered a member of the County Development
Advisory Committee (DAC) as outlined in Section 1.9 of the UDO to review
a projects compliance with applicable development standards including,
but not necessarily limited to: land use regulations, conditions of MPD-CZ
approval, applicable State fire/building codes.
k. Site plans shall contain documentation outlining proposed and/or existing
cumulative impervious surface area as well as building/open space ratios
within the Project.
III. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS:
a. The Project shall observe a floor area ratio (FAR) limit of 0.32 or a building
square footage limit of 2,400,000 sq.ft. consistent with the submitted
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) approved as part of this master concept plan.
Additional floor area may be developed with the submittal of a revised,
updated, TIA in accordance with the provisions of the UDO. 1
b. Height:
i. Principal structures shall abide by a height limit of 60 ft., measured
from the top of the floor/slab to the roof deck of a structure.
No structure shall be erected on the Davis Road parcel exceeding
40 ft. in height, as measured to the roof deck from the highest
elevation of Davis Road where said building has frontage.2
ii. Accessory Structures:
1. Water tower
1 Yellow highlight denotes modification to proposed condition(s) consistent with the applicant’s presentation at
the September 15 and 22 public hearing limiting the allowable building square footage for the Project.
2 Yellow highlight denotes a modification to a proposed condition is an attempt to address concerns expressed
during the public hearing over anticipated development of the Davis Road property as part of the Project. The
applicant and staff are still reviewing proposed language.
52
STAFF COMMENT: The narrative makes references to
‘accessory structures’ exceeding the 60 ft. height limit.
At this time there is no specific explanation of the anticipated
accessory structures that will exceed 60 ft. in height or what
the ultimate height limit for said structures will be.
The applicant will need to specify an overall height limit for
those specific land uses, which shall then be incorporated
into the conditions of approval.
Staff requests review of the item/concern with the applicant
and BOCC members in order to fashion final condition
language that is mutually agreeable to all parties.
c. Setbacks:
i. Structures shall observe:
1. 100 ft. setback from property lines abutting residentially
zoned property and the Davis Road right-of-way;
2. 50 ft. setback from property lines abutting non-residentially
zoned property and the Service Road right-of-way.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff had recommended a 100 ft.
setback from all external property lines abutting residentially
zoned property, as well as the right-of-way of Davis Road,
for structures and vehicular use areas. Staff requests review
of the item/concern with the applicant and BOCC members
in order to fashion final condition language that is mutually
agreeable to all parties.
Staff requests review of the item/concern with the applicant
and BOCC members in order to fashion final condition
language that is mutually agreeable to all parties.
ii. Vehicular use areas shall observe:
1. 50 ft. setback from property lines abutting residentially zoned
property and the Davis Road right-of-way;
2. 25 ft. setback from property lines abutting non-residentially
zoned property and the Service Road right-of-way.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff had recommended a 30 ft.
setback for vehicular areas be observed from Service Road.
This was consistent with a recommendation for a 30 ft. land
use buffer along the roadway as well.
Staff requests review of the item/concern with the applicant
and BOCC members in order to fashion final condition
language that is mutually agreeable to all parties.
53
d. Open Space: 41 acres (25%) of land within the Project shall be preserved
as open space area.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff had recommended an open space
requirement of 49 acres or 30% for the Project.
IV. ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION:
a. Internal roadways shall be developed in accordance with Section 6.10 (A)
of the UDO. Internal streets shall be privately maintained;
b. External roadway construction/improvements shall be completed or
appropriately bonded prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance
(C of C) allowing the occupancy of a structure triggering completion of
same;
c. External roadway improvements shall be constructed in accordance with
NC Department of Transportation requirements and guidelines, approved
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), and the standards outlined herein;
d. The right-of-way for Service Road shall be extended to the western edge
of the PIN 9863-71-8857 to serve as a future access point for adjacent
land area to the west;
e. Final roadway layout, including pavement widths and driveways, shall be
approved by the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County Fire Marshal’s
office as part of the final site plan review process;
f. Signage shall be placed directing vehicles to turn left onto Davis Road in
order to access Interstate 40/85;
g. Site plan submittals shall be required to demonstrate internal/external
traffic improvements necessary to address development impacts
consistent with the submitted Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA);
h. Any and all internal streets, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, etc. shall be
designated for public access/use for employees/customers/visitors to the
site;
STAFF COMMENT: Highlighted text added to address applicant
concern over ‘the general public’ access on-site amenities intended
to serve clients/customers.
i. Driveway permits, when required, shall be applied for and issued by the
North Carolina Department of Transportation;
j. Orange County and North Carolina Department of Transportation shall
approve the location of all proposed external utility poles housing street
signals prior to installation;
k. Segregated entrances and exists for pedestrian, construction vehicle, and
non-construction vehicular traffic shall be developed to avoid conflict
during construction activities;
54
l. Any required or requested bus pullouts and/or transit shelters shall be
constructed to serve the Project consistent with transit plans adopted by
Orange County and shall be developed in accordance with the following:
i. Each transit stop shall be a covered and enclosed on 3 sides to
shield users from the elements,
ii. Kiosks shall be developed to provide transit information, including
schedule and route information, and shall be illuminated to five (5)
average maintained foot-candles.
m. No tractor trailer traffic, or other similar vehicle exceeding 35,000 pounds,
shall access Davis Road. Such traffic shall utilize Service Road to obtain
access to Old NC Highway 86.
n. Driveway access onto Davis Road shall be designed to limit traffic existing
the project to only a left turn thereby directing traffic towards Old NC
Highway 86.
o. At the time development within the Project exceeds allowable traffic trips
for the preservation of the left turn movement from Service Road onto Old
NC Highway 86, as detailed in the Projects traffic impact analysis and/or
as determined by the NC Department of Transportation consistent with
external roadway improvements, an alternative traffic
alignment/improvement shall be required to serve the Project allowing for
both left and right turn access onto Old NC Highway 86.
This alternative shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County and
the NC Department of Transportation and shall be installed in conjunction
with the proposed development project generating the need for said
alternative traffic alignment/improvement.
This shall be reviewed as a modification to the Project requiring the public
hearing approval process detailed within the County Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO). 3
V. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:
a. The Project shall comply with Section(s) 6.4.2 through 6.4.7 of the UDO
inclusive;
b. Solid Waste Management: The following specific standards shall apply:
i. External space for collection of solid waste and recyclable
materials. Materials collected shall be consistent with the County’s
Solid Waste Management ordinance.
3 Yellow highlight denotes modifications adding 3 new conditions designed to address concerns expressed during
the public hearing over anticipated development of the Davis Road property as part of the Project. The applicant
and staff are still reviewing proposed language associated with these conditions.
55
ii. Waste collection areas shall be located in such a manner as to
provide convenient access for users of the facility and safe passage
for service vehicles.
iii. The following additional notes shall be provided on any submitted
site plan:
1. Gate design will include gate retainers.
2. If any vehicles are parked in the refuse or recyclables
collection vehicle access area, the containers will not receive
service until the next scheduled collection day.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff recommends vehicles not
be parked in areas blocking/prohibiting access to
waste receptacles.
3. Orange County will not be responsible for any pavement
damage that may result from service vehicles.
4. In cases where waste collection areas are located across
property lines or district lines for shared areas, the developer
shall prepare and record a joint access agreement (and a
shared dumpster agreement) to assure that (both parties
may use) the proposed trash/recycling area and that it can
be serviced across property lines.
5. The developer shall reserve space within all solid waste
collection areas for segregated grease rendering/recycling
collection facilities and shall provide space for segregated
food waste collection near the delivery entrance for any
building that houses, proposes to include, or may at some
future date incorporate a restaurant, cafeteria, bar, or other
food service facility at any time.
6. All solid waste containers, dumpsters, recycling bins, etc.
shall be located within an enclosure, buffered in accordance
with the standards contained herein, and meeting the
following criteria:
a. Loading areas shall be designed and situated not to
negatively affect adjacent properties.
b. Solid waste enclosures shall be so located as to not
impact internal traffic flow,
c. Loading zones shall not be located within areas
designated as housing for solid waste facilities.
c. Architectural Design: The following specific standards shall apply:
i. Finished building materials shall be applied to all sides of a
building;
56
ii. Exterior wall materials shall include, but not be limited to:
1. Stucco,
2. Concrete,
3. Textured concrete,
4. Wood,
5. Glass,
6. Steel,
7. Brick,
8. Stone, and
9. Masonry.
iii. Prohibited design elements include:
1. Highly reflective surfaces,
2. Exposed, untreated precision block walls;
3. Barbed wire;
4. “Stuck on” mansard roofs;
5. Materials with high maintenance such as stained wood
shingles.
iv. An internal architectural review committee shall be established to
ensure proposed building colors strive to be harmonious and
compatible with the natural surroundings and the general overall
palette shall be earth tones; consistent with the standards detailed
within the approved application;
STAFF COMMENT: It is unclear how this condition will be
enforced.
v. Single, dominant, monolithic building mass is not acceptable.
Visual breaks shall be used to provide ‘visual relief’ for long building
facades. Acceptable techniques to provide visual breaks include,
but are not limited to:
1. Changes in height and the horizontal plane,
2. Changes in Materials,
3. Changes in Textures,
4. Changes in Color,
5. Reveals and/or Jogs,
6. Utilization of other architectural enhancements.
57
STAFF COMMENT: It is unclear how this condition will be
enforced. There is no definitive, proposed, method of
determining when visual relief will be required.
vi. Primary building entries shall be readily identifiable and well defined
through the use of projections, recesses, columns, roof structures,
or other design elements.
vii. Expansions to an existing buildings shall provide for continuity
between the existing building and the proposed addition. The
addition need not strictly match the existing building, but shall
include prominent design elements of the old building to provide
architectural compatibility between old and new.
STAFF COMMENT: It is unclear how this condition will be
enforced. Staff is concerned over the lack of measurable
standard.
viii. Building design/construction shall not preclude incorporation of
alternative energy systems such as solar panels. 4
ix. Equipment (i.e. HVAC, elevator overrides, etc.) shall be screened
utilizing 1 of the following methods:
1. Clad in exterior materials that are non-reflective or
illuminated, OR
2. Designed as an architectural feature of the proposed
structure, OR
3. Screened through some vegetative buffer or fencing.
x. All buildings constructed within the Project shall utilize
equipment/appliances/etc. be energy star rated;
xi. Development within the Project shall utilize LED lighting for interior
and exterior lights;
xii. Development within the Project shall utilize rain reclamation
devices collecting rainwater for irrigation purposes;
xiii. Development within the Project shall incorporate ‘cool roof’ systems
into their design. The cool roof system is designed to deliver higher
solar reflectance (i.e. the ability to reflect the visible, infrared and
ultraviolet wavelengths of the sun, reducing heat transfer to the
building, etc.) and higher thermal emittance (the ability to radiate
absorbed, or non-reflected solar energy) than standard designed
roofing products.
xiv. Motion control activated lighting shall be used for all internal
building lighting to prevent internal lights being left on indefinitely;
4 Condition added to address Planning Board concern(s) identified during the August 5 and 19, 2020 regular
meeting. The applicant agreed during the meeting to the proposed language.
58
xv. Bio retention basins (i.e. rain gardens) shall be incorporated into
the Project to capture and treat runoff from truck wells within
proposed loading docks;
xvi. No barbed wire products shall be used/incorporated on the 12 acre
parcel along Davis Road;
xvii. Low flow toilets and water fixtures shall be used within the
development for all restroom or general use facilities not associated
with a manufacturing or research process. 5
d. Landscaping/Buffering:
i. All required landscaping shall be installed and maintained by the
developer or their successor in perpetuity;
ii. Existing vegetation shall be preserved in identified buffer areas as
indicated on the approved master concept plan. In those instances
where foliage is disturbed or non-existent, landscaping shall be
installed consistent with the following schematic:
STAFF COMMENT: Staff recommends the minimum linear
foot of planting be reduced to 100 ft. (i.e. the number of
trees for every 100 ft. of required buffer area versus 150 ft.
as proposed by the applicant) consistent with Section 6.8.6
(F) of the UDO.
5 Yellow highlight denotes new conditions recently proposed by the applicant during the public hearing in an
attempt to address BOCC and adjacent property owner concerns over the incorporation of ‘green building
standards’ for the Project. The applicant and staff are still reviewing proposed language.
59
Further, staff recommended a 100 ft. perimeter buffer be
observed for portions of the Project abutting residentially
zoned property and Davis Road. The applicant has
expressed concern over this suggestion, but indicated a
willingness to discuss options. Part of this discussion
includes a request to modify required stream/floodplain
buffer requirements (discussed below).
Staff requests review of the item/concern with the applicant
and BOCC members in order to fashion final condition
language that is mutually agreeable to all parties.
iii. Interior landscaping shall be consistent with the following:
1. Parking lot:
a. A ten-foot vegetated buffer shall be provided between
vehicular use areas and internal access roads.
STAFF COMMENT: It is recommended there
be additional language specifying the type of
foliage required (i.e. shrubs, flowering plants,
etc.)
Staff requests review of the item/concern with
the applicant and BOCC members in order to
fashion final condition language that is mutually
agreeable to all parties.
b. Shade trees shall be provided at a ratio of one (1),
one and one half-inch (1.5”) minimum caliper tree for
every ten (10) car parking spaces; Caliper size is
measured at the time of planting.
c. All site plans shall demonstrate a minimum of sixty
percent (60%) of passenger parking spaces are within
seventy-five (75) feet of the center of a shade tree. If
not, additional landscaping shall be required.
d. The minimum tree planting area shall be 200 square
feet except where tree grates are provided.
e. Where trees are planted within tree grates, and
surface paving encroaches into the planting area,
then the minimum planting area shall be sixteen (16)
square feet in area by two (2) feet in depth.
f. Screening of parking areas along the perimeter
boundary of the project shall maintain a minimum tree
spacing of sixty (60) feet.
2. Building foundation:
60
a. Twenty percent (20%) of a building’s perimeter shall
be landscaped while maintaining the necessary
sidewalk area.
b. These areas may consist of lawn, planters, or shrub
areas so long as the shrub areas, that have to be
twenty-four inches (24”) minimum in width, comprise a
minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the total linear
dimension along the building’s perimeter
3. With respect to internal street landscaping, there shall be
one (1) tree at a one-inch (1”) caliper provided every one
hundred (100) feet;
4. All ground level HVAC, mechanical equipment cabinets,
solid waste containers, dumpsters, recycling bins, etc. shall
be screened from view through the use of landscaping,
walls, and or fencing in accordance with Section 6.8.9 of the
UDO.
iv. The Project shall comply with the provisions of Section 6.6.4 of the
UDO related to preservation of required buffers within the Major
Transportation Corridor (MTC) overlay district. This includes the
ability to create visual breaks in the buffer in accordance with
Section 6.6.4 (A) (5).
e. Parking:
i. Parking lot design and layout shall be in accordance with Section
6.9 of the UDO;
ii. 1 space shall be required for every 750 sq.ft. of office space;
iii. 1 space per 3,000 sq.ft. of additional indoor area (exclusive of office
area).
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed standard does not
address all anticipated land uses for the Project. Staff has
recommended the applicant comply with the provisions of
Section 6.9.7 of the UDO, specifically:
• General Office and Service Uses: 1 space for
every 300 sq.ft. of gross floor area.
• Medical Office: 1 space for every 300 sq.ft. of
gross floor area.
• Manufacturing: 1 space per employee on the shift
of maximum employment.
• Retail: 1 space for every 300 sq.ft. of 300 sq.ft. of
gross floor area.
61
• Wholesale Trade: 1 space per employee on
maximum shift plus 12 spaces.
• Research: 1 space per employee.
• Distribution/Fulfillment Operations: 1 space per
employee on the shift of maximum employment.
Ultimately, required parking standards needs to reflect
allowable land uses within the project (i.e. there needs to be
a parking standard addressing all anticipated land uses to be
developed within the Project).
Staff requests review of the item/concern with the applicant
and BOCC members in order to fashion final condition
language that is mutually agreeable to all parties.
f. Signage:
i. Signs shall be permitted consistent with the approved sign master
plan for the project;
ii. Final location/size shall be reviewed/approved by staff as part of a
site plan submitted in accordance with Section 2.5 of the UDO and
the conditions contained herein.
g. Lighting:
i. Lighting plans shall be prepared in accordance with Section 6.11 of
the UDO;
ii. All lighting shall be full-cut off fixtures;
iii. Lighting in parking areas shall observe a height limit of 45 ft.;
iv. All lighting shall comply with maximum foot-candle limits at property
lines as noted in Section 6.11.6.A of the UDO;
v. Lighting within the Project shall abide by the standards detailed in
Section 6.11.8 of the UDO.
h. Stream Buffers: The Project shall comply with the provisions of Section
6.13 of the UDO.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant had inquired about reducing
required stream/floodplain buffers to a minimum standard of 50 ft..
This was suggested as a way of allowing for a perimeter buffer of
100 ft. as requested by staff.
At this time, staff has not made a determination on this request but
believes it warrants discussion.
Staff requests review of the item/concern with the applicant and
BOCC members in order to fashion final condition language that is
mutually agreeable to all parties.
62
i. Stormwater regulations: The Project shall comply with the provisions of
Section 6.14 of the UDO.
j. Erosion Control regulations. The Project shall comply with the
provisions of Section 6.15 of the UDO
k. Flood regulations: The Project shall comply with the provisions of
Section 6.21 of the UDO.
VI. PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED LAND USES:
STAFF COMMENT: There is no concern over the proposed land
uses, most of which would be permitted under the County’s general
use zoning designation for the property (i.e. EDH-4 or EDH-5) and
were permitted under the current MPD-CZ (Settlers Point).
Staff has expressed reservations with respect to the format of how
permitted/prohibited land uses are listed.
a. Manufacturing: Land uses category associated with assembly, repair or
servicing of industrial, business, or consumer machinery, equipment,
products, or by-products mainly by providing centralized services for
separate retail outlets. Contractors and building maintenance services and
similar uses perform services off-site.
Permitted uses, by way of example and not limitation, include the
following:
i. Bottling.
ii. Brewery, winery, distillery, cidery with tasting/sampling facilities and
associated retail sales.
iii. Bus or rail transit vehicle maintenance or storage facility.
iv. Contractors storage including janitorial and building maintenance
service, exterminator, or other maintenance yard or facility,
building, heating, plumbing, landscaping or electrical contractor and
others who perform services off-site, but store equipment and
materials or perform fabrication or similar work on-site.
v. Food and beverage products.
vi. Lawn, tree or garden service.
vii. Laundry, dry-cleaning, and carpet cleaning plants.
viii. Leather and leather products except tanning.
ix. Sheet metal, welding, machine, tool repair shop or studio.
x. Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products.
xi. Woodworking, including cabinet makers and furniture
manufacturing.
63
xii. Fabricated metal products and machinery.
xiii. Industrial sign-making.
xiv. Manufactured or modular housing sales.
xv. Primary metal manufacturing.
b. Light Manufacturing: Land use category associated with facilities
conducting light manufacturing operations within a fully-enclosed building.
Permitted uses include by way of example and no limitation, the following:
i. Clothing, textile apparel manufacturing.
ii. Facilities engaged in the assembly, design, repair or testing of:
analyzing or scientific measuring instruments; semiconductor and
related solid state devices, including but not limited to clocks,
integrated microcircuits; jewelry, medical, musical instruments,
photographic or optical instruments; and timing instruments.
iii. Office showroom/warehouse.
iv. Printing, publishing, and lithography.
v. Production of artwork and toys, graphic design sign-making, movie
production facility, photofinishing laboratory.
vi. Repair of scientific or professional instruments and electric motors.
c. Research and Development: Land use category associated with facilities
focused primarily on the research and development of new products. This
includes associated manufacturing operation(s) for said products.
Permitted uses include by way of example and not limitation the following:
i. Laboratories, offices and other facilities used for research and
development by or for any individual, organization or concern,
whether public or private.
ii. Prototype production facilities that manufacture a limited amount of
a product in order to fully investigate the merits of such a product.
iii. Pilot plants used to test manufacturing processes planned for use
in production elsewhere.
d. Warehousing/Storage: Land use category associated with facilities
providing separate storage areas for personal or business use designed to
allow private access by the tenant for storing or removing personal
property.
Permitted uses include by way of example and not limitation the following:
i. Warehouse, self-service.
ii. Fully enclosed indoor multi-story storage.
64
iii. Mini-warehouse.
e. Warehousing/Distribution Services: Land use category associated with
facilities involved in the storage or movement of goods for themselves or
other firms. Goods are generally delivered to other firms or the final
consumer with little on-site sales activity to customers.
Permitted uses include by way of example and not limitation the following:
i. Bulk storage, including nonflammable liquids, cold storage plants,
including frozen food lockers, household moving and general
freight storage, separate warehouse used by retail store such as
furniture or appliance store.
ii. Commercial packing for fruits and vegetables.
iii. Distribution facility, central postal facility.
iv. Freight, service facility.
v. Parcel services.
vi. Transfer and storage business where there are no individual
storage areas or where employees or automation are the primary
movers of the goods to be stored or transferred.
vii. Trailer storage, drop off lot.
viii. Truck or motor freight terminal, cross-docking or service facility.
ix. Trucking operation.
x. Warehouse.
f. Wholesale Trade: Land use category associated with facilities involved in
the sale, lease, or rent of products to industrial, institutional or commercial
businesses. The use emphasizes on-site sales or order-taking and often
includes display areas. Businesses may or may not be open to the general
public. Products may be picked up on-site or delivered to the customer.
Permitted uses include by way of example and not limitation the following:
i. Mail-order house.
ii. Sale or rental of machinery, equipment, heavy equipment, building
materials, special trade tools, welding supplies, machine parts,
electrical supplies, plumbing supplies, janitorial supplies, restaurant
equipment and store fixtures.
iii. Wholesale sales of food, clothing, auto parts, building hardware
and similar products.
g. Other Facilities: including by way of example and not limitation, the
following:
i. Customary Accessory Uses to Principal land uses developed on-
site
65
ii. Government Facilities and Office Buildings
iii. Government Protective Services
iv. Bus Passenger Shelter,
v. Surface and structure parking as principal use
vi. Mail kiosks for central mail pick-up,
vii. Elevated Water Storage Tanks.
viii. Public open space for use of on-site businesses, employees of
same, and customers rather than the general public.
ix. Natural and man-made pedestrian/bicycle paths
h. Prohibited Land Uses: The following land use categories and/or specific
land uses are expressly prohibited from developing within the Project:
i. Animal Slaughtering and Processing;
ii. Vegetable Fats/Oil Manufacturing and Processing;
iii. Concrete Batching Plant;
iv. Leather and Hide Tanning;
v. Petroleum and Coal Processing, Preparation, and Distribution
including but not limited to Asphalt Plants;
vi. Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills;
vii. Sawmills;
viii. Mining;
ix. Landfills;
x. Body alteration (i.e. tattoo artist, body piercing, etc.);
xi. Cemetery;
xii. Crematoria;
xiii. Funeral Home;
xiv. Pawnshop/Payday Loan.
xv. Junk/Salvage yard;
xvi. Massage Business;
xvii. Sexually Oriented Business;
VII. UTILITIES:
66
a. Development within the Project shall be served by public water and sewer
services as provided and maintained by the Town of Hillsborough;
additional and/or alternative water and/or wastewater systems shall not be
permitted.
b. A written, signed agreement between a developer, Orange County, and
the Town of Hillsborough shall be executed describing the timing, phasing,
design, and financing of public water distribution and public sanitary sewer
collection mains;
c. Water systems and water pressure shall comply with all applicable Town
of Hillsborough utility standards, building, and fire codes based on the
proposed land use;
d. Sizing/looping of utility lines shall be based on the proposed development,
including water flow test data and shall be reviewed and approved by
County staff, Town of Hillsborough Planning Director, and the Town of
Hillsborough Utility Director;
e. Fire-flow test(s) of all installed hydrants shall be conducted, in
coordination with the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County
Emergency Services, to ensure compliance with applicable State Fire
Code standards.
VIII OTHER: 6
a. No permanent fuel or chemical storage shall occur within 30 ft. of a
floodplain/stream buffer established consistent with the provisions of
Section 6.13 of the County UDO.
b. A minimum of 2 electrical vehicle charging stations shall be installed for
every building constructed on-site. Additional stations may be proposed
as part of the site plan review process.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of
published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption.
Upon motion of Commissioner ________________________, seconded by
Commissioner ________________________, the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
________ day of ___________________, 2020.
I, Greg Wilder, Interim 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 held on ________________________, 2020 as relates in
6 These 2 conditions were added to address Planning Board comments from the August 5 and 19, 2020 meeting.
The applicant agreed to the imposition of these conditions.
67
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
________________________________
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
68