HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-15-2020 Virtual Business Meeting 1
APPROVED 10/20/2020
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
VIRTUAL BUSINESS MEETING
SEPTEMBER 15, 2020
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Virtual Business Meeting on Tuesday,
September 15, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Penny Rich and Commissioners Jamezetta
Bedford, Mark Dorosin, Sally Greene, Mark Marcoplos, Earl McKee, and Renee Price
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
Travis Myren, Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt, and Assistant Deputy Clerk Allen Coleman
(All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Due to current public health concerns, the Board of Commissioners conducted a Virtual
Business Meeting on September 15, 2020. Members of the Board of Commissioners
participated in the meeting remotely. As in prior meetings, members of the public were able to
view and listen to the meeting via live streaming video at orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-
Videos and on Orange County Gov-TV on channels 1301 or 97.6 (Spectrum Cable).
In this new virtual process, there are two methods for public comment.
• Written submittals by email
• Speaking during the virtual meeting
Detailed public comment instructions for each method are provided at the bottom of this
agenda. (Pre-registration is required.)
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
Chair Rich requested that the Consent Agenda, item 8, be moved after item 4 and
before item 5.
The Board agreed by consensus.
Chair Rich read the public charge.
Chair Rich acknowledged the 3-minute timer for public comments, and said there are 90
people signed up to speak.
Arts Moment— No Arts Moment will be available for this meeting.
2. Public Comments
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
NONE
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
2
(These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
below.)
3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members
Commissioner Price expressed congratulations to Julia Drahzal Orange County's
Governor's Medallion Award winner for volunteer service, as well as all other nominees from
Orange County.
Commissioner Price referred to the Andrea Harris Social, Economic, Environmental
Health and Equity Task Force, which is focusing currently on communities of color and the
disproportionate impact of Covid-19 on these communities. She said this group is seeking
public input, via 2-minute time slots on 9/22 and 9/29, related to its 5 focus areas.
Commissioner Price said that on Sunday, September 27 at 3pm there will be a Zoom
event called, "Breaking Barriers: women of color and the right to vote", with Valerie Johnson of
Shaw University. She said the Human Relations Commission is sponsoring this event.
Commission Bedford had no comments.
Commissioner Greene said she attended the Family Success Alliance (FSA) meeting,
and was interested to learn about the scholastic support center at the YMCA. She said this
provides K-8 grade socially distanced spaces to complete schoolwork. She said this is a great
program for parents of lower income children.
Commissioner Marcoplos said he has been thinking about the amount of idling, due to
increased use of drive-thrus. He said local students did such wonderful work last year promoting
an anti-idling campaign. He said he would like to ask the Commission for the Environment to
explore how to work with all local businesses, banks, restaurants, etc. to look into the issue of
idling.
Commissioner Marcoplos said the Board has discussed the possibility of a new EMS
substation. He said he spoke with David Silvan, part time EMS worker, and asked what he
thought about response times and if a 3 minute reduction would really have an impact in
northern Orange County. He said there was a plan proposed by Nick Waters to have
paramedics with "fly cars", which have response times of 8 minutes, as opposed to 12-15
minutes instead of ambulances. He asked to explore this possibility, as paramedics are highly
trained and can handle so much in the field.
Commissioner Marcoplos said the Orange County Climate Council is having a public
outreach event on Thursday, October 22nd, 2020 at 7p.m., to celebrate the first year of work. He
said this will be via Zoom, and invited everyone to tune in.
Commissioner McKee joined the meeting at 7.07 p.m.
Commissioner Dorosin said 90 people plan to speak this evening, and asked if the plan
was to meet until 1:00 a.m.
Chair Rich said because it is a Public Hearing the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) cannot limit the amount of speakers, and it is likely there will be approximately 4 hours
of public comment.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if other agenda items could be continued, or the public
hearing be spread out over two meetings. He said he wants to be conscientious of the
speakers, and be most fair and effective.
Commissioner McKee said he spoke about broadband last week, and Orange County
Schools (OCS) purchased and distributed 900 units, but still has a 400-person waiting list for
hotspots. He said he would like to move expeditiously to help address this problem. He
petitioned the Board to ask the Manager to contact Orange County Schools Superintendent and
Board of Education Chair to determine how and in what manner Orange County could aid in
procuring the 400 units for hotspots. He said OCS is pursuing grant funding to acquire the
3
hotspots, but that is too slow. He said Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) may need
some help too.
Chair Rich acknowledged Ralph Karpinos, Town of Chapel Hill Attorney's Office, who is
the longest serving municipal attorney in the State and is retiring. She applauded his service.
Chair Rich and Commissioner Price met with the joint school boards in anticipation of
the joint meeting next week. She said CHCCS does not need any more hotspots. She said
both school districts are opening learning centers with the YMCA and churches to help students
and families. She said the schools are also discussing various re-opening plans for January,
and it is currently unclear how things will proceed.
Chair Rich provided a COVID update: Orange County is under 4% of test positive rate,
and needs to stay under 5% for at least 2 weeks to get the gathering limits back up.
Chair Rich said flu season starts in October and goes through May. She urged
everyone to get flu shots.
Chair Rich said the Health Department will be able to swab twice, testing for Flu and
COVID tests at the same time.
Chair Rich said the peak hurricane season is here, and there are 5 hurricanes in the
ocean currently, with hurricane Sally possibly headed for North Carolina.
Chair Rich said emergency services said Hurricane Sally will be a mostly rain event.
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
a. Resolution Supporting the Decriminalization of Marijuana
The Board considered voting to adopt a Resolution Supporting the Decriminalization of
Marijuana.
BACKGROUND:
BOCC Chair Penny Rich submitted a petition at the Board's September 1, 2020 Business
meeting proposing that the Board consider a resolution supporting the decriminalization of
marijuana.
Public Comment:
Riley Ruske said tobacco is not allowed to be smoked in public places in Orange
County, and he wonders if Orange County would add marijuana to this list, thus re-criminalizing
its use after decriminalizing it. He said there are other health risks with marijuana, and it is often
seen as a gateway drug to other more dangerous drugs. He encouraged the BOCC not to pass
this resolution.
Chair Rich read the resolution:
RES-2020-052
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF MARIJUANA
WHEREAS, The current prohibition of marijuana in North Carolina has caused the needless
arrest and incarceration of thousands of individuals, predominantly people of color, for
nonviolent crimes, at great social and economic cost despite the fact that people of color and
whites use marijuana at the same rates, and
WHEREAS, According to an American Civil Liberties Union study, as a result of disparate
enforcement, Black North Carolinians are over three times more likely to be arrested for
marijuana possession, and
4
WHEREAS, an arrest for possession of marijuana can have an impact on housing, student
loans, future employment, child custody determinations and many other circumstances; and
WHEREAS, Studies also show that criminalization has not protected public health, in terms of
adverse effects of marijuana itself or in deterring substance abuse and addiction; and
WHEREAS, Marijuana legalization is sound public policy, necessary to address the health and
societal impacts of marijuana criminalization and the inequitable implementation of
incarceration-based policies, and
WHEREAS, the most recent Public Policy Polling results show North Carolinians support
marijuana legalization by a margin of 48% to 42%;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Orange County Board of Commissioners
supports the decriminalization of marijuana in North Carolina and state legislation to legalize the
distribution, sale, and use of marijuana products pursuant to regulatory and taxation frameworks
designed to ensure appropriate use (including through age and other evidence-based
restrictions) for recreational and medical purposes while providing treatment for substance
abuse;
BE IT FURTHERMORE RESOLVED that the Board believes such legislation should also
provide for the expungement of records for individuals previously convicted of crimes of
distribution, possession, or use of marijuana products;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board believes funds from the taxation of marijuana
sales should be used for the benefit of the communities most impacted by the incarceration of
people for behavior that society is legalizing, including the investment of marijuana sales tax
revenues for job training, reentry services, diversion programs, legal aid, literacy programs,
youth mentoring and substance use treatment;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Orange County Board of Commissioners
requests that the North Carolina General Assembly advocate for federal legislation to end the
prohibition of marijuana at the federal level, with its removal from the Controlled Substance Act,
and the expungement of records for those previously convicted of federal crimes for the
distribution, possession, or use of marijuana, as well as authorize state legalization policies and
enabling the use of marijuana for medical purposes, including in federally funded programs.
This the 151h day of September, 2020.
Penny Rich, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos
to adopt the Resolution, and authorize the Board Chair to sign the Resolution.
Commissioner McKee said he will not vote in favor of this. He said the title of the
resolution mentions decriminalization, but the points within the resolution mention legalization of
marijuana, taxes to be collected from marijuana, etc., which seems in conflict to the title.
5
Roll call ensued
VOTE: Ayes (6); Nays (1) Commissioner McKee
Chair Rich asked if staff would send the resolution to Orange County's local legislators,
and all other counties across the State.
CONSENT AGENDA MOVED UP
8. Consent Agenda
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
None
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
approve the consent agenda.
Roll call ensued
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
a. Minutes — None
b. Submission of 2021 Reappraisal Schedules of Values
The Board received the proposed 2021 Reappraisal Schedules of Values (SOV); review a
statutory-compliant timeline of the proposed adoption process; and schedule a public hearing on
October 6, 2020 concerning adoption.
c. Amendment to and Renewal of Health Services Agreement with Southern Health
Partners for Medical Services at the Orange County Detention Center
The Board approved an amendment to and renewal of the Health Services Agreement with
Southern Health Partners for medical services at the Orange County Detention Center.
d. Designation of Orange County Agent for FEMA Public Assistance
The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, designating an agent for
Orange County's application for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Public
Assistance for the recovery related to COVID-19, affecting Orange County's entire community
since March 2020 with expected impacts to continue for years out and authorize the Chair to
sign.
e. Approval of Driveway Easement Extending from Jacobs Trail
The Board granted a driveway easement in an unused, undeveloped dedicated right of way
extending from the end of Jacobs Trail and authorize the Chair to execute the documents.
f. City of Durham's Teer Quarry Reservoir— Resolution of Support from Orange County
for Reclassifying a Segment of the Eno River for Water Supply in Durham County
The Board approve the signature by the Board Chair of a Resolution of Support from Orange
County related to the City of Durham's (City's) proposed initiative to make the Teer Quarry
Reservoir a new public water supply and reclassifying a segment of the Eno River within
Durham County as Water Supply, in conformance with the State's Water Supply Watershed
Protection Program. The City has formally requested Orange County's support for this effort
which would require the County to take the necessary steps to provide public notice and initiate
the associated public hearing(s), Planning Board meeting(s) and Board of County
6
Commissioners (BOCC) meeting(s) to amend land use restrictions imposed by water supply
watershed protection rules for the affected areas within Orange County.
g. Appointment of Interim Clerk
The Board appointed an Interim Clerk to the Board of Commissioners during the search for a
permanent Clerk and authorized the Chair to sign.
h. Citizen Participation Plan for Federal Housing/Community Development Funds
The Board approved the Citizen Participation Plan for use in the implementation of Federal
housing programs and funds and authorized the Chair to sign.
5. Public Hearings
Chair Rich asked if John Roberts could help the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) determine the best course of action for the large public hearing.
John Roberts said the Board can establish reasonable rules, and holding the public
hearing over multiple evenings is permissible. He said there is a new law in place pertaining to
remote meetings, and there is argument on both sides as to whether a vote can be taken on the
same night as a meeting. He recommended the Board conduct the public hearing, and vote at
a subsequent meeting, as the new law does require a 24-hour written comment period after any
remote public hearing. He said he would favor holding the entire public hearing on the same
night.
Commissioner Dorosin said the Board wants to hear all comments, and his goal is to
making the public hearing most effective and efficient as possible. He said a 5 or 6 hour
meeting is not effective or efficient. He said not everyone has that much time to wait. He said
the most accommodating and most transparent method would be to break the hearing into 2 or
3 sessions. He said allowing for written comments is good, and he wants to have the most
meaningful opportunity for all. He recommended breaking up the public hearing into 2 or 3
nights, and revisit the remaining agenda and vote to delay items to another meeting.
Commissioner McKee agreed with Commissioner Dorosin. He said the Board will not be
fresh and attentive after 5 hours.
Commissioner McKee asked the County Attorney if a 2 week notice would still be
required if the Board were to spread the public hearing over 2 evenings.
John Roberts said the Board can continue to the public hearing to a date certain, and
does not have to give further public notice.
Commissioner McKee recommended continuing the public hearing to Thursday or next
Tuesday evening, so that it remains fresh on everyone's minds and allows everyone the chance
to speak.
Chair Rich said the BOCC does not currently have a meeting scheduled for 9/17 or 9/22,
and asked if continuing the public hearing would require a special meeting.
John Roberts said it would be a continued public hearing, and the announcement this
evening would satisfy the notice requirement.
Commissioner Price asked if the second half of the meeting must be held immediately or
if it could wait until the next business meeting.
Chair Rich said the next business meeting was 3 weeks away.
John Roberts said the Board could continue the meeting until the next business meeting
on 10/6.
Commissioner Price asked if staff could identify easily how to break up the public
speakers into two groups now, so that people are not waiting to speak.
Chair Rich said yes, the names are on a list, and she can identify the last speaker.
Commissioner Marcoplos suggested continuing the public hearing to the October 6"'
business meeting and voting at the October 20t" meeting.
Commissioner Greene agreed with splitting the meeting up, and said she is not available
this Thursday, due to speaking at other forums.
Commission McKee said he is worried about dragging out the Public Hearing, and
October seems a bit far. He said this item is very important to many people.
Commissioner Bedford asked if the October 6th agenda is already full, and, if so, she
would support adding another meeting.
Bonnie Hammersley said the big item for October 6th is this item, as staff expected the
Board to complete the public hearing tonight and need October 6th for discussion and voting.
She said if the Board wants to cut items from tonight's agenda, she would remind the Board that
the legislative agenda has a deadline of 9/30 to be sent to North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners (NCACC).
Chair Rich said she does not want to wait until October 6th, and she recommend
continuing the public hearing to September 22, 2020.
Commissioner McKee asked if any Board members have a conflict September 22, 2020.
There was no apparent conflict.
Commissioner Dorosin said staff should identify the halfway mark of those signed up for
public comment, so those people will know they will not get to speak tonight.
Chair Rich asked if this suggestion was acceptable to staff.
Bonnie Hammersley asked if new people will be allowed to speak at the continued
hearing, and if people will be allowed to speak a second time, etc.
John Roberts said no new or repeat speakers will be allowed. He said anyone can
submit written comment within 24 hours after the public hearing closes.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Bedford
continue the public hearing to date certain September 22nd, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Dorosin made a friendly amendment to continue the public hearing to
September 29, 2020, as the Board does not have any other meetings that week.
Commissioner McKee said he would accept that friendly amendment if the seconder
does so as well.
Commissioner Bedford said she would accept.
Commissioner Price said she cannot attend on September 29tn
Chair Rich called for a vote on the original motion for the 22nd
Roll call ensued
VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Greene, Bedford, Rich, McKee); Nays, 3 (Dorosin, Marcoplos, Price)
MOTION PASSES
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Greene to
read off the names of those who will make public comment at this meeting.
Commissioner Marcoplos requested a follow-up email be sent those who will make
public comment on September 22, 2020.
The Board agreed by consensus.
Roll call ensued
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8
Chair Rich read the names of those that will make public comment at this meeting (45
names).
a. Zoning Atlas Amendment— Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District
(MPD-CZ) for the Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP)
The Board held a public hearing to receive the Planning Board/staff recommendation
and public comment, and scheduled an action for a specific future date on applicant initiated
Zoning Atlas Amendments for parcels within the Hillsborough Township of Orange County.
Specifically, Terra Equity, Incorporated is seeking to rezone 3 parcels west of Old NC
Highway 86/south of Interstate 40 to Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ)
district.
A copy of the application is contained in Attachment 1. Attachment 2 contains a vicinity
map of the subject parcels. The complete application package, including full size maps, is
available on the County website at: https://www.orangecountync.gov/1722/Current-Interest-
Proiects.
BACKGROUND:
On January 23, 2018 the Orange County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) approved a zoning
atlas amendment creating a Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district
referred to as Settlers Point (materials from that meeting are available at:
http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/weblink/0/doc/49647/Pagel.aspx). The approved MPD-CZ
involved property on both sides of Old NC Highway 86 allowing for the development of a mixed
use commercial/industrial park. Since approval, no development activity has occurred.
Staff has received an application proposing a new MPD-CZ, including 2 parcels from this
previously approved project. If this application is approved, the existing MPD-CZ (Settlers Point)
will cease to exist. Development of subject parcels would be consistent with this new MPD-CZ
district designation.
STAFF COMMENT: A separate process is underway to rezone the eight parcels of
property east of Old NC Highway 86, part of what was referred to as District 2 of the
Settlers Point MPD-CZ, to an appropriate County economic development general use
zoning designation. This item is also being reviewed at the BOCC's September 15, 2020
public hearing.
The basic facts concerning this application are as follows:
Applicant(s): Terra Equity, Incorporated
Attn. Frank Csapo
3810 Springhurst Blvd
Suite 120
Louisville, KY 40241
Agent(s): Michael Birch
Longleaf Law Partners
4509 Creedmoor Rd.
Suite 302
Raleigh, NC 27612
9
Kimley-Horn
421 Fayetteville St.
Suite 600
Raleigh, NC 27601
Santec Consulting
(Traffic Engineers)
801 Jones Franklin Rd.
Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
Parcel Information: A. Parcels and Current Zoning: Subject parcels, identified
utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN), are:
1. PIN 9863-71-8857: An approximately 90 acre parcel
zoned MPD-CZ (Settlers Point) and Major Transportation
Corridor (MTC) Overlay District;
2. PIN 9863-91-6573: An 80 acre parcel zoned:
• Approximately 60 acres (south of Interstate 40)
zoned MPD-CZ (Settlers Point);
• Approximately 20 acres (north of Interstate 40)
zoned Economic Development Hillsborough
Limited Officer (EDH-2).
Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District.
3. PIN 9862-99-8894: An approximately 12 acre parcel split
zoned Rural Residential (R-1) and Rural Buffer (RB).
NOTE: The small portion of this parcel zoned RB,
approximately 26,000 sq.ft. in area along Davis Road,
is not proposed to be rezoned. It will remain zoned
RB.
None of the subject properties are located within a Watershed
Protection Overlay District.
B. Size: If approved, the new MPD-CZ district would be
approximately 161 acres in area.
C. Township: Hillsborough
D. Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Designation:
• PIN(s) 9863-71-8857 and 9863-91-6573 - Economic
Development Transition Activity Node
• PIN 9862-99-8894 — Rural Residential
STAFF COMMENT: A separate process is underway to change the
FLUM designation of this property. This proposal will be reviewed at the
BOCC's September 15, 2020 public hearing.
For more information please refer to the FLUM map contained in
Attachment 3.
E. Growth Management System Designation:
• PINs 9863-71-8857 and 9863-91-6573 — Urban Designated;
• PIN 9862-99-8894 — Residential Designated.
STAFF COMMENT: A separate process is underway to change the
designation of this property.
For more information please refer to the Growth Management
Systems map contained in Attachment 3.
10
F. Existing Conditions/Physical Features: Varying topography with significant wooded
areas and water features (i.e. ponds, streams, and floodplain).
G. Roads: Project proposes 2 access points off of Service Road (south of Interstate 40)
and Davis Road (south of PIN 9862-99- 8894). Both of these roads are maintained by
the NC Department of Transportation.
H. Water and Sewer: Utility lines, to be maintained by the Town of Hillsborough, will be
extended under Interstate 40 to serve the project.
Surrounding Land Uses:
• NORTH: Interstate 40; agricultural operation and single-family residential property
zoned Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) and Rural
Residential (R-1) approximately 110 acres in area.
• SOUTH: Davis Road; Hillsborough United Methodist Church; Undeveloped property;
Single-family residential property zoned Rural Residential (R-1) ranging in size from 2 to
12 acres.
• EAST: Single-family residential and undeveloped property zoned Economic
Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) ranging in size from 1 to 12 acres; Old
NC Highway 86.
• WEST: Single-family residential and undeveloped property zoned Rural Residential (R-
1) ranging in size from 1-'/2 to 50 acres.
MPD Conditional Zoning (CZ) Process: Involves approval of a rezoning petition and a master
development plan allowing for the development of a specific land use categories. Applications
are processed in a legislative manner (i.e. does not require sworn testimony or evidence) and
decisions are based on the BOCC's determination that the project is consistent with the purpose
and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
As this is a MPD-CZ proposal, a formal site plan is not required to be submitted as part of the
rezoning approval. Applicants are required to produce a master concept plan consistent with the
provisions of Section 6.7 of the UDO.
The application package was posted to Planning's website on or about June 19, 2020 and can
be accessed at: https://www.orangecountVnc.gov/1722/Current-Interest-Projects.
Development Process, Schedule, and Action: The typical cadence for the review of a CZ
application is:
• First Action — Planning staff schedules a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM).
Staff Comment— DONE. This meeting was held in an on-line format on July 15,
2020. Notes from this meeting are contained within Attachment 7.
• Second Action —The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting and
makes a recommendation to the BOCC.
Staff Comment - DONE. The Planning Board began review of the project at its
regular August 5, 2020 meeting, which was adjourned to a special meeting on
August 19, 2020 to allow for continued discussion. Excerpts of minutes from both
meetings are contained in Attachment 8.
• Third Action —The BOCC receives the Planning Board recommendation and makes a
decision at an advertised public hearing.
Staff Comment— Being held on September 15, 2020.
NOTE: As the public hearing is being held remotely, there is a 24-hour waiting
period required before the BOCC can make a decision, per State legislation. The
purpose of the 24-hour waiting period is to allow for submission of written
11
comments.
Per Section 2.9.2 (F) (3) of the UDO, mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed as part
this process only if they address:
1. The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property,
2. Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways and access points, parking, pedestrian and
vehicular circulation systems, screening and buffer areas, etc.) and/or
3. All other matters the County may find appropriate or the petitioner may propose.
If approved, the Zoning Atlas will be amended and the zoning designation of the property shall
be changed to MPD-CZ. Development, including permitted land uses, would be in accordance
with the approved development proposal and all conditions imposed as part of the zoning atlas
amendment process.
Development of the various parcel(s) shall only be permitted through the review and approval of
site plan application(s) in accordance within Section 2.5 of the UDO. Staff is responsible for
verifying all imposed conditions are adhered to and allow for final peer review by members of
the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) as detailed within Section 1.9 of the UDO.
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 2,250,000 sq.ft. of building area supporting
nonresidential development;
2. Preservation of approximately 41 acres (25%) of land as open space.
3. 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;
4. Vehicular access would be through Service Road, running parallel with Interstate 40,
and Davis Road;
5. Buildings would observe a 6 story height limit consistent with County regulations.
Accessory structures (i.e. water tower, telecommunication tower, etc.) may be higher.
6. 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.
12
Map of Subject Parcels
i I
PIN 3863-7 1 485 7 PIN 3863.93£573
{ 5
}
or
Staff has included a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document outlining various aspects of
the project in Attachment 12.
STAFF COMMENT: As previous indicated herein, 2 of the subject parcels are already
located within the Economic Development Transition Activity Node. Staff is proposing to
change the designation of the 12 acre parcel off Davis Road from Rural Residential to
Economic Development Transition as well. This change is consistent with previous
recommendations made by staff concerning the expansion of the County's economic
development area south of Interstate 40.
Access: As previously indicated herein, access for the project would be off of Service Road
(south of Interstate 40) and Davis Road (south of PIN 9862-99-8894). An internal road network
system, privately maintained, would provide access to individual land uses. The applicant is
proposing pedestrian paths/walkways allowing access between the anticipated land uses.
The submitted Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) identifies internal and external roadway
improvements that will be required. This includes the signalization of existing and proposed
intersections.
13
STAFF COMMENT: Both Planning and NC Department of Transportation (NC DOT)
staff have reviewed the proposal. Comments from County staff are contained in
Attachment 6.
The TIA indicates a secondary access point serving the project shall be necessary
giventhe anticipated intensity of the project, which NCDOT staff have determined
Service Road is unable to support. At this time the applicant is proposing to use Davis
Road to address this need.
Staff has expressed concern over anticipated access onto Davis Road. The TIA for the
project identified upgrades intended to ameliorate potential impacts to adjacent property
owners. This includes installation of a traffic light at the intersection of Davis Road and
Old NC Highway 86.
Staff has recommended the imposition of various condition(s) to address access management
issues as contained in Attachment 11.
Land Uses: As previously indicated herein, the applicant is proposing various land uses
focusing on warehousing/supply chain fulfillment services, research/development, and
manufacturing activities. The proposal also includes a list of prohibited land uses. As part of the
MPD-CZ process, only those approved land use categories can be eveloped within the project
consistent with applicable development standards.
STAFF COMMENT: Proposed uses are consistent with:
• The existing MPD-CZ for Settlers Point;
• Previous general use zoning district designation(s)for the parcels south of
Interstate 40, specifically Economic Development Hillsborough (EDH-5);
• Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO; and
• Anticipated land uses for the area as reflected within the adopted Orange
County Comprehensive Plan and the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County
Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan
Several comment(s) have been made insinuating the applicant is not providing
sufficient/specific information on the actual `tenants' for the project. It has been
suggested the County should deny the project unless/until specific tenants can be
identified for public scrutiny and approval.
Land use and zoning processes do not allow/require the level of scrutiny sought by the
general public (i.e. veto power on specific tenants). The applicant is obligated to identify
those land use categories it is seeking approval from the County to develop but are not
obligated/required to provide a site specific development plan identifying actual `tenants'
for approval.
Through this process, the County is essentially creating a new zoning district with
mandatory development standards/criteria governing actual development activities. The
County does have the ability to comment/make conditions on proposed land use
categories (i.e. manufacturing land uses, research land uses, professional office land
uses, etc.) but does not have the ability to compel the applicant's identify specific clients
or reject same.
If there is a concern over a particular activity, the BOCC can impose conditions
addressing same.
14
As an example: an applicant may propose to develop land uses falling into the
Manufacturing, Assembly, Processing of Food Items land use category. The BOCC has
the ability to take the position that these are acceptable land uses for a project, but
impose a condition prohibiting certain sub-category food manufacturing land uses such
as slaughter operations and/or seafood processing facilities, due to anticipated impacts.
Utilities: The project is proposed to be served by public water and sewer systems owned by the
Town of Hillsborough. Orange County is continuing to work with the Town to install a new sewer
line under Interstate 40. This work is consistent with a recently approved inter-local utility
agreement between Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough. Consistent with this
agreement, the project will be allotted approximately 108,000 gallons of water/wastewater
disposal daily.
Erosion Control/Stormwater Regulations: The applicant has indicated the project will abide by
existing stormwater, Section 6.14, and erosion control, Section 6.15, regulations of the UDO.
Land Use Buffers/External Setbacks: The applicant is proposing:
• PIN 9863-71-8857:
• 25 ft. buffer along Service Road;
STAFF COMMENT: Staff has recommended a 30 ft. Type A buffer along Service Road.
100 ft. building setback with a 50 ft. perimeter undisturbed buffer along the
western/southern property line. Parking/loading area/drive-aisles would observe a 50 ft.
setback from the property line;
STAFF COMMENT: Section 6.8.12 of the UDO would typically require a 100 ft.
perimeter, undisturbed, land use buffer along the western property line.
• PIN 9863-91-6573:
• 25 ft. buffer along Service Road;
STAFF COMMENT: Staff has recommended a 30 ft. Type A buffer along Service Road.
• 50 ft. perimeter buffer along the eastern property line. Parking/loading area/drive-isles
would be located within this area.
STAFF COMMENT: Per Section 6.8.12 (C) of the UDO, land use buffers are based on
proposed development as well as existing land use(s) on the adjacent parcel. Along the
eastern property line the required land use buffer, presuming development on the
subject parcel is manufacturing/warehouse space, would range from 20 to 40 ft. in width.
Further, Section 6.8.7 (D) (1) (a) of the UDO requires parking areas to observe a:
landscape area at least ten feet in width, exclusive of drainage and/or utility easements,
shall be provided between the vehicular use areas and the right of way or adjacent
property line.
• PIN 9862-99-8894:
100 ft. perimeter structure buffer. Parking/loading area/drive-aisles would be allowed as
shown on the concept plat;
• 30 ft. Type A land use buffer along Davis Road.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff recommended a 100 ft. perimeter, undisturbed, land use buffer
with no development activity permitted. The portion of this property zoned RB would
remain as undisturbed open space.
15
• Floodplain buffers shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.13 of the UDO (i.e.
buffer would be measured from the edge of the 1% area of annual inundation (i.e. the historic
100-year flood zone) and range from 65 to 80 ft. based on slope;
STAFF COMMENT: There has been discussion about reducing the required
floodplain buffer to 50 ft. as a means of securing the 100 ft. undisturbed perimeter buffer
suggested by staff.
• MTC Buffer: The applicant is proposing to abide by the standards contained in Section 6.6.4 of
the UDO including development of `visual breaks' within the buffer (Section 6.6.4 (A) (5) of the
UDO would allow for eliminating 50% of the MTC buffer to create visual breaks).
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant's proposed disturbance would be consistent with
existing allowances within the UDO.
Staff has recommended the imposition of various condition(s) to address land use
buffers/external setback issues as contained in Attachment 11.
Solid Waste: The applicant has indicated development within the project shall abide by the
Orange County Solid Waste Management Ordinance.
Environmental Assessment (EA): The applicant completed the EA for this project as required
under Section 6.16 of the UDO. The EA indicates:
• Project will not impact any environmentally sensitive areas;
• Preservation of existing hardwoods would occur outside of proposed development
areas;
• No grading activities would occur within the floodplain other than utility/road crossings
as permitted within the UDO;
• No historically significant or archeologically significant areas have been denoted on the
properties.
Staff has recommended the imposition of various condition(s) to address environmental issues
as contained in Attachment 11.
Other pertinent information concerning the proposed MPD-CZ are as follows:
• Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Designation: PIN(s) 9863-71-8857 and 9863-91-6573
are located within an Economic Development Transition Activity Node.
PIN 9862-99-8894 (Davis Road) is located within the Rural Residential land use
category. A separate process is underway to change the FLUM designation of this
property to Economic Development Transition Activity Node.
The FLUM can be accessed utilizing the following link:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4054/Future-Land-Use-Map-PDF.
• Comprehensive Plan: Per Appendix F, "Relationships Between Land Use Categories
and Zoning Districts Matrix"of the adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan, the MPD-CZ
district is a permissible zoning designation for property located within an
Economic Development Transition Activity Node.
For more information on the definition of activity node, and to review the allowed zoning
designations permitted within same, the Comprehensive Plan can be accessed utilizing
the following link:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/1242/2030-Comprehensive-Plan.
16
Growth Management System Map Designation: PIN(s) 9863-71-8857 and 9863-91-6573 are
located within an Urban designated area while the parcel on Davis Road is located within a
Rural Designated area. If the FLUM amendments (above) are approved, the designation of the
12 acre parcel will automatically change to "Urban".
STAFF COMMENT: The Growth Management System Map is a tool utilized by staff to
identify permit review thresholds for residential (i.e. subdivision) projects.
• Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA): The parcels
are located within the Hillsborough Primary Service Area meaning public utilities (i.e. water and
sewer) could be extended. Public utility service would be provided by the Town of Hillsborough.
The document can be accessed utilizing the following link:
http://www.orangecountVnc.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/4190Mater-and-Sewer-Management-
Planning-and-Boundary-Agreement-PDF
• Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land
Use Plan: These parcels are designated as being located within the following COCA land use
categories:
C PINs: 9863-71-8857 and 9863-91-6573: Employment
C PIN 9862-99-6573 — Recommended to be Suburban Office.
The recommended zoning designation/proposed land uses would allow development
consistent with the intent of COCA. For more information on the COCA land use
categories, please refer to Attachment 4.
Analysis: As required under Section 2.9.2 (E) of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to:
`cause an analysis to be made of the application'and pass that analysis on to the reviewing
body. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following:
1. The application is complete in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.9.2 (C)
of the UDO;
2. The proposal appears consistent with the various goals outlined within the
Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including:
a. 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 Orange County's population and
economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and
objectives.
b. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental
conditions and features and that protect natural resources, cultural resources,
and community character.
c. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program
and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character,
minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced
transportation system.
d. 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.
17
e. Economic Development Objective ED-2.1: Encourage compact and higher
density development in areas served by water and sewer.
f. Economic Development Objective ED-2.10: Extend public water and sewer into
all three Economic Development Districts.
3. The applicant has provided a basic environmental assessment as part of this
submittal.
Staff has reviewed and determined there ought to be no significant environmental impact from
this project based on existing conditions;
4. Staff has determined that the proposed development is consistent with existing and
anticipated development within the area and the various land uses associated with the
project are compatible.
Neighborhood Information Meeting: An on-line neighborhood information meeting for the project
was held by the applicant on July 15, 2020 in accordance with Section 2.9.2 (D) of the UDO. A
synopsis of comments made at the meeting can be found within Attachment 7.
Public Notifications: In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO:
• Notices were mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 ft. of the subject
parcels providing the date/time of the public hearing where the proposal is to be
reviewed. These notices were mailed on August 28, 2020, 18 days before the meeting.
• Staff posted the subject parcels with signs indicating the date/time of the public hearing
on September 4, 2020, 11 days before the meeting;
• Staff caused a legal ad advertising the date, time, location, and purpose of the BOCC
public hearing to run in the News of Orange and the Durham Herald-Sun on September
2 and 9, 2020.
For more information, please refer to Attachment 9.
Courtesy Review: This request was submitted to the Town of Hillsborough as part of the
courtesy review program. To date, no comments have been received other than there are no
concerns over the proposed zoning atlas amendment.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board began its review of the zoning atlas
amendment at its August 5, 2020 regular meeting, which was adjourned to August 19 to
continue discussion. At this meeting the Board voted 6 to 4 to recommend approval of the
Statement of Consistency (Attachment 10) and the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment
(Attachment 11) 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;
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 8. Agenda materials from the meetings can be viewed
at: https://www.co.orange.nc.us/Agendacenter/Planning-Board-26
18
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 10.
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 11.
Michael Harvey, Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor, gave the following PowerPoint
presentation:
Slide #1
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Agenda Item 5(a)
PUBLIC HEARING
Zoning Atlas Amendment:
Review of Master Plan Development
Conditional Zoning
(MPD-CZ) Zoning Atlas Amendment
Orange CountyC
Slide #2
BACKGROUND: Payee
• January 23, 2018: BOCC approved zoning atlas
amendment creating a Master Plan Development
Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district;
- Referred to as Settlers Point project
• Involved 10 parcels/ 195 acres of land area;
• Created 2 development districts (i.e. District 1 west
of Old NC Highway 86 and District 2 to the east )
• Each district allowed for different land
uses/development intensities;
• Since 2018, no development activity has occurred
consistent with the approved MPD-CZ.
19
Slide #3
PROPOSAL: °'•'
Rezone 3 parcels:
—FROM: MP❑-CZ (Settlers Point) ; Major
Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District ;
Rural Residential(R-1) ;Rural Buffer(RB)
-2 Parcels (PINS 9863-71-8857 and 9863-91-6573)
District 1 of Settlers Point MPD-CZ.
—TO- MPD-CZ (RTLP) ; Major Transportation
Corridor (MTC) Overlay District ; Rural Buffer
(RB)
• STAFF COMMENT: Parcel along Davis Road (PIN
9862-99-8894) has approximately 26,000 sq.ft. of
land area zoned RB. This portion of the property will
remain zoned RB and left in open space.
ORANGECOUNTY
N[]R k1['-�RI HN'
Slide #4
Fags 4
3
f
ORANGE COUNTY
tiCIRTF I CAROLINA
Slide #5
CONDITIONAL ZONING PROCESS: P�R
• Approval of rezoning petition and a master concept plan
allowing development of specific land use(s);
STAFF COMMENT: Action does not involve approval of
site specific development plan(s) or approval of specific
land uses/tenants. Formal site plan submittal is not
required per Section(s)2.9.2 and 6.7 of the UDO.
• Processed in a legislative manner(i.e. does not require
sworn testimony or competent material evidence);
• Decisions based on determination Project is consistent
with the purpose/intent of Comprehensive Plan and
UDO standards.
• STAFF COMMENT: If alternative design standards are
proposed, County determines if they meet spirit/intent of
existing regulations.
ORANGE COUN
20
Slide #6
CONDITIONAL ZONING PROCESS: '�•d
• Schedule, and Action:
• First Action - Applicant schedules a Neighborhood
Information Meeting (NIM).
- DONE.Meeting held on-line on July 15,2020.
• Second Action - The Planning Board reviews ft
application and makes a recommendation to the
B OC G.
- DONE. Board voted 5 to 4 recommending approval
at its August 19,2020 meeting.
• Third Action -BOGC receives Planning Board/staff
recommendation, holds public hearing, makes
decision to approve)deny.
- OCCURRING - NOTE: Per State law Coupt� s to
accept written comments for 24 hours. ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CA%611NA
Slide #7
CONDITIONAL ZONING PROCESS:
• Section 2.9.2 (F) (3):Mutually agreed upon condifions can be
imposed only if they address:
v Compatibility of the development with surrounding property,
Proposed support facilities (i_e_ roadways and access poirds,
parking, pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems,
screening and buffer areas,etc.)and/or
Other matters the County may find appropriate or petitioner
proposes_
If approved, Zoning Atlas amended (property designated
MPD-CZ). Development consistent with approved master
concept plan and imposed conditions;
Development permitted through the review/approval of site
plan in accordance with UDO.
STAFF COMMENT: No additional BOCC or advisory board
review of site plans.
ORANGE COUNTY
NQUE E CANDLINA
Slide #8
ROLES: Npe
• Staff:
-Determine application completeness and consistency
with Comprehensive Plan:
-Determine compliance with applicable standards or
viability of proposed `design alternatives';
-Recommend imposition of conditions/action on
request.
• Planning Board.
-Hear from applicant, staff, and the general public;
-Reviewidiscuss analysis and recommendation(s);
-Discuss/recommend imposition of conditions;
-Recommend approval or denial to the 130G
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAR011NA
21
Slide #9
ROLES (continued):
• BOCC:
—Schedulelhold public hearing to receive application;
—Hear from applicant, staff, and the general public:
—Reviewldiscuss staff and Planning Board's analysis
and recommendation(s);
—Review, discuss, and recommend imposition of
conditions;
—Close the public hearing;
—Approve or deny the request to approve Zoning Atlas
Amendment application with the imposition of
mutually agreed to conditions.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTE I QVQLINA
Slide #10
RTLP Project:
• 3 parcels of property 1 161 acres of land;
• Involve development of approximately 2,250,000
sci t.of building area;
• Preserve 41 acres (25%)of land as open space:
• Vehicular access from Service Road and Davis
Road;
• As submitted, allowable land uses would include:
health/technology services, information sciences
and engineering, manufacturing, logistic/supply
operations, warehousing/supply chain fulfillment
services;
• 6-story height limit.
Slide #11
RTLP Project -Applicant: P °"
• Applicant: Terra Equity Incorporation
Frank Csapo
3810 Springhurst Blvd
Suite 120
Louisville, KY 40241
• Agents:
Michael Birch I_imlgy-Ham �nag&Consultlng
Longleaf Law Partners 421 Fayetteville St. (Traffic Enginaers}
4509 Greedmoor Rd. Suite 60k b0l Janes Franklin Rd.
Suite 302 Raleigh,NC 27801 Suite 300
Raleigh,NC 27612 Raleigh,NC 276D6
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAWLINA
22
Michael Birch, Longleaf Law Partners; Christa Greene, Stantec; and Chris Bostic, Kimley
Horn, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
IESEARCN T1IAIRLE L991STICS PARE
�elu'nl nwlnnu ilul nmoiw¢n
ORe GRCOU=ROAM OF COMMS
Septembex22,2031
Overview:
1. Recap of Previous Meeting
2. Responses to Commissioners'Questions
3. Transportation
4. Responses to Comments
5. Proposed Conditions
RECAP FROM SEPTEMBER 15 MEETING
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LOGISTICS PARK
•ble�l�Play Hevefib
rm,;a=..war e:�a,awee:mem�y m�ewosm,u,x.ee«nwl�.a"�
e�ewce.
w.raceenngtoy�xoy�mwem.
�eenNmsne;ncern��,aamo;��mecee.lm.mce
emv�sa�an<m��ma.»om+r�o-eeie�me.,o.aeg��
k,m��rcR�ace ao-r®. .ee�Ma�re�n<�
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LOGISTICS PARK
.Pr. mTYDJA ❑ms
•M—ldudng
•Research&Development
•Warehou..otorage
•Warehousing&Did6buf—
•Wholesale'Itade
23
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LOGISTICS PARK
•PRaQffiiLU ll5L5
+ee®Iaa�q�hSY®5 -}a�ave�avamsusmuesa�eP�is
Cuoeem egau[ I�evmal[iemwg
A m)amalMaF®6mdk Y mbmu�
'IaMfitls -6cdy aleamn(avmare.AtlYPe+angerc)
C�Fay Ctmama
'P�lt�e -Wxrviny.plffiY kart
'hA:.®bag Yak 'kfa�Sdumss
NmiLV'm(v[b<ting a�31 ai6J
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LOGISTICS PARK
•ioo-r bu�n�s e.wa�a<ma al®sR�r�m��ti-1;�
•i0.feet vegetated bvffc iloxg Restca pxapextylim vadiaNxbed n repla¢ted
•34deet bv[fnalmg Gave Rmd
•2ifeet bu[fialmg 3eviee Aoad
•Parki¢g lot acmming axd yrking lol island IaudxaPi¢g
•2>'h u(opm apacehaudxaped axaf eatia Pr9ec1
•L1avmumbuildiaq bagbt d60&et
RESEARCH TRIANGLE LOGISTICS PA
Tl—
i
RESPONSES TO COMMISSIONERS'QUESTIONS
Rexwch htmgk
bgWc[Polk
MobeaAntly9a _
demmvy
�laeµltan..R�
24
ATLP m]][:4 RE SIAILT101'
ff
.`•Il—2
TRANSPORTATION QUESTIONS
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Environmental
•r�c�kd���mash tbeeie.as,��.d mburars-;s m tte R�r.
•Cse.Creekaee.nx havea'hishw4ityaata aeai��aem
•Ctes Creek and the hibutary is not inapdetlN ncritW xatxahed.RXu(Ormge
Cuuuty are subjxt to theeedeagmtims,but aot this paFeAy.
•CalesCreek isden5mkd aaamhienlaemaive¢&ercay'but this isdue to x>b.P+Ax@
ducmtreamsbae Gt�Cs�k 4me t6rmsh FEhab«w�
•Sbmn<atr xuuaH4om Ih 1+9ectdwa mt4ux tuxa�d Davis Rasd,ad will aot affect
4mdvg emditims�iris A®d.
•Nodevelgmmuitb'infloodplana Cowty-s4md lanbuffa.
25
Huviro�mental
PAA 12
Sustainability
o-s-
Stormwater Control Measure(SCM)
Pollutant Removal Efficiencies
SCM Treatment Trains
41
.�j
A
PROPOSPE)CONDITIONS
26
PROPOSED DAVIS ROAD HEIGHT CONDITION
A.y bujld'mg ar b.Mk ga m RTLP frmti g m 1).is Road ah0 belh.R&i.he%ht
to40'(measured Gamthefni edflooreleratmntothemofdeck)abasethehighmt
deraln¢of➢ash Raad aloes theframageafthepmp"rurrmth Luorr¢ea
Ora¢ge Cou¢t.P1N69862998894
PROPOSED DAVIS ROAD CONDITION
ne¢moanxccess xe snucnoN
'a'e._tpp>i.m «tr�tm ari kf�axartPx
�mn¢.:a«el�a➢t mr r�n�nme:�aa r.n:�e.�li[.�tmda.ry Iwler�s➢rzaa
ipyti[evt4ivRil epytir�m.[n('eNSr¢e dOrcv➢eon'[kmpvran'wp3mais]br Nebrvf bvaEvg
rmstrvrntl[n RfLP, � 6aFGDOT ea®➢e�fLe4ibei�g:
L'IheBmin RwEiemodIDe6 w nvmyrmiEe a fmi'fvvtimil`�rlvM vterrvrmv et016NC 86
_ nd Applient n6 ipplient'seq�es
2 Spplienf SmsseRmdefmvm foNe�ovfh evdeea
wOHNC'86 m4Ne fvvtim MNe ti�eate6iat[errtmev�v
fletlngn endtr�®dSmia Amdmlenvm evq n
Nhernu ee fvviSNarffinilti�elcMmte[uvffin m6 snyts thesemebxmmtmmre nNCDOixght-
v€¢et.
en,_xpptirmfn
Atnor��w�tmn'=d m�««e�.�as nr.ranptn.➢��n.er;o��n r➢aP¢•eq Ncnot.
nneeoa,am.r�..nm m
nr,i.xareIDmree,rne�aamuamur um.ie�vms�tnnea➢➢b[rot¢mrw.etn.nr,ixora
rmn«nm mr.➢t*eme:a¢n ram.
Christa Greene, Stantec, made a PowerPoint presentation regarding anticipated traffic
patterns.
Tdangle
. ..
Traffic. ..
cf
Summary
The Stantec Team
,A
Ghrisro Greene,PE MOX Peneh,P E PIOE M1logaie Rogers
89CE NCSII 1990 a8C E NCSU=8
Project Nhnoga n of Rccotl rrorcpoN—oevg
27
Traffic Impact Study
• Requied by NGooT and orange
County based on Tap Gen mr .rr
Saoping Rroces Approves
n sruey area
or�pceneramn
o r�p oar�wfon
n aum our r
o ncaeA
n s A,dy toes
n np—a De�ebpmenfs
o aa�fgr9untl cro9nr�
,w PMnw�tam�ga.,ay.a na..
«....ca,xe reMn..,e:,e.q naktaa.y wxn.:k
The TIA Process
Scenarios:
w.W w..rw....w...
• so2a Butltl a,r lv.ff pe scenartosl •�^--•
TIA Reviewed By:
N=gis tEngin _
•NCDOT Quvon Twffic Engnee "'
•NCD RW.nd Twrfic E,p,
•NCDOT Cangeslnn Monagert
•orange caunTy
�m
Study Area
Study Area
Intersections
NCDOT Projecis
sass ci..rJl�mm .re
asotA 1lersMemv6drin9 e
�-�W- �
® TIA Results-Existing and No Build
o�eexa,a we.e:M.m«:
zone om 5mice moo
on occepnde ero of zerrice.r
leo$�M Ciomceiweor�o
28
,7M �
Build Scenarios
- - er'AtService Rootl
Re;'%_-ztl Axe»_'ierv.x
Raatl
Trip Generation
•IIE Tnp Generation Ma oval.Verson 10
The TIA Process
Trip Distribution
o.pa soo.va
rOffic Volumes
fl-
O,aSoo�Ptl
soo.utl
+oo•aa 2618Average
Annual Daily Traffic
29
47'r,
Y
Build Out Scenarios
Full access atService Road(unsignalized)im..td �.,wim qe—delays between14 EB
and ServiceR..tlLongDd,yseatingService R—d ;rl
•Minimal traffic utilizing D
■ Full access ul Service Road(llnsignalized)
Build Out Scenarios
•I
1�
• Full access at Service Road(signalized)••;Itr
•Two Northbound Through d
Lanes and a Northbound d h. + f
Right Turn Lane Required to'd y
Accommodate Traffic
•Right of Way Issues i
•Lacks Additional Capacity for Future Growth It
i
•Minimal Traffic Utilizing Davis Road
® Full access at Service Road
Isi gnalizedi
30
® Comparison Location
Eubanks Road at NC 86
® Right of Way Consfrainis
and Property Irnpacls
��yln
ra.x•„�,t
zee lei
�daee reri
® Build OutScenckos
Limited Access of Service Rood
•No Left 5dat$—Raad
•Entering Traffic Pl—dy Dfraes Seruce Rood
•6 gTraffic Howdy 11 -D—Raod
i
•N—Sgnal at 140 E9 Ramps
•Nawagnalaf Day,Road
•Add .d T.rn Lanes ix
■ Level of Service
xl�_
�i
mpoe,nom cos r
NCooT al"'
Requirements
l�
r —
�t e
s ,I
i
t
o
31
■ Land Use Opt ors
From ITE Trip Generation A.hanoal
■ Trip Generation Estimates
From ITE Trip Generation Manual
® Hourly Trip Estimates
`rom ITE Trip Generation!v!anoal
alll�alllllllla
..a
a
a
a
a
IIIIIIIIII�
p
y�
rin Mpo+e¢cewxoPmm¢ J2�v
i,i
32
sie Tac•..:m
Movmvenr Service Rood
<77
lr
Sire Trips with limited Access
Senate R—d
33
Pe:ea.n rao�
Lognficz Pak
Sumemmyrt�z�
r
Noise Study
FHWA Traffic Noise Model(TNM(v2.5
• Modeled Existing,Future No Build,and Future Build
Used PM peak hour traffic(worst case)
Field Measurements to determine existing conditions and validate model
• Modeled receptors at properties along Old NC 86 and Davis Road
• Accordingp to FHWA noise abatement criteria,a level that is considered
impacteUis 66 decibels(dB(A)(or more
• NCDOT considers a substantial increase impact between no build and
build of 10 dB(A)or more
• A sound level of 3 dB(A)or less is not perceptible to human hearing.
• According to the results,no receptors were over 66 dB(A(in the build
scenario and only one met the cntena of a substantial increase.
• All other properties indicate an increase of 2.2 dB(A(or less,which is in the
imperceptible range
__ ..
34
----'------------
... .........
-------------------
Commissioner McKee asked if there is an overlay slide for Davis Road, as it will acquire
additional lanes.
Chrinto Greene said no. She said only o turn lane would beadded.
Commissioner Greene referred to the two traffic lights with the overlay lanes, and said
on the west side a house was blown down by tornodo, and asked ifitwould it be possible to
shift into the vacant lot on the left hand side, versus the property on the east.
Chair Rich clarified this is the overlay from 1-40 to Eubanks.
Christa Greene said she recognizes that the house in no longer present, and the map is
just for illustrative purposes. She said there must be alignment with 1-40. and the right of way
will likely get into both sides of the rood. She said things cannot just be shifted, as there are
fixed points with which things must be lined up. She said there is o 45-mile per hour speed |inniL
Commissioner McKee asked if {}hrioto Greene could go back to the three alternate
routes (build scenarios). He said he in not worried about the un-nigno|ized, but the full-
35
signalized options are of more concern. He asked if the percentages of personal vehicle traffic
and commercial truck traffic could be identified.
Christa Greene said until the land user is known, the exact percentages will not be
known. She said different times of the day will bring varying traffic, but the study looked at the
heaviest possible traffic options.
Commissioner McKee said his concern is the number of trucks that will be on Davis
Road. He asked what amount of the 52% will be large trucks. He said he disagrees with the
noise assessment, and thinks it will be louder.
Christa Greene said she does not have the exact percentage, but it is only a portion of
Davis Road, not the entire length.
Commissioner McKee said he wants to know how many heavy trucks there will be, and
why those trucks cannot be sent out exclusively on the signalized service roads.
Christa Greene said the service road is too close to the interchange to have the
stacking.
Commissioner McKee said it is tricky, but the signals can be timed.
Christa Greene said if it was a four-lane road, and the service road was further down, it
would be sufficient, but these is the results of the traffic analysis. She said the study did
consider the alternatives.
Commissioner McKee said the issue is truck traffic on Davis Road.
Christa Greene said the signal will make it safe for trucks to get in and out.
Commissioner Price asked what other improvements will be made to Davis Road.
Christa Greene said per NCDOT requirements, there will be signalization; a taper into
the site; turn lanes; and a signal at the ramp will be completed. She said there will also be
several improvements along 86.
Commissioner Price said she is concerned about how narrow Davis Road is.
Commissioner Price said the uses may not be known, but it is reported to be less trip
generations than 2 fast food restaurants or a Walmart. She asked how this conclusion was
reached.
Christa Greene said there is a standardized trip generation manual, which allows the
calculations to be made.
Commissioner Price asked if there was a reason that the project was compared against
fast food. She asked if it is unknown what will be on the site, how were these comparisons
chosen.
Michael Birch said the trip generation that was used was associated with the
warehousing use, which has a particular trip generation associated with it. He said this was
done as part of the scoping process. He said every use may not be a warehousing use, but it
was taken into account that if there were other uses, with different trip generation rate, the
recommended improvements would still accommodate the other allowable uses.
Commissioner Price said she understands the formulas, but wondered how the
comparisons were chosen given that the nature of the site is not yet specified. She said the
concept plans to not mean the buildings will be as they are described.
Christa Greene said comparison sites from around the country were used through the
trip generating formula.
Commissioner Price referred to the environmental assessment, and asked if their staff
conferred with local staff in Orange County. She said there is 161 acres of wooded area, and
she has to believe that this will have some impact, as it is a heritage area.
Chris Bostic said they did confer with County Staff about the Cates Creek property,
specifically. He said the majority of that natural area is located completely off of the property in
question, and a large portion of this property was clear-cut previously. He said the data on this
land was out of date, so his staff biologist went out last week and re-evaluated the land. He
said the area of their property is an upland area, and the soils are acidic soils.
36
Commissioner Price asked if the conclusion is that there is nothing on the land in
question that would trigger an environmental impact statement.
Chris Bostic said he was required to provide an environmental impact statement as a
part of their packet, and they did so. He said it states that there is nothing of concern.
Commissioner Price said the Applicant completed an assessment, and an environmental
impact statement is different.
Chris Bostic agreed.
Commissioner Dorosin said the biggest concern is around traffic. He clarified that there
is an estimated 3650 trips a day, with peak times at 300-326 trips. He asked if the peak a.m.
time is referring to a specific hour, and noted that this amount does not seem like much of a
peak in comparison to the total number of trips.
Christa Greene said the a.m. and p.m. peak hours are one individual hour each. She
said a site like this will have coming and going throughout the day. She said the peak numbers
represents about 10% of people going during the day, and were predicted to be the highest
hours in conjunction with the highest measured traffic in the area.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is an average of the number of trips over the
course of the day. He said he would like to know how much of a peak will the peak hours
contain.
Christa Greene said peak is about 10%, so other times there would be less trips. She
said there will be highs and lows during shift changes, lunch hours, beginning and end of day,
etc.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if the proposal is to have the service road be a right turn
only, with no left turn.
Christa Greene said a right in, a right out, and a left turn into the service road. She said
there will be no left turn out due to the queuing.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if the imagined traffic pattern could be described.
Christa Greene said most trucks will use David Road.
Commissioner Dorosin asked how this will be operational ized. He said the advantage of
this property is its location right next to the highway, and trucks will have to turn right. He asked
if there is plan to get the trucks back to the highway.
Christa Greene said presumably the trucks would cut through the site, and take a left on
Davis Road to get to the highway.
Commissioner Dorosin said local concern is to avoid the trucks going on David Road.
Christa Greene said right now that is the way DOT says things must proceed. She said
it is possible to safely accommodate the traffic coming out on Davis Road with the signal.
Commissioner Dorosin said this is problematic.
Commissioner Greene referred to a Planning Board member, who is the Vice President
of a supply chain and logistics company, and he said the traffic study used the code 150, which
is just warehouse, and not code 140 (manufacturing) or 130 (industrial park). She said if this
land may be used for some of these other things, she wonders why the traffic study did not
include those codes.
Michael Birch said the warehouse use was agreed to as part of the scoping process. He
said the results of the TIA are a list of recommended improvements. He said the recommended
improvements that have come out of the traffic impact study would not change if the other use
codes were used.
Commissioner Greene asked if the manufacturing and/or industrial park use more or
less per day.
Christa Greene said based on the scoping meeting, and that this would be a logistics
park, this was the agreed upon land use. She said the recommendations being made do allow
for additional capacity.
37
Commissioner Greene read the proposal from the Planning Board member's comments.
She said the potential uses seem to be changing. She said everyone wants to understand the
maximum number of trips per day, and how does the County prepare. She asked if the other
code uses would be more or less trips per day.
Michael Birch said he can provide additional information. He said each use has slightly
different characteristics with daily trips, peak hours etc. He said the recommended
improvements are based on trip generation with a certain use, but those improvements will
accommodate additional trips. He said the infrastructure could handle additional trips.
Commissioner Bedford said a traffic noise study was done on old 86 and Davis road,
and the noise increase would be 2.2 decimals for all but one parcel, and it would need t be 3
decibels to be perceived. She asked if more details could be provided about this, and if the
Applicant would be willing to give the BOCC a full copy of the study.
Michael Birch said one property, with the higher decibel increase, was parcel #3 that
fronts along Davis Road. He said this is the Barlow property. He said he will follow-up on the
exact details.
Commissioner Bedford referenced pages 402, 406 and 450, which included
communications regarding traffic, and she tried to compare DOT's initial findings with that which
they resolved and agreed to. She said everything was fine at Waterstone, as well as the
conservative estimate that was used for 86/1-40 westbound ramps. She said DOT required
three things with old 86 and the service road: a north bound left turn lane with125 feet of full
staging/storage; south bound right lane with 100 feet of staging/storage; and an east bound right
turn lane, with 200 feet of full staging/storage. She said the Applicant offered up the option of
right turn only out of the service road, and DOT responded by keeping the first two conditions,
but deleting the third. She said Davis road originally required a traffic signal, a southbound right
lane with 100 feet of full staging/storage, and a northbound left turn lane with 100 feet exclusive.
She said at some point the northbound left turn was removed, and it became a right turn only
onto the service road, in order to avoid building the number 3 right eastbound lane with 200 full
storage. She asked if the Applicant were to build that road, would it still be possible to have left
turns out of the service road, and meet the requirements for DOT.
Christa Greene said no. She referred to the July 31st memo from DOT, which said the
queue spillbacks from the adjacent eastbound ramps will need to be mitigated, or restrictions of
left turns. She said that is basically where NCDOT recommended right lane.
Commissioner Bedford asked if there is any other way to mitigate the queue spill back.
Christa Greene said the Applicant could not determine any other way to mitigate the
queue spillback.
Commissioner Marcoplos said these types of issues have arisen before in discussions of
widening 1-40, when the only option seemed to be to run a road through a neighborhood, but
another solution was found due to community pressure and pushback. He wonders if there are
other ideas that just have not been fully pursued.
Michael Birch said one additional option was to condemn private property, in order to
shift the service road intersection with 86 farther away from the 1-40 ramp.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if this is the Dodson property.
Michael Birch said no, it is more the area between the Applicant's land and 86. He said
it would involve shifting the service road further south. He said that is the only other option.
He said there are some fixed points in the ramp and the bridge. He said design standards
require things to stay fairly straight. He said shifting things is not a feasible solution. He said
the Applicant did consider this, but it would require action from someone else to condemn
property.
Michael Harvey shared his screen to display the actual property line in question. He
said there are many complicating factors such as utility easements, private property, Economic
38
Development zones, etc. He said the Applicant does not have the ability to compel anyone to
sell.
Michael Birch said the Applicant could not utilize the road in question because of an
easement, and would have to go further north.
Commissioner Price asked if the location for the parking could be identified. She said
logistic parks often have trucks stay over night, and the peak traffic hour might be 7 a.m. as they
all leave. She said she would like to have more information about the peak hours, and will
patterns occur 24/7.
Michael Birch said he would gather more information.
Chair Rich asked if Michael Harvey would resume his presentation:
Slide #12
CONDITIONS: P.9-
• General:
Only involve the 3 identified properties;
Rural Buffer (RB) zoned portion of property (PIN 9862-
99-8894)remain zoned RB and be'open space'.
• Access/transportation:
Internal roadways(i.e. private)developed consistent with
U DO:
Development consistent with TIA and NC DOT standards;
Town of Hillsborough/County Fire Marshal involved with
road layout approval;
Limits on turn movements onto Davis Road;
Bus pullouts/shelters oonsistent with County plans.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CA UO
Slide #13
CONDITIONS (continued):
• Dimensional Standards:
Building sq.ft. limit of 2,4GG,0oo sq.ft. based on current
T1A;
Haight limit—60 ft.
{ NOTE: Accessory structures(i.e.water tower)may exceed
this limit.
r Setbacks—Structures:
7 100 fi.trom property lines abutting residentially zoned property
and Davis Road right-of-way;
❑ 50 fl. from property lines abutting nun-residentially zoned
property and Service Road right-of-way
Setbacks—Vehicular Use Areas(i.e.parking,drive isle):
❑ 50 ft-from property lines abutting residentially zoned property
and Davis Road right-of-way;
❑ 25 tt-from other property;road rights-of-way
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTrr CARPLINA
Slide #14
CONDITIONS (continued):
• Open Space/Land Use Buffers:
41 acres(25%)of land area in open space(includes floodplain
and flood plain buffers);
50 ft.land use buffer along western property lines and around
Davis Road property—25 ft. along property zoned for non-
residential development.
10 ft-vegetative buffer separating parking from drive-isles;
1 shade tree for every 10 car parking spaces;
7 Standard consistent with UD0-
20%of a building's perimeter shall be landscaped;
HVAC, mechanical equipment, dumpsters, etc- screened
consistentwith Section 6-8-9 of the UDO:
Project shall comply with Section 6.6.4 of the UDO—Major
Transportation Corridor (MTC) overlay- This includes
allowable breaks in buffer(s).
-.OFF -- 'ii.•
39
Slide #15
CONDITIONS (continued): P°°°"
• Parking:
Design/layout to comply with Section 6.9 of the U DO;
1 space for every 750 sq.ft.of office space;
1 space per 3,000 sq.ft, of additional indoor area
(exclusive of office space);
• Lighting—consistent with UDO;
• Comply with provisions of Section(s) 6.4.2 through
6.4.7 of the UDC (i.e. noise, air pollution,disposal of
liquid waste, hazardous materials,vibration);
• Master sign plan determined to be acceptable by
staff.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTEI CAROLENA
Slide #16
CONDITIONS (continued): P.R.
• Architectural Design:
. Applicant has supplied list of acceptable/prohibited
exterior wall materials;
• Utilities; Extendedlmanaged consistent with agreement
between the County and the Town of Hillsborough:
• Land Uses:
r Consistent with table of permitted uses and the existing MPD-
CZ for Settlers Paint;
r Includes:
Manufacturing;
Research and Development;
warehousir4StoraW-,
Distribution Sery ices;
w helesale Trade;
Application package includas list of prnhibitgd land uses_
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLRVA
Slide #17
CONDITIONS (continued): P.R.
Applicant agreed to incorporation of conditions
recommended by Planning Board at its August 5, 2020
meeting:
No permanent fuel or chemical storage shall occur within
30 ft. of a floodplainlstream buffer established consistent
with the provisions of Section 6.13 of the County UD{];
r 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;
Building dasigrdconstruction shall not preclude
incorporation of alternative energy systems such as solar
panels.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CARXINA
40
Slide #18
Ranning Board Action: 1�'a
• Board met on August 5,2020. Meeting adjourned to
August 19, 2020 for additional review;
• Board voted:
—6 to 4 recommending approval of Statement of
Consistency
—6 to 4 recommending approval of the Zoning Atlas
Amendment changing the designation of the new
MPS-CZ
STAFF COMMENT: This recommendation included
imposition of several condition(s)governing the
development of the Project.
r1F.aWc. ,i.r.r,
r,..KiII.t i:i..,,
Slide #19
Management Recommendation:
1.R—r.the request;
2.C—dwi 1hn p,bld hnanng and—pi mmmonl;
].Ck—the public hearing;
a.A,,& zv —pranm d wnF mmrmnt.)wa—il
m the beard ni eebeer@ mangteeunryne.ge er by
dnl my m rha Planning Onpaam m's ottim at 181 Woo
Mmrgamt —,Hill•b—qh, Henh C>t rellna 27270,
u dl 1)00 a.m.on Thursday Snp[nmbnr 17,2020,
5.Schedule a V.I.to am- Sletemerd of Calaslellrry
[Ahachmenr 101, ad 10 g APes Amendmerd
[Ahachmen111)a11he Hoard's()cl—r 6,2020 meahng
Ho add@innal public c menrs shall bn rno—d al
October 6 mseling M hearing closed.
maw oee..urei wraxammnue n+
uu•xravq.n..,.rw tq npmu.
annautnr�oaa:.at«.,..a.s>r.
Commissioner Price asked if the table of permitted uses is updated and current.
Michael Harvey said everything is within permissible uses per the County's updates.
Commissioner Price said the Applicant says there is no environmental impact, but the
staff descriptions say there are significant woodlands and ponds and a flood plain. She said
she would like to see these statements reconciled somehow.
Michael Harvey said the Applicant has agreed to have no development in the flood plain,
and there will be protection of the flood plain buffer.
Chair Rich asked if Michael Harvey if it would be appropriate to hear from the public at
this time.
Michael Harvey said yes, and the Applicant is eager to hear all feedback.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to
open the public hearing.
Roll call ensued.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Erik Reavely said he is a business/home owner and taxpayer, and he is opposed to the
rezoning of this land. He said such radical rezoning does not match the existing land. He said
heavy industrialized traffic will greatly affect the local residents and the existing rural buffer
landscape. He said there is a church, preschool, and historical African American cemetery
41
nearby, and the traffic noise will be a disruption all day long. He voiced concern for negative
environmental impacts, as well as minimal meaningful job creation.
Emily Buehler said she has been a resident for 13 years, and she and her neighbors are
concerned about rising property taxes. She said development is crucial to avoid homeowners
bearing the financial burden. She said she supports the development.
Robb Levinsky said he is a new comer in the area, and feels this is the wrong
development for this land and this time. He said the proposed structures will be very tall, and
are not within permitted uses for the current zoning, thus requiring a major change in the zoning
for the land. He said it is a rural residential area, and he doubts there will not be meaningful
economic benefit, and the traffic is a huge problem. He said he is opposed to this development.
Hayley Pickard said she has been a Hillsborough resident since 2001, and she had the
benefit of growing up in this community. She said she is opposed to this development, as it will
have negative environmental impacts.
Jay Kennett said he is the Pastor of Hillsborough United Church of Christ. He said the
1000 feet on Davis Road is the entire frontage of his church's property, which is a place of
worship, community picnics, home to three 12-step groups, a daycare, an historic cemetery, etc.
He said if this plan moves forward the church will be shaken by trucks and pollution. He said
this is a living community and he is opposed to this development. He said he understands
development may occur, but this industrial growth was not at all what he expected.
Luke Farley said he is a lawyer who has been retained by Hillsborough homeowners to
oppose the development of the 12-acre residential parcel. He said his clients would be willing to
oppose the development in court, if necessary, based on two grounds: 1) rezoning the parcel is
inconsistent with the County's comprehensive plan. This land has never been in an EDD, and
had no part in Settler's Point; and 2.) This zoning is illegal spot zoning, when a relatively small
parcel is rezoned, when it is surrounded by zoning of a different type. He said the court will
consider detrimental effects to neighbors, which are ample here. He said reasonable requests
should be imposed upon the Applicant to mitigate the negative impacts.
Janet Marks said she lives off of Davis Road, which supplies access to the nearby
hospital. She said the truck traffic would likely interfere with people accessing the hospital, and
would lead to increase automobile accidents. She said she is in favor of development, but not
this particularly project. She said there needs to be smart development with clear plans to
address traffic. She asked the BOCC to vote no on this project.
Scott Carbonara questioned the developer, just as much as the project itself. He said
the developer has never developed a project to this magnitude, and it would be wise to use a
more seasoned developer. He said the developer's own building in Kentucky has many areas
up for lease, and he questions whether the developer could find tenants locally in NC. He said
this land begs for development, but this one is not the right kind.
Jocelyn Carbonara said she lives off Davis Road, and she is opposed to this
development. She said the plan has too many holes, and is the wrong project for this land as
negative impacts are too numerous.
Sascha Godfrey said she is a high school student who lives on Davis Road, and is a part
of Save Hillsborough. She said she is opposed to this development, and is in full support of
sustainable development. She said Hillsborough is full of talented people who can work
together to do better to protect the Town and its environment.
Kaila Mitchell said she lives 600 feet from the proposed access road, with several family
members living around her. She said she is opposed to the development due to the many
harmful environmental and health impacts. She urged the BOCC to vote no to rezoning this
land.
Matt Mitchell said he lives off of Davis Road within 1000 feet of the proposed
development. He said he is one of the organizers of Save Hillsborough, a group that is strongly
against this development. He said he and many others are not opposed to development in the
42
area, but want it to be environmentally sound, and good for the local residents and community
at large. He said the members of the community have no interest in proposing every
development in this economic development district, and want to work with the BOCC.
Ashley Trahan said she is a Hillsborough resident on Davis Road, and is opposed to this
development. She asked the BOCC to bring change that is good for everyone, and to vote no
to rezoning.
Daniel Arneman said 100s of citizens have spoken out against this project. He said it is
clear that the BOCC has been listening. He said he is opposed to this development, and if it
must proceed, the BOCC should impose strict standards upon the developer. He would rather
see a different project altogether.
Jon Lorusso read from the County noise ordinance. He said he is opposed to this
development, and said the noise pollution would impact all residents in the area. He said the
noise ordinance does not include vehicular noise, and the trucks in this development would not
be subject to the ordinance.
Chip Thrasher said he is a 17-year-old resident, and has concerns regarding potential
traffic problems with this development. He also voiced concern for the wildlife and plants in this
area, and their protection. He said he is opposed to this development.
Hunter Spitzer said he is an at large member of the Planning Board, and he encouraged
the BOCC to work harder on access to solar energy and said this proposed site is one example
of where it can do so. He said the developer should be required to install solar. He said he
voted against this site in August, and hopes the BOCC will do the same.
Jeremy Edmondson said he holds a commercial drivers license, and has driven many
large trucks over many years, in many places. He said truck drivers are in demand, and as
such, many of the drivers are not experienced. He said Orange County is not prepared for the
impacts of having such truck traffic as will come with this development. He said drivers will
come from all over the country, and will have no ties to the community, and will not be invested
in its welfare. He said trucks are not the same as cars. He said a distribution center is not akin
to a McDonalds. He said he is opposed to the development.
Sarah Shore said she lives at the corner of old 86 and Davis Road, and thanked the
BOCC for its careful consideration of this development. She echoed previous comments, and
said she is not against all development, but is against this development.
Joseph Shore said he lives on old 86, near Davis Road. He said the developer
continually shows his land as vacant, and he said it is not, and there are several houses on this
land. He said he opposed to the rezoning of this land, and this development in particular. He
said he supports development that is harmonious with the neighborhood: restaurants, health
care, schools, small businesses, etc. He said this development will surround his house on three
sides, and will negatively affect his property value. He said the developer should compensate
local property owners if the property values do drop. He said $2 million should be put in a trust
for this purpose, and if the money has not been used in 10 years, it can go back to the
developer.
Steven Kaufmann said he lives on Davis Road. He echoed comments of previous
speakers and is opposed to this development. He said he is a teacher, and also owns a martial
arts studio. He said he is highly invested in Hillsborough and Orange County, and his entire life
will be negatively impacted by this development.
Jesse Kaufmann spoke about a neighboring truffle farm, and its importance to the area
as one example of fighting climate change. She said the environment must be preserved, and
the diesel trucks at this proposed project would be very damaging. She said if the development
proceeds, the County must demand electric vehicles only. She said she is opposed to this
development, and encouraged the Board to support more friendly development.
43
Rena Mitchell said she lives on Davis Road, and is opposed to this development. She
said she grew up in a town similar to Hillsborough that is now overrun with development and
environmental pollution. She urged the Board to vote against rezoning.
William Mitchell said he lives 350 feet from the proposed RTLP exit, and he is very
concerned about the impacts it would have on his neighborhood and the Town of Hillsborough.
He said the increase in traffic and potential for vehicular accidents would be a great risk. He
said development will bring more tax funds, but it is not worth it to risk the lives of residents. He
said he is opposed to this development.
Bob Bundschuh echoed all the concerns about traffic, and said the traffic signals will not
help, and will actually create delays. He said he is opposed to the project.
Matthew Kostura said the BOCC asked great questions of the Applicant, and it is clear it
understands the potential problems with this project. He said the traffic impact cannot be
underestimated. He said he is opposed to this project.
Myra Gwin-Summers said she lives very close to the proposed project, and is blindsided
by this proposal. She said she and her neighbors are worried about their well-being. She said
she supports growing the tax base, but not with this project. She said she is concerned that this
process has not followed proper procedures. She said she opposes this project, and urged the
BOCC to do the same. She said this land should remain part of the rural buffer, and zoned
residential.
Dave Laudicina said all the previous public comments are valid, and his greatest
concern is with the traffic entering and exiting the property. He said any proposed mitigation
efforts are insufficient, and the various environmental impacts will be very damaging. He said
he is opposed to this development, and urged the BOCC to find a better economic development
project.
James Watts said he has lived and worked here for 20 years, and lives within 2 miles of
this proposed project. He said he serves on the Economic Development Board, and is
supportive of RTLP proposal. He said the project offers positive improvements to the County,
and offers minimal impact to the water supply. He said the project offers employment
opportunities of many levels. He said it is important to have facilities like these, so that
businesses that start in Orange County will stay in Orange County, as there is room for them to
grow. He said the proposed location is a logical one, and despite inconveniences it may
present, the project should be supported.
Catharine Vaughan said she lives close to UNC Hospital — Hillsborough, and is opposed
to this development and the detrimental effects it will have on this beautiful area. She said she
has not heard of any plans that will mitigate the negative impacts of this project. She said the
project would adversely interfere with the functions of the hospital, putting the lives of those
needing to access it, at risk. She said the Board should vote against this project.
John Dempsey said development that benefits the community is welcome, and he feels
this project is not such a development. He said the negative environmental impacts would be
severe, and would lead to more inappropriate development in the future. He said he is opposed
to this project in order to protect residents and the Town of Hillsborough.
Margo Lakin said she has researched the developer, and has not found successful
results. She said she found past projects in Kentucky made by this developer, and highlighted
how all had significant failures. She said she opposed to this project and urged the BOCC to
vote no on the rezoning.
Angela Sneed said she a native of Orange County and lives near the proposed
development. She highlighted pros and cons that she sees in the project, but said the cons
outweighed any pros she could identify. She said she is particularly concerned about the
impact of the water supply; the quality of jobs that will be generated when tenants are unknown;
significant traffic concerns; and the outdated EDD plan. She said she is opposed to the project.
44
Jo Massey thanked the BOCC for its thoughtful approach to this item. She said she is
opposed to the project, as it is not appropriate for the space, the culture or the environment.
Brandon Sneed echoed formerly mentioned concerns, and questioned the validity of the
information presented by the Applicant. He said he is opposed to the project.
Kate Carroll thanked the BOCC for listening to the public comments. She said she
would like to see much greater compromise between the Applicant and the County in order to
have a project that is better suited to the community. She said the tax dollars and jobs the
project will provide to the County are legitimately needed. She said she would like to see the
Davis Road parcel removed from the plan, and have the County work with the Applicant to find
a way forward.
Robin Brown-Farrin said she lives in Hillsborough, but not too close to the proposed
project. She said she is opposed to the project due to all the potential negative impacts
mentioned by previous speakers.
A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Bedford
to reconvene the public hearing on September 22, 2020
Roll call ensued
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Zoning Atlas Amendment— Parcels off Old NC Highway 86 (District 2 of Settlers
Point MPD-CZ)
The Board held a public hearing, receive the Planning Board recommendation and public
comment, close the public hearing, and schedule action for a specific future date on Planning
Director initiated Zoning Atlas Amendments for parcels east of Old NC Highway 86, south of
Interstate 40, within the Hillsborough Township of Orange County.
Specifically, staff is proposing to rezone eight parcels, totaling approximately 46 acres, originally
part of the Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district known as Setters
Point. A map of the subject parcels is contained in Attachment 1.
BACKGROUND:
On January 23, 2018 the Orange County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) approved a zoning
atlas amendment creating a MPD-CZ district referred to as Settlers Point.
Materials from this meeting are available at:
http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/weblink/0/doc/49647/Page 1.aspx.
The approved MPD-CZ, composed of 10 parcels and totaling 195 acres of land, created a
master planned mixed use project with two distinct development areas, specifically:
• District 1: Parcel Identification Number(s) 9863-71-8857 and 9863-91-6573 supporting
development of Industrial/manufacturing/research land uses:
45
s 1
i
i .
And
• District 2: Parcel Identification Number(s) 9873-11-4636, 9873-11-5415, 9873-11-
7506, 9873-11-9450, 9873-11-7247, 9873-10-7937, 9873-20-2388, and 9873-10-4310
supporting development of Office/retail/commercial land uses:
ji
S-1-74XIft-
s Vr
. y
46
Development on these properties is required to comply with a master set of conditions (i.e.
access management standards, building setback/size limits, open space requirements, site plan
submittal and review requirements, etc.). These conditions are designed to complement one
another, allowing for development of the 10 parcels consistent with the approved MPD-CZ.
Since approval, no development activity has occurred.
ISSUE: The County has been approached by a developer proposing a new MPD-CZ district
involving the two parcels within `District 1' as well as a 12 acre parcel with frontage on Davis
Road. Staff has determined the eight parcels in `District 2' will have great difficulty complying
with the MPD-CZ development standards with the elimination of the two parcels in District 1. In
order to ensure the eight parcels have development potential, staff has determined rezoning is
necessary and is proposing the following:
1. Rezone parcels (PINs: 9873-11-4636, 9873-11-7506, 9873-11-5415, 9873-11-9450,
9873-11-7247, and 9873-10-7937), labeled as number(s) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on the map
above:
FROM: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point and
Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District.
TO: Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) and Major
Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District.
2. Rezone parcel (PIN 9873-10-4310), labeled as number 10 on the map above:
FROM: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point, Major
Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District, Rural Residential (R-1).
TO: Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2), Major
Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District, Rural Residential (R-1).
3. Rezone parcel (PIN 9873-20-2388), labeled as number 9 on the map above:
FROM: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point and
Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District.
TO: Economic Development Hillsborough Office/Retail (EDH-4) and Major
Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District.
Staff's proposal will return these eight properties back to their original zoning designation in
place prior to the approval of the MPD-CZ. If approved, development of these properties will be
regulated consistent with the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) rather
than the various conditions associated with the approval of the MPD-CZ for Settlers Point.
Development Process, Schedule, and Action: The typical cadence for the review of a General
Use Rezoning and Zoning Atlas amendment is:
• FIRST ACTION — Submission of a General Rezoning application with required
supporting documents by the property owner.
STAFF COMMENT. This is a staff initiated request. As a result, application
components were created internally by staff consistent with established
requirements.
• SECOND ACTION —The Planning Board receives the application and staff prepares
materials and makes a recommendation on the rezoning request.
STAFF COMMENT. Staff presented this request and the Planning Board made a
unanimous recommendation to approve the request at its August 5, 2020 regular
meeting.
47
• THIRD ACTION —The BOCC holds a public hearing on the request, receives the
application materials and recommendations, and takes action on the request.
STAFF COMMENT. Staff is presenting these materials and facilitating the public
hearing at this September 15, 2020 Business meeting.
Other pertinent information concerning the eight parcels associated with this request are as
follows:
• Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Designation: The property is located within an area of
the County designated as Economic Development Transition Activity Node. The FLUM
can be accessed utilizing the following link:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4054/Future-Land-Use-Map-
PDF.
• Comprehensive Plan: Per Appendix F, "Relationships Between Land Use Categories
and Zoning Districts Matrix"of the adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan, EDH2
and EDH-4 are allowable general use zoning category for property located within an
Economic Development Transition Activity Node.
For more information on the definition of activity node, and to review the allowed zoning
designations permitted within same, the Comprehensive Plan can be accessed utilizing
the following link: http://www.orangecountync.gov/1242/2030-Comprehensive-Plan.
• Growth Management System Map Designation: The eight parcels are Urban
Designated.
STAFF COMMENT: The Growth Management System Map is a tool utilized by
staff to identify permit review thresholds for residential (i.e. subdivision) projects.
• Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA): The
parcels are located within the Orange County Primary Service Area meaning public
utilities (i.e. water and sewer) could be extended to the property. Public utility service
would be provided by the Town of Hillsborough, who will likely require voluntary
annexation to allow services to be extended to serve proposed land uses. The
documentcan be accessed utilizing the following link:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4190/Water-and-Sewer-
Management-Planning-and-Boundary-Agreement-PDF.
• Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land
Use Plan: These parcels are designated as being located within the following COCA
land use categories:
o PINs: 9873-11-4636, 9873-11-7506, 9873-11-5415, 9873-11-9450, 9873- 11-
7247, 9873-10-7937, and 9873-10-4310 - labeled as number(s) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
and 10 on the map above: Neighborhood Mixed Use
o PIN 9873-20-2388 - labeled as number 9 on the map above: Suburban Office.
The recommended general use zoning designations would allow development consistent with
the intent of COCA. For more information on the COCA land use categories, please refer to
Attachment 4.
Analysis: As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to:
`cause an analysis to be made of the application'and pass that analysis on to the reviewing
body. In analyzing this proposal, the Planning Director offers the following:
1. The proposal is consistent with goals/policies outlined within the Comprehensive Plan
concerning development, including:
a. 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 Orange County's population and
48
economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and
objectives.
b. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental
conditions and features and that protect natural resources, cultural resources,
and community character.
c. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program
and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character,
minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced
transportation system.
2. The rezoning request is consistent with the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County
Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan;
3. The rezoning provides the property owners with a viable path forward to make
reasonable use of their properties.
Staff held a public information session reviewing the proposed amendments in an on-line
meeting on July 21, 2020. No comment(s) were received on the proposed atlas amendment.
Public Notifications: In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the LIDO:
• Notices were mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 feet of the
subject parcels providing the date/time of the BOCC public hearing meeting where the
proposal is to be reviewed. These notices were mailed on August 28, 2020, 18 days
before the meeting;
• Staff posted the subject parcels with signs indicating the date/time of the BOCC's
review of the rezoning request on September 3, 2020, 12 days before the public hearing;
• Staff caused a legal ad advertising the date, time, location, and purpose of the BOCC
public hearing to run in the News of Orange and the Durham Herald-Sun on September
2 and 9, 2020.
For more information, please refer to Attachment 3.
Courtesy Review: This request was submitted to the Town of Hillsborough as part of the
courtesy review program. To date, no comments have been received.
Planning Board Recommendation: At its August 5, 2020 regular meeting, the Planning Board
voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 5)
and the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment (Attachment 6) as proposed by staff. Excerpts of
the minutes from this meeting, as well as the Board's signed Statement of Consistency, are
included in Attachment 2. Agenda materials from the meeting can be viewed at:
https://www.co.orange.nc.us/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26.
Planning Director's Recommendation: As required under Section 2.8.5 of the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) the Planning Director shall: '... cause an analysis to be made of
the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration'.
The Director has determined the proposed atlas amendments are necessary to ensure each
parcel has development option(s) and that rezoning said parcels back to their original zoning
designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. As a
result, the Director recommends approval of the Statement of Consistency, indicating the
amendments are reasonable and in the public interest, contained in Attachment 5 and the
proposed zoning atlas amendment ordinance contained in Attachment 6.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to open
the public hearing.
49
Roll call ensued
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
PUBLIC COMMENT:
NONE
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
continue the public hearing on September 22, 2020.
Roll call ensued.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. Proposed Amendments to the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central
Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan and to the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
The Board held a public hearing, receive the Planning Board recommendation and public
comment, close the public hearing, and schedule action for a specific future date on a County
initiated request to amend the:
• Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land
Use Plan, and
• Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The amendments
to these long-range plans work together to expand the southern boundary of the
Hillsborough Economic Development area.
BACKGROUND:
Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough have been discussing potential expansion of the
Hillsborough Economic Development area for several years as the County continued work
towards investing in a sewer "trunk line", south of Interstate 40 and west of Old Highway 86, in
accordance with its Capital Improvement Plan developed in 2012. With an eye towards
maximizing the use of the sewer line, there is interest in designating additional lands that could
be served via a "gravity sewer line" for non-residential purposes. In addition, Orange County
evaluates the amount of land available for economic development, and due to lands being
developed as the UNC Hospital and Durham Technical Community College over the last few
years, the limited supply in this area was considered for expansion.
At its June 6, 2017 meeting, the BOCC approved amendments to the Water and Sewer
Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) to expand the Hillsborough
Primary Service Area. All parties have since approved the WASMPBA amendment, with the
Town of Hillsborough Board as the last party to approve it in October 2017. Because of
language included in the approval resolutions, the WASMPBA amendment is to become
effective when the joint land use plan is amended to reflect the expanded Urban Service Area
and assigned a future land use classification. Some of these background details, including
notice to the Board when the land use plan amendments would be forthcoming, were included
as an Information Item on the Board's June 16, 2020 agenda. The link to that Information Item
is: http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/WebLink/0/doc/62679/Pagel.aspx
50
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.3 Comprehensive Plan Amendments of the
Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Director has initiated amendments to the Central
Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan and to the Orange County Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) in the vicinity of the southern portion of the Hillsborough
Area Economic Development District. The amendments related to COCA affect 17 parcels (in
whole or part) encompassing 84 acres (Attachment 1). The amendments related to the FLUM
affect 20 parcels (in whole or part) encompassing 89 acres (Attachment 2). The COCA
proposed land use category is Suburban Office and the FLUM proposed category is Economic
Development. These related amendments are being proposed to prescribe the land uses that
will be allowed in the expanded area for Economic Development.
1. The Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA)
Land Use Plan is a joint land use document that defines the locations of future land use
categories to help achieve a desired and coordinated pattern of development over time.
The COCA Land Use Plan includes several urban-style land use categories that are more
specific than those provided in the County's Comprehensive Plan, which covers a much larger
geographic area. Implementation of the COCA Land Use Plan is achieved through consistency
with the County's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, application of County zoning, and
a coordinated approach to rezoning. The amendment proposes a "Suburban Office Complex"
land use in the expansion area which would designate the area for office and employment,
businesses in a campus setting, and limited supporting services. The proposed amendment
also reflects the expansion of the Town's Urban Service Boundary consistent with the
WASMPBA to provide water and sewer service to the area. As part of a joint land use plan, this
amendment requires approval by the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County. The Town of
Hillsborough has already taken action and unanimously approved the amendment as follows.
Town of Hillsborough Approval Process:
March 15, 2018—Town Public Hearing and Planning Board recommendation
March 26, 2018— Hillsborough Town Board adopted
2. The Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) defines the
location of future land use categories, consistent with any joint land use plans, and is
designed to accommodate a particular combination of general land uses. The FLUM
helps achieve a desired pattern of development over time and is implemented primarily
through zoning. The proposed amendment to this plan would change the expansion area from a
Rural Residential land use to an Economic Development Transition Activity Node, which would
designate the area for light industrial, distribution, office, service/retail uses, and flex space
(typically one-story buildings designed, constructed, and marketed as suitable for use as offices
but able to accommodate other uses such as a warehouse, showroom, manufacturing
assembly, or similar operations).
The County has not initiated any rezoning at this time. Currently, the area is zoned Rural
Residential (R-1). However, approximately 12 acres of the proposed Research Triangle
Logistics Park (RTLP) are located in the amendment area discussed herein. Any rezoning that
comes forward in the future will require a subsequent item on a public hearing and finding that it
is consistent with the plans.
Public Information Session
Planning staff held an on-line public information session on July 21, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. to review
the County-initiated amendments to land use plans and zoning atlas, rezoning being a separate
item processed concurrently. An overwhelming majority of all questions and comments were
51
related to the developer-initiated rezoning and Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP)
development proposal, which was not the focus of the session as the developer had held the
required Neighborhood Information meeting a few days before the session for the County
initiated proposals. Questions and answers with regard to RTLP will be addressed by the
developer through the process of BOCC consideration, and staff has also provided a Q &A
document as part of the Zoning Atlas Amendment (Master Plan Development Application —
RTLP) agenda materials, which is also on the agenda for this meeting.
Following is a link to additional information about the public information session, including a
PowerPoint presentation: https://www.orangecountync.gov/1722/Current-Interest-Projects
Planning Board Recommendation: The Orange County Planning Board, at its August 5, 2020
regular meeting, voted 6-4 to recommend approval of the proposed amendments. Clarification
of the motion voted upon was deemed necessary and the Planning Board considered a clarified
motion at its special meeting on August 19, 2020 when the board voted 6-4 to recommend
approval of the amendments. Excerpts of the minutes from this meeting are included in
Attachment 3. Agenda materials from these meetings can be viewed at:
http://orangecountVnc.gov/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26
Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
Resolution contained in Attachment 5, indicating consistency with the County's land use and
economic development goals.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to open
the public hearing.
Roll call ensued
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
PUBLIC COMMENT:
NONE
A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to
reconvene the public hearing on Tuesday, September 22, 2020.
Roll Call ensued
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
d. Public Hearing on CDBG-CV Grant Application for Emergency Housing Assistance
The Board held a public hearing on a potential application from Orange County for
Federal Community Development Block Grant— Coronavirus (CDBG-CV) funds.
BACKGROUND:
On August 25, 2020, Governor Roy Cooper announced the availability of$28 million from
federal Community Development Block Grant— Coronavirus (CDBG-CV) funding to be
disbursed by the North Carolina Office of Recovery and Resiliency (NCORR) to support rental
and utility payments and prevent evictions for those with a demonstrated need (see Attachment
52
1). The funding will be distributed to eligible community agencies around the state that will work
directly with North Carolinians on an application and disbursement process.
Orange County staff proposes to apply for the CDBG-CV funds to be used with the County's
existing Emergency Housing Assistance fund, which provides financial assistance to help
Orange County residents with low incomes secure and maintain stable housing (see Attachment
2). Assistance is available to households in Orange County that earn no more than 60% of the
area median income, have an urgent need for housing assistance, and do not have adequate
savings to cover the cost of their housing need.
Before submitting an application, Orange County must hold two (2) public hearings to obtain
public comments. The first public hearing —this hearing — occurs at the beginning of the
application process. The second public hearing must be held after the application is drafted but
prior to its submission.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: If Orange County is awarded CDBG-CV funds, up to $900,000 would
become available for Emergency Housing Assistance.
Emila Sutton, Housing Director, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
Slide #1
ORANGECOUNTY GCHM
IJC RrT fAIiDL[[JA muisrmxxrvxarcixcsoeneninxnnuxxan
NC CDBG-CV Application
for Emergency Housing Assistance
Board of Commissioners
September 15,2020
Slide #2
n\/FR\/IF\N
• NCCDBG-CV
Emergency Housing ASSIStance(EHA)
Public Comments
Slide #3
NI CDRG,-M
• The NC Department d Commerce a nnounced on August 2511that federal
CDBG-CV funds would be made available for local governments,with
priority on rent,utility,and mortgage assistance programs
Applica tions for NC CDBG-CV funds opened September 111,but in order to
apply,localises must first hold two(2)public hearings
Orange County Department of Housing and Community Development
intends to apply for the maximum amount of funds($900,000)to feed
into the existing Emergency Housing Assistance program
53
Slide#4
FMFRCFNCY H(IIICINC ASSISTANCF
• EHAwasoriginallycreatedbythe BOCCinlate201]aspartofthepilot
Risk Mitigation and H...mg Displacement Fund
P—id.emergency financialassisWnceforh.using-related—t.help
1. inwme households secure and/or maintain stable housing
• Eligible expenses includerent/ _ �++�•� +•-
ublitypayments and arrears,
uri[y deposits,etc. '
• g..March,EHA has drastically -
scaW pand nreamlinedm -
resp.nsetoincreasedneed
from COVID-19 _ — — ^ ^ •
Slide#5
FMFRCFNI('V HfIIICINlC A T A N C F
Slide #6
P I I R I I(' CnmMFNTS
Comments will be heard now,or may be submitted in writing or by
telephone until October 6,2020 to:
Erika Brandt,Housing and Community Development Manager
(919)245,4331
ebrandt@o ra ngecountyag-
• All comments will receive a written response and will be incorporated
into the application for NC CDBG-CV
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
open the public hearing.
Roll call ensued
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
PUBLIC COMMENT:
NONE
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
close the public hearing.
Roll Call ensued
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6. Regular Agenda
a. Proposed Naming of the Whitted Building Meeting Room as the Donna Baker
Boardroom
54
The Board considered voting on the intent to adopt a resolution for the naming of the
Whitted Building Meeting Room as the Donna Baker Boardroom.
BACKGROUND:
Donna Baker, Clerk to the Orange County Board of Commissioners, passed away unexpectedly
at her home in Orange County on July 31, 2020. Donna was appointed Clerk to the Board in
June 2002 and served as Clerk for over 18 years. Donna served the residents of Orange
County and a total of 18 different members of the Board of Commissioners as a dependable,
smart, dedicated, steadfast, and calming spirit.
Donna Baker is remembered for her spirit, her energy and her innumerable contributions to
Orange County. Donna treated County residents with special warmth when they came to her for
help. She was a dedicated public servant, especially to the Board of Orange County
Commissioners.
In memory and appreciation of Donna's dedication and commitment, the proposal to name the
Whitted Building Meeting Room as the Donna Baker Boardroom is presented to the Board of
Orange County Commissioners for consideration.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Greene to
direct staff to develop a resolution at a future meeting to name the Whitted Building Meeting
Room as the Donna Baker Boardroom
Roll Call ensued
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Orange County's Recommendations Regarding Goals for Inclusion in the North
Carolina Association of County Commissioners' (NCACC) 2021-2022 Legislative
Goals Package
To consider and approve a Resolution Detailing Orange County's Recommendations Regarding
Goals for Inclusion in the North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners' (NCACC) 2021-2022 Legislative Goals Package.
Greg Wilder with the County Manager's Office briefly presented this item. He noted the draft
resolution in the agenda package from the Legislative Issues Work Group, as well as the
updated Item #50 for that resolution from Commissioner Greene that had been emailed
previously to the Board.
BACKGROUND:
Every two years, the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) organizes
a process to develop a legislative goals package. The purpose of the package is to develop a
consensus of broad support on legislative goals and issues for matters affecting North Carolina
counties that may be addressed by the North Carolina General Assembly during the next two
calendar years. The goals and issues included in the package, with their broad support, guide
and strengthen
NCACC representatives and staff as they converse with individual legislators and committees
on legislative matters. NCACC began the process to develop its 2021-2022 Legislative Goals
Package in July 2020.North Carolina counties have been asked to submit proposed legislative
55
goals for consideration for inclusion in the package by a September 30, 2020 submittal
deadline. The NCACC Legislative Goals Process Flowchart is provided at Attachment 1.
The County's Legislative Issues Work Group (LIWG), including Commissioners Penny Rich and
Mark Dorosin, County Attorney John Roberts, and County Manager's Office staff, has
developed a draft resolution for Board consideration that outlines several proposed legislative
goals for inclusion in NCACC's 2019-2020 package. The LIWG's draft resolution is provided
at Attachment 2. The Board will likely want to discuss the draft resolution and possibly add to,
delete from, and/or revise the language of the proposed goals included in the draft.
A copy of NCACC's 2019-20 Legislative Goals document (Attachment 3) is noted for reference
purposes and is only available electronically at https://www.ncacc.org/734/2019-2020-
Legislative-Goals . These goals for the previous biennium may provide some insight on potential
goals to propose to NCACC for 2021-2022.
RES-2020-054
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Resolution Detailing Orange County's Recommendations
Regarding Goals for Inclusion in the
North Carolina Association of County Commissioners' (NCACC)
2021-2022 Legislative Goals Package
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC)
organizes a process every two years to adopt a legislative goals package
representing the collective interests of North Carolina counties; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the process is to develop broad support for matters
affecting counties that may be addressed by the North Carolina General
Assembly during the upcoming legislative biennium; and
WHEREAS, the goals and issues included in the NCACC package guide and
strengthen NCACC representatives and staff as they converse with individual
legislators and committees on legislative matters; and
WHEREAS, NCACC has begun the process to develop its 2021-2022 Legislative
Goals Package and requested Orange County and all other North Carolina
counties to submit proposed legislative goals by September 30, 2020 for
consideration for inclusion in the 2021-2022 Legislative Goals Package; and
WHEREAS, Orange County believes there are many issues of importance to all
North Carolina counties that should be included as goals in NCACC's 2021-2022
Legislative Goals Package;
NOW THEREFORE we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby
recommend that NCACC include the following goals in the NCACC 2021-2022
Legislative Goals Package:
1) Broadband/Digital Infrastructure — Support legislation, funding, and other efforts
that provide counties with flexibility and opportunities to support options for increasing
access to highspeed internet connectivity and expanding digital infrastructure/broadband
capability to the un-served and underserved areas of the state. Access to high speed
56
internet connections will reduce disparities, enhance quality of life for all the State's
residents, and broaden opportunities in areas such as education,jobs creation, small
business development, health care, civic participation, and growth in farm enterprises;
2) Minimum Wage Increase — Support legislation to raise the minimum wage for all, not
just employees of the State of North Carolina, to enhance people's economic security,
improve access to safe and secure housing, boost the economy with increased
spending, decrease dependence on government assistance programs, and improve the
lives of families;
3) Abolish State Death Penalty— Support legislation to abolish the State of North
Carolina's death penalty;
4) Expansion of Protected Classes — Seek statewide legislative action to provide all
North Carolina local governments with the authority to include sexual orientation and
gender identity as protected classes in order to protect these classes from discrimination
and discriminatory practices; and authorize complaints for discrimination to be brought in
North Carolina Courts by any Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recognized
protected class;
5) School Impact Fee Authority— Support legislation authorizing all North Carolina
local government jurisdictions providing funding for public education to levy impact fees
on new residential development to help pay for school construction. The North Carolina
General Assembly approved legislation in the 1980's for some jurisdictions to levy these
impact fees to support public school infrastructure. The authority to levy the fee to
support school facility needs should be available to all local government jurisdictions
providing funding for public education;
6) Full Funding of the Leandro Remedial Action Plan — Support the full funding of the
Leandro Remedial Action Plan, which details additional comprehensive, targeted
education funding over the next eight years in order for the State to come into
compliance with its constitutional obligation to provide every student a sound basic
education;
7) Repeal of the Monument Protection Act— Support legislation that repeals the (so-
called) Monument Protection Act which was enacted to protect confederate monuments
and symbols in the wake of the murders of nine African Americans in South Carolina in
2015, and that restores the regulation of monuments or symbols on public property to
local governments;
8) Legalization of Marijuana — Support legislation to legalize the possession and use of
marijuana, permit licensed businesses to engage in retail sales to adults, and enhance
revenue for governments with taxes, licenses, and other associated revenues that can
be utilized to address opioid and other drug-related problems and other needs;
9) Innovative Food Supply Chain Initiatives — Support food supply chain initiatives
and funding for equipment, supplies, and other nonrecurring expenses to improve and
spark innovation in food preservation and processing techniques to create a more
secure and resilient supply chain and better prepare the State for emergencies that
adversely impact the State's food supply;
57
10)Voter Registration and Voting — Support legislation to restore straight party ticket
voting and provide public financing of judicial elections and eliminate any requirements
for photograph identification;
11)Non-Partisan Redistricting Process for Elections— Support legislation to establish
a process for an independent, non-partisan redistricting process after each United States
Census for the election of representatives from North Carolina to the United States
House of Representatives, the North Carolina House, and the North Carolina Senate;
12)Legislative Leadership Term Limit— Support legislation that limits the length of
time a North Carolina General Assembly member can serve in the same leadership
position to eight consecutive years;
13)Fulfillment of Constitutional Duties — Oppose any legislation, that seeks to exempt
any government employee or agent from fulfilling his/her constitutional duties, including
but not limited to guaranteeing the right to marry for same-sex residents of North
Carolina;
14)Bona Fide Farm Use— Support legislation clarifying that the farm use and
agriculture exemption of 153A-340 that restricts local zoning authority applies only to
property on which the production of crops or livestock is the primary use. Clarify that
marketing and agri-tourism activities must be secondary uses of the property and do not
qualify for the exemption in the absence of the production of crops or livestock;
15)Renewable Energy— Support renewable energy initiatives available to residential,
commercial, industrial and agricultural activities to create a market for energy credits.
This support will provide incentives to produce renewable energy, which will become
increasingly important to preserving and strengthening the economy and infrastructure,
and in the case of agriculture help maintain rural heritage and culture;
16)Bail Reform (Also known as 3DaysCountTM) —Support legislation to develop and
fund a plan to implement 3DaysCountTM to help reduce unnecessary arrests by
expanding the use of citations or summons, replace money bail with non-financial, least
restrictive conditions, restrict detention to the small number of people for whom no
condition or combination of conditions can reasonably assure appearance in court and
public safety, and reduce disparity within the pretrial justice system. Currently, indigent
or poor people charged with crimes are often unable to get out of jail prior to trial
because of their inability to pay (See EXHIBIT A— Resolution Supporting
3DaysCountTM);
17)Expansion of Medicaid Program — Support legislation to increase access to the
Medicaid program to make health insurance available to approximately 500,000 more
North Carolina residents and as additional support for rural hospitals;
18)Child Care - Seek legislation to reverse changes made to the childcare subsidy
program available to working families, including establishing eligibility for all children at
200% of the federal poverty level, to help many working parents who are trying to
become more financial self-sufficient, and to prorate fees for children attending based on
the hours attended;
58
19)Mental Health —Seek legislation to ensure that adequate Statefunded mental health,
developmental disability, and substance abuse services and facilities are available at the
local level, accessible and affordable to all residents and that sufficient state resources
fund service provision costs inclusive of sufficient crisis intervention and treatment, and
to structure appropriate county
participation in governance;
20)People with Mental Health Issues in County Jails — Support legislation to develop
and fund a plan to reduce the number of people with mental health issues in county jails
(See EXHIBIT B Regarding the National Association of Counties (NACo) Stepping Up
Initiative);
21)Smart Start and NC Pre-K— Support legislation to increase and ensure secure and
stable funding, enhanced quality early care and education, and family access and
benefits in settings public and private.
22)Priority School Issues — Support legislation to address the following issues related
to schools:
a) Provide local school systems with calendar flexibility;
b) Provide full funding for State allotments including Average Daily Membership
(ADM) growth, and support legislation to provide for an overall increase in
funding based on average daily memberships outside of the current formula
system;
c) Impose class size reductions commensurate with State funding for staffing;
and
d) Maintain full funding for Driver Education;
23)State/County Partnership for Education —Seek legislation to establish a new
state-county partnership to address statewide public school capital challenges--including
but not limited to maintenance, renovation, construction and debt--through a dedicated,
stable funding stream that is consistent from county to county and sufficient to meet the
school facility needs of all 100 counties;
24)Machinery Act— Support local governments' need for more flexibility to remedy
measurement and/or condition property appraisal errors related to local property tax
functions. North Carolina property tax law substantially limits the ability of local
governments to address property tax discrepancies, such as prohibiting the refund of
prior years' taxes paid after a measurement and/or condition property appraisal error is
discovered. Just as local governments can recoup prior years' property taxes from
owners for"discoveries", local governments should likewise be authorized to refund prior
years' taxes paid when situations such as measurement and/or condition property
appraisal errors are discovered;
25)Re-instatement of Earned Income Tax Credit— Support legislation to re-instate the
State Earned Income Tax Credit which greatly benefitted low wage earners until its
elimination after the 2013 tax year;
26)Homestead Exemption — Support revisions to the Homestead Exemption provisions
of the Machinery Act to:
a) provide greater opportunities for low-income seniors to remain in their homes
and not be displaced due to property tax burdens by approving a one-time ten
59
percent (10%) increase in the base income qualification standard; and
maintaining the current provisions which increase the income qualification
standard each year based on any costof-living adjustment made to the benefits
under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act for the preceding calendar year;
and
b) diminish the discriminatory features of the current exemption provisions
relating to married couples by establishing graduated income qualification
standards for single individuals versus married couples;
27)Agriculture — Support Conservation of Working Lands and Farmland
Preservation — Support a revision to the revenue and acreage requirements of the Use
Value Program to reduce acreage requirements, balanced by increasing the income
threshold;
28)Sales Tax Distribution Formula —Support legislation directing that all sales tax be
distributed on a per capita basis as it is fair and more equitable for counties with less
economic development as compared to the point of delivery basis. The UNC School of
Government has indicated that a per capita basis tax "would indeed be a more even
distribution of LOST revenue across the state";
29)Maintain Local Government Authority over Solid Waste Management— oppose
any shift of solid waste management and recycling services away from local
governments;
30)Electronics Recycling — Support legislation to provide additional funding to local
governments for electronics recycling to cover significant increased costs for recycling
these materials and to oppose the lifting of restrictions on disposal of electronics in
landfills;
3 1)Transportation Funding — Support increased state funding for transportation
construction and maintenance needs, recognize Bike and Pedestrian modes of
transportation, and support legislation to ensure that the STI funding formula recognizes
that one size does not fit all and that projects in both rural and urban areas are prioritized
and funded, and eliminate the cap on light rail funding;
32)Oppose any shift of state transportation responsibilities to counties — oppose
legislation to shift the state's responsibility for funding transportation construction and
maintenance projects to counties. Counties cannot afford to assume costs for
maintaining secondary roads and/or funding expansion projects;
33)Eminent Domain —Oppose adding language to a constitutional amendment on
eminent domain that extends any further preemption of county authority to regulate the
placement of telecommunication towers;
34)Fees-In-Lieu — NCDOT as Additional Recipient— Support legislation amending
North Carolina General Statute 153A-331 to add a provision allowing counties to transfer
fees collected as part of subdivision development, and in lieu of required street
construction, to be transferred to and held by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT)for the future construction of roads intended to be added to the
State Maintained system. Presently there is no mechanism where a county can collect
fees in lieu of transportation improvement construction based on conditions agreed to by
both parties during a conditional zoning process. These fees may be for a developer fair
60
share of a future comprehensive intersection improvement but would not be built by
NCDOT until other funding could be assigned to do a complete improvement;
35)Revenue Options for Local Government— Support efforts to preserve and expand
the existing local revenue base of counties and authorize local option revenue sources
already given to any other jurisdiction to all counties. Oppose efforts to divert to the state
fees or taxes currently allocated to the counties or to erode existing county revenue
streams;
36)E-911 Funds — Support protection and broader applications of the NC 9-1-1 Fund to
be used primarily for assuring that 9-1-1 systems are able to upgrade xisting
performance levels in order to pay for 9-1-1 operations or 9-1-1 related upgrades such
as the infrastructure needed to migrate to next-generation (NG911) technology. Orange
County has appreciated past efforts and supports future initiatives to assure our citizens
are provided continued access to emergency services from all sources;
37)Land, Water and Agricultural Preservation Funding — Support Park, Agricultural
Preservation, Clean Water Management and other existing trust funds established for
the protection of the State's land, water, biological esources, agriculture, and special
places before they are irreversibly lost, and request that these funds receive additional
funding, preferably through dedicated funding sources;
38)County Jail System/Housing State Inmates Reimbursement— Support legislation
to protect the fiscal viability of the county jail system by reinstating reimbursement for
state inmates housed in county jails sentenced to 90 days or less;
39)Aquatic Vegetation Control — Support legislation to provide for and fund a
comprehensive statewide approach to noxious aquatic vegetation control in public water
reservoirs;
40)Concealed Weapons in Parks —Seek legislation re-authorizing counties to fully
regulate the carrying of concealed weapons on county-owned playgrounds and in
county-owned parklands and authorize counties to prohibit the carrying of concealed
weapons on county and county funded college/university campuses, in addition to
playgrounds;
41)Opioid Epidemic Efforts — Support adequate funding for programs to provide and
expand access for individuals with opioid use disorder to seek and complete treatment,
and sustain recovery, as well as increased funding to collect data regarding opioid
overdoses and to provide for additional law enforcement to
investigate and enforce drug laws;
42)Behavioral Health Services — Support increased state funding for behavioral health
services and facilities at the state and local level, including dedicated resources for
community paramedicine projects. Support Medicaid reimbursement to EMS for
behavioral health transport to crisis centers and structure appropriate county
participation in behavioral health program governance;
43)Adult Protective Services — Support increased funding and legislation to strengthen
adult protective services;
61
44)Court Funding — Support increased state funding for NC courts, including reinstating
funding for drug treatment court;
45)Crime Intervention Services — Support legislation and state funding to provide early
intervention services through the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils, and support
increased state funding for the prevention, intervention and treatment of adolescent
substance abuse, gang involvement and domestic violence;
46)Agricultural Economic Development—Support state funding and staffing for
agricultural research, Cooperative Extension services and other agriculture-related
efforts to support the largest economic driver in North Carolina;
47)Economic Development Efforts— Support legislation to grow North Carolina's
statewide economy through sound state investments, including public infrastructure
funding, competitive incentives, and coordinated efforts with county economic
development services;
48)Exemption to 180 Day Temporary Electricity Connection Limit for Recreational
Vehicles in a Campground or Other Similar Park— Support legislation to provide an
exemption to the current 180 day temporary utility connection limit as contained within
the building code for individuals utilizing campers and/or recreational vehicles as
temporary housing units while supporting/visiting family members undergoing treatment
in local hospitals;
49)Dangerous Dogs Determinations — Support legislation to change current law so
that dogs from dog fighting investigations and seizures are not automatically deemed
dangerous without further determination that the dogs alleged to have been owned or
harbored for fighting demonstrate an increased potential for unprovoked attacks on
persons or domestic animals, in order to alleviate the requirement to destroy these
animals "sight unseen". Additionally, clarify at what point in the legal process a dog is
"owned or harbored...for fighting," be it upon seizure, arrest, indictment, or conviction;
and
50)Legislative Study on Educational Requirements for Law Enforcement Officers—
Support legislation to establish a legislative study commission to review the current
educational curriculum for law enforcement officers and make recommendations
regarding potential modifications/additions. The overarching purpose of curriculum
revision would be to instill in future LEOs some depth of understanding of the complex
nature of the society they will serve. Potential topics for consideration include sociology,
American history and literature, psychology, philosophy, and conflict resolution. In
addition to members of the Senate and House, members should include a diverse array
of experts in higher education, both in subject matter specialties and in curriculum
development for adult learners. The commission's work should be completed within one
year of commencement.
This the 15th day of September 2020.
Penny Rich, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
62
Commissioner Greene said since the murder of George Floyd, there has been a lot of
discussion about police training, and the need for improved training that includes the
history/sociology/psychology of the local communities in which the police serve. She said other
states around the country are instituting these changes at the state level. She said she has
spoken with legislatures and the NCACC, and is fully prepared to advocate for this item as it
goes through the process, if the Board agrees.
Commissioner Dorosin said an additional item has arisen that is not included in this list:
water utility shutoffs are coming back soon. He said the BOCC should ask for local
governments to be given flexibility regarding this topic, which local governments do not currently
have the authority to do. He said the Covid crisis is real and there should be legislation to
support local governments in being flexible.
Chair Rich said she spoke with Jenn Weaver, Hillsborough Mayor, who said this would
be impossible to do as the Town would lose its bond rating. She said the word flexible is
important.
Commissioner Price said counties do not own local water authorities, and she wonders if
this item is appropriate for the NCACC, as it is not a county issue.
Commissioner Dorosin said several items listed in the resolution are not under County
authority.
Commissioner Price said it might better to talk to the leagues.
Commissioner Greene agreed this is an important policy point, but she agrees with
Commissioner Price that the items must have direct impact on counties.
Commissioner Marcoplos said most of these suggestions never make it beyond a
discussion, but it cannot hurt to include the item. He said it gets it on people's radar, and he
thinks it is a good idea.
Commissioner Bedford agreed with Commissioner Marcoplos, and said the County
helps people make their water payment, so it does impact the County.
Chair Rich asked John Roberts if the BOCC would need to apply this request to all
utilities.
John Roberts said he does not know, but the Duke Energy is different than the Orange
Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), which is local government entity controlled by the
legislature.
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner by
Commissioner Marcoplos to revise the resolution to include that local governments and utility
providers be given the authority to determine whether to forgive arrears, or to develop
progressive pricing policies, for water and sewer services.
Roll call ensued
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Price said, in the future, the Board should spend time prioritizing the list
based on the steering committees.
Chair Rich said it was her understanding that the list did not need prioritization, as all
items were looked at.
Commissioner Price said it depends who is on the various committees. She said she
has sat through the process before, and some items have been sitting around for years.
Commissioner Dorosin agreed, and said the BOCC should submit the ones that are
unique to Orange County.
63
A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Bedford
approve the above resolution, with agreed upon revisions including the updated #50; authorize
the Chair to sign; and authorize the Clerk to the Board to forward to NCACC by the September
30t", 2020 deadline
Roll Call ensued
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7. Reports
None
8. Consent Agenda (COMPLETED ABOVE BETWEEN ITEMS 4 and 5)
9. County Manager's Report
Bonnie Hammersley reminded the Board that there are now two Board meetings next
week: 9/22/2020 and 9/24/2020.
10. County Attorney's Report
John Roberts said the legislator did not expand beyond what it said it would address
next week. He said it does not look like the legislature will meet again this year.
11. * Appointments
a. Appointments to the Cardinal Innovations Community Advisory Council
The Board approved the following appointees to the Cardinal Innovations Community
Advisory Council:
1. Commissioner Jamezetta Bedford
2. Paul Berry
3. Karla Boreiko
4. Krista Caraway
5. Lisa Kaylie
6. Deborah Gilgor
7. Troy Manns
8. Kim Wanke
9. Allison Zirkle
Chair Rich asked if there is any diversity in these applicants.
Travis Myren said he could not speak to this issue.
Commissioner Price said Troy Manns is African American.
Chair Rich said that is one candidate.
Commissioner Bedford said Cardinal voiced a desire for diversity of backgrounds and
experience across pertinent issues (substance use disorder, mental health issues, etc.).
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there were only 9 applicants.
Travis Myren said there were 12 applicants.
Commissioner Dorosin said in the future he would like to see all the applicants, not just
those being put forward.
Travis Myren said all applications were attached to the agenda.
64
David Hunt said Cardinal ran this application process, and it did not come through the
Clerk's office.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Greene to
approve Cardinal Innovations Community Advisory Council appointees.
Roll call ensued
VOTE: Ayes (6); Nays, 1 (Chair Rich)
12. Information Items
• September 1, 2020 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
• Memorandum Regarding Orange County Transit Plan —Transit Summit#1
13. Closed Session
NONE
14. Recess and Reconvene
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
recess and reconvene the meeting on Tuesday, September 22, 2020.
Roll call ensued
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
The meeting was recessed at 12:19 a.m.
- - - - - - - - - September 22, 2020 - - - - - - - - -
The Orange County Board of Commissioners reconvened the September 15, 2020 Virtual
Business Meeting on Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Penny Rich and Commissioners Jamezetta
Bedford, Mark Dorosin, Sally Greene, Mark Marcoplos, Earl McKee, and Renee Price
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
Travis Myren, Interim Clerk to the Board Greg Wilder, Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt,
and Assistant Deputy Clerk Allen Coleman (All other staff members will be identified
appropriately below)
65
Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., and said Commissioner McKee was
running late.
A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos
to reconvene the continued September 15, 2020 Business Meeting.
Roll call ensued
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Rich said the recommendations had changed to reflect that written public
comment will be taken until Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.
Chair Rich recognized David Hunt for his work in coordinating the logistics for this
continued meeting.
David Hunt said Commissioner McKee would join by phone and then would join via
laptop.
Chair Rich called the first name to resume the Public Comment portion of 5-a.
5- Public Hearings
a. Zoning Atlas Amendment— Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District
(MPD-CZ) for the Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP)
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ronald Sieber read the following comments:
My name is Ronald Sieber. I live at 4217 New Hope Springs Drive in Hillsborough, and I have
written several letters to you concerning my opposition to the proposed RTLP project, as I share
the viewpoint of many that it is not suited for our community and will only undermine the charm
and character that make up Hillsborough and Orange County.
The Comprehensive Plan was initially crafted "as a framework for long-range decision-making"
and was adopted in its current form in 2008. Out of that was formed a set of procedures and
roles that different departments and officials would follow as protocol.
Under the umbrella of the Comprehensive Plan, the Unified Development Ordinance comprises
rules and regulations that implement planning and enforcement. It serves as "the statutory
basis...for land use regulations, as well as the application of zoning districts." In this manner, a
uniform way of doing things was enacted. This set of procedures has been in place for years.
Recent actions by the Planning Department, whether intentional or not, have subverted their
own accepted practice and set of procedures. In the case of the RTLP project, the Barrister
Group proposes to purchase a 12-acre parcel on Davis Rd. that is currently zoned both R1
(rural residential) and RB (rural buffer).
That 12-acre parcel was never intended to be part of the EDD. So why does the Planning
Department want that property to be rezoned "MPD-CZ"?
66
The answer? Barrister can then appropriate that Davis Rd. parcel and use it to create the main
exit out of their project that will dump onto Davis Rd. Davis will thus become part of the exit for
their project.
In effect, the Planning Department has requested that the boundary for the Economic
Development District be extended south to swallow the 12-acre residential parcel. This land-use
change would allow a developer to take over Davis Rd., a major entranceway to this residential
area, and completely destroy the peaceful character of that rural community, which includes
the church and cemetery that lie across from the 12-acre parcel and on Davis Rd. The church
and its pre-school nursery would then have to endure unending truck and vehicular traffic from
RTLP that would drive by their facility.
The takeaway here is simple. Land use plans should not be changed in order to justify an
applicant's rezoning request. This backwards maneuver is not the way the process should
work.
Such action can corrupt the process and produce unintended consequences. For instance,
County Board approval on this proposal could trigger a case of illegal spot zoning, as this is
what our Planning Department appears to have attempted in order to make the RTLP project
work. It's like fitting a square peg into a round hole. And if you, as our county commissioners,
vote to approve this attempt to circumvent the long agreed-upon process, you will be the ones
who are held responsible for the fallout from this rezoning.
Respectfully submitted,
Ronald D. Sieber
4217 New Hope Springs Dr.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Christine Poole said she has lived in Hillsborough for 25 years, after being an army brat
for her entire childhood. She said she chose to raise her family in Hillsborough, but has lived
several places where air pollution has not been kept in check. She said Hillsborough is a
beautiful place with ever changing seasons, and wildlife. She said the Town has history, strong
values and a connection to nature, which must be protected. She said she is opposed to this
irresponsible development.
Keith Poole said he lives off of David Road, and is opposed to the RTLP proposal. He
said he shares the same concerns as his wife, and he wants to see the land and people of
Hillsborough protected. He said he respects the Board of County Commissioner's (BOCC) role
in finding economic development, but he does not think this project will benefit the County. He
said it is important to preserve the environment, and there are much better ways to bring
development to the community. He urged the Board to build for the future.
Commissioner McKee joined the meeting at 7:13 p.m.
Jackson Poole said he was born and raised in Hillsborough, and recognizes the need for
development, but find RTLP to be the wrong kind of development. He said climate change is
real, and while Orange County is ecologically progressive, it can always do more. He said the
impact of this development on watersheds would be serious. He said there are many reasons
not to build on this site, but water seems the most important to him. He said it is important to
build smart for the future, and he is opposed to RTLP.
67
Joanie Alexander said she will be short and sweet. She echoed all the concerns raised
by previous speakers, and she said the County must do everything it can to make any
development future oriented.
Desiree Goldman said she is a local realtor, and has been very involved in bringing
economic development to the area. She said she does not love this project, but wonders if the
County can afford the luxury of turning it down. She said she believes the country is headed for
a very difficult year, and does not expect the federal government to help. She said the County
relies too heavily on residential taxes, and needs greater economic tax input. She said the
County enjoys its services and seems to turn down many projects that could bring jobs, or help
alleviate traffic (such as road widening projects), and at some point there has to be some
development allowed. She said to consider all the factors carefully.
Ellen Mayer said she lives within 1000 feet of the proposed project, and echoed the
comments of most of the previous speakers. She said she is concerned about water and air
pollution, but her greatest concern is the traffic. She said the area was not designed for such
traffic, and said it is an accident waiting to happen. She said she is opposed to RTLP, but
welcomes more reasonable development.
Frank Cohen echoed the sentiments of most of the previous speakers, and said he is
opposed to RTLP. He said the project will destroy the Town of Hillsborough, and would bring an
influx of people for which infrastructure is not yet in place. He said the lower paying jobs that
may come with this project will not allow workers to afford to live locally. He said he does not
want Hillsborough to turn into an urban sprawl. He said to send the developer back to
Kentucky.
Anne Sherman said she lives in Chapel Hill, and does not personally know anyone who
lives close to the proposed project, but she remains opposed to it. She said old 86 is a beautiful
artery that serves the whole County, and this project will have such negative consequences.
She said a previous speaker recommended a $2 million fund for property owners who property
values will fall due to the project, but she thinks this is a gross underestimation of how far
property values will fall. She said there will be many negative environmental impacts as well,
and, while she wants to see a growing tax base, this is not the project to choose.
Daniel Yarborough thanked the BOCC for listening carefully to the public, and said he is
opposed to this project for all the previously stated reasons. He encouraged the Board to reject
this proposal, in favor of better and smarter development.
Ashley Lorusso said she supports development, but not this proposed project. She
encouraged the BOCC to reject the project, as it will cause irreparable damage. She said
developers can come up with more creative ways to address traffic issues, and DOT seems to
open to doing so.
Susan Attermeier said has lived in the rural buffer for 40 years, and thanked the BOCC
for listening to the public. She said the Developer's intended land uses are not clear, and she
echoed concerns raised by previous speakers.
Joan Kalnitsky thanked the BOCC for allowing everyone to speak. She said she is
opposed to the RTLP project, and the 12 acre track is zoned rural residential. She said there
are 7200+ signatures on a petition opposed to this project, and the community is passionate
about maintaining the vibe that exists in Hillsborough. She said the BOCC clearly recognizes
the holes in this project, and she urged the Board to reject it.
Beth Rosenberg said she has lived off Davis Road for over 20 years. She said this
project is a poor one, especially due to the negative environmental impacts. She said the traffic
from this project would have far reaching impacts, not just this immediate neighborhood. She
said she is opposed to this project.
David Blankfard said he is the Chair of the Planning Board, and has lived in Orange
County since 1981, and in Hillsborough since 2007. He said Cates Creek runs through his back
yard. He said he voted for this development as this land has been planned for development for
68
many years, and the location is near an interstate interchange. He said his only concern about
the project is the traffic coming onto Davis Road, but the Planning Board did not approve
addressing this. He said he would like to see this issue mitigated, so the project can proceed.
Jim Garland said he owns a fishery next to the proposed project, and he opposes this
project. He said he is concerned about the negative environmental impacts on his land, which
is the source of his livelihood, and the surrounding community, as well as the air pollution
caused by the many large trucks.
Katie Loovis said she is speaking on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce in Chapel Hill,
who is in full support of the proposed project. She said this land was set aside for economic
development 40 years, and it should come as no surprise that development is being proposed.
She said RTLP is a $150 million investment in the County, and will bring many jobs for low-
income residents. She said Davis Road is a state road for public use with a speed limit of 45
miles per hour, and not some sleepy residential road. She said the claims of negative
environmental impacts are unfair and unfounded. She said the project fully complies with all
legal requirements of the County's noise ordinance. She said there is a developer willing to
invest, and the County should proceed. She implored the Board to approve the project.
Susan Fenwick echoed concerns of previous speakers, and believes this project will be
a warehouse facility, creating a lot of noise and pollution. She said the Board should consider
other development projects that could bring in more tax revenue per square footage, and she is
opposed to RTLP.
Wendy Diehl said she moved to the area four years ago from out of state. She said she
chose Hillsborough out of the entire State, and is very proud to call Hillsborough her home. She
cited research from other communities that embraced projects like RTLP, and concluded that
such projects had negative environmental and health impacts on the community and residents
nearby. She said traffic is also of great concern, and she is opposed to the project.
Nan Fulcher said she understands the desire to end the decades of stagnation in the
EDDs, but it cannot be at the expense of the community. She said the desire to bring in a more
varied tax base has lead to corners being cut and established processes not being followed.
She said the rural buffer was created to determine where and how development occurs, and the
homeowners near this parcel of land should not have to pay the price for the need to make up
for lost time in economic development. She said she is opposed to this project, as it simply
does not fit.
Joshua Ham said he moved to the area a year ago, and prior to that he was a middle
school teacher. He said he has researched the proposed project, and it seems the only real
motivator is the tax base. He said people are more important than money, and he asked the
BOCC to consider all the information and make the most caring decision possible. He said his
land is beautiful, and sits right next to the proposed project's land. He said he is against the
approval of this project.
Jared Jurkiewicz said he is the president of the Winsong Homeowner's Association, a
neighborhood close to the proposed site. He said it is completely unrealistic to think that trucks
will not turn right on Davis Road, and while it is a state road, it is narrow with no sidewalks. He
said families walk on Davis Road all the time, and bicycles use it all the time too. He said the
noise level will also be incredibly disruptive, and seems cruel to the homeowners.
Betty Garland said she is the owner of a small truffle farm near the proposed sites. She
said her orchard was the first to grow truffles in the United States. She said this project will
have extreme negative impacts on the environment, and saying otherwise is simply untrue. She
said her truffles will be contaminated. She said the noise pollution is also of extreme concern.
She said the project does not fit with the community, and she is opposed to it.
Franklin Garland said he is has been in the area since 1973, and a business owner
since 1975. He said he planted his land prior to the BOCC creating the land use plan, and it is a
69
unique business. He said his brother's fishery is right next-door. He said he is opposed to the
RTLP project.
Jim Henninger said he lives off of old 86, and his children grew up calling their home the
"shire". He said this proposed project is not right for the community, and the BOCC should
search for development that is in line with original EDD plan. He said the Applicant's analysis of
the traffic is inaccurate, and old 86 is the only viable way into Hillsborough for those living south
of 1-85. He opposed the project.
Christina Hilliard said she has lived in Orange County for 21 years. She said she has
read extensively on this project over the past 7 weeks. She said what she has learned has
given her sleepless nights, especially when considering the impacts of diesel trucks. She said
this project is not environmentally sustainable. She said she is not anti-development, and asked
the BOCC to consider other options for economic development. She said she is opposed to this
project.
Madelyn Friedman said she is opposed to this project. She said there is a preschool
across the street from the proposed development, and this is of great concerned as the children
play outdoors all the time. She said the trucks are loud and pollute the air, and would change
the landscape of the entire area. She said the preschool is housed within a local church, who is
also greatly concerned about this development. She said the developer should not be allowed
to use Davis Road as a part of this project.
Gayane Chambless thanked the BOCC for its commitment to listening to the community.
She said she lives further up old 86, across from a development that was built in recent years.
She said her neighborhood was promised a traffic signal to mitigate the increase in traffic, and
her neighborhood is still waiting. She said flooding has already greatly increased in her
neighborhood, and will only worsen if the RTLP project is approved. She said she is against the
project.
Cynthia Cain said has done a great deal of research on the impacts of similar
developments in other areas around the country. She highlighted some of this information, and
said she hopes the BOCC will use it to understand what could happen here in Hillsborough.
She said the Applicant is not disclosing the tenants for the land, and once zoning is approved,
the BOCC will lose power to have any say in who the tenants are. She said there will be better
opportunities for economic development, and the BOCC should wait.
Jeffrey Marks said he has lived here for 30 years, and is opposed to this project. He
said there will be mega structures dwarfing the landscape. He said the Applicant will not
commit to the exact use of the land, yet is ready to break ground next year. He said the
Developer has not demonstrated great success with past projects.
Chris Rodermond commended the community for speaking up and the BOCC for
listening. He said he lives near the proposed site, and he said the use of the 12-acre parcel to
gain access to Davis Road seems short sighted. He said Davis Road cannot support the
expected truck traffic, and the negative impacts will be immense. He said property values of
adjacent properties will plummet, and the health of local residents can only be adversely
impacted. He said the land around old 86 is some of the most beautiful in the County, and must
be protected. He said is he opposed to this project.
Justin Mitchell said he lives on Davis Road, within 1000 feet of the proposed
development. He said is opposed to this project, and finds the developer has been less than
forthcoming with exact details about this project. He said it is clear that truck and traffic issues
will be enormous, and have a negative impact on the surrounding land, homes, and businesses.
He said the BOCC should not approve this project without a full analysis of the noise and traffic
patterns, once the specific land use is known.
Aaron Nelson said he is the president of the Chamber of Commerce for Chapel Hill and
Carrboro. He said he is surprised by the community's response to this project, as the land was
set aside for this type of use. He said only 3% of the County's land is set aside for economic
70
development, in concentrated areas known as Economic Development Districts. He said the
tax revenue from this project is very much needed, and the jobs that will be provided are
important. He said if there is a concern about idling, then make a rule that says no idling. He
said if the Board approves this, it does not mean it was not listening to the community, but
simply that it disagreed with the community.
Christy Bailey said her family has lived in Orange County for 5 generations. She said
her property was put into the EDD in 1981. She said it is time to develop this land, as it has
been waiting for 40 years. She said her family has been limbo for decades, and she feels that
RTLP will be a benefit to the community. She said the extension of water and sewer will allow
for growth, and the Developer can assist with this. She said this is the right area, the right time
and the right project. She said she supports the project to lift the burden off of homeowners.
She said the restrictions are in place to insure the success of this project.
Amanda Shakhloul said she has mixed feelings about this project, and her main concern
is what will be inside this property; who will the tenants be. She said she would like to know if
water and sewer will be run to the area.
Vickie Berry said RTLP would not be her first choice, and she is also concerned about
what will be contained at these facilities. She said she is also concerned about the
environmental, traffic and health impacts mentioned by former speakers. She said she is also
concerned about residents being able to have quick access to the medical facilities north of this
area. She said she in concerned about nuclear waste.
Debra Bost thanked the BOCC for the chance to speak. She said she moved to
Hillsborough in 1975, and owns land very close to Davis Road, where she built her forever
home. She said she reviewed the Triangle Regional Freight plan, which claims to be safe and
efficient. She said RTLP does not fit into this promise. She said she understands the appeal of
the project, but does not believe this project is the right one for this community. She echoed the
far-reaching detrimental impacts mentioned by former speakers, and said she is opposed to the
project.
Kim Tesoro said Orange County is a well thought out and well planned place, with great
care given to the environment and the residents. She said it is easy to be concerned about
unknowns, and there are things that are unknown about this project. She said some see big
developers as bad, but this is not always fair. She said the tax revenue and jobs are needed so
that residents can work where they live. She said corporate philanthropy is another benefit of
this this proposed projects. She said small businesses cannot carry the burden alone, and she
is favor of the RTLP.
Linda Ostrand said she works in wildlife preservation, and is strongly opposed to the
project. She said the number of wildlife needing help is rising rapidly each year, as habitat is
being taken away due to development. She said this project may just be focused on a small
area, but changing more and more small areas leads to the change of a large area.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to
close the public hearing, and authorize written comments until 9:00 a.m. on September 24,
2020.
Roll call ensued.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Rich said the Applicant will have a chance to respond, and should not repeat the
presentation, but rather make brief remarks.
Michael Birch, Longleaf Law Partners, said he wanted to address some of the public and
Board comments.
71
Michael Birch referred to the noise measurement in the field, and showed a PowerPoint
slide as to where the measurements were taken, and how it impacts the surrounding
area/homes.
Michael Birch referred to the idling truck comments, and said the ordinance does not
permit idling of trucks for more than 5 consecutive minutes.
Michael Birch presented an updated vacant land map.
Christa Greene provided several definitions to the transportation trip generation codes,
and land use codes. She said DOT does not accept the 155-land use code at this time.
Christa Greene said the scoping process was fully completed, and all agreed upon the
land use prior to any studies being completed. She said land use code 030 has been brought
up, and in the ITE manual it is under an entirely different section called "ports and terminals,"
which is intermodal in nature, and would not be appropriate for this project. She made some
comments about the possible traffic pattern.
Michael Birch referred to the transportation matter, and said a number of comments
were received about truck traffic on Davis Road. He said his staff has put together another
traffic impact analysis using the service drive with a fully signalized intersection at old 86,
allowing for no truck traffic on Davis Road. He said his staff expressed the importance of this
with DOT, and the analysis does presume the need for additional right away; along Davis Road
and highway 86, to accommodate a signalized intersection.
Michael Birch said the Applicant agrees to not connect to Davis Road from a truck traffic
standpoint, if at, a minimum, of 60 days prior to the certificate of occupancy (CO) to the building,
Orange County and/or NCDOT, would be able to accomplish a modified signalized intersection
on the service road and old 86. He said if that occurred, the Applicant would not connect to
Davis Road for truck traffic. He said if this could not happen in time, but could so at a later date,
the development would shut off the Davis Road access point for truck traffic.
Michael Birch said the access on Davis Road is not something the project initially
proposed, but rather NCDOT requested another access point. He said additional analysis had
been proposed as an additional condition.
Michael Birch referred to some of the environmental concerns, and said Cates Creek
does not run through this site. He said an unnamed tributary, which connects to Cates Creek,
does run through the property, but not the creek itself. He said Cates Creek does not have a
high quality water designation, and is not protected/critical watersheds. He said Cates Creek is
a nutrient sensitive waterway but this is due to land further down. He said storm water runoff
does not affect Davis Road or the flood plane, and there is no heritage natural area of on the
property. He said the Applicant is setting aside 25% of the site for green space, proposing
development at half of what is allowed for the site.
Commissioner McKee said he has argued for and supported development in his 10
years on the Board, and congratulated the Developer for bringing the first project for which he
questions the viability. He said he asked last week if the percentage of traffic exiting on Davis
Road, which would be trucks, could be identified, and he received no answer. He said he
knows the answer, because there is no alternative, and it will be 100%. He said with proper
signalization traffic could be sent out on the service road, and blocks could be in place to
prevent traffic going onto Davis Road. He said tonight the Applicant has presented a fairly
complicated 2-step, which will require u-turns and easements, as well as use of Davis Road for
some time. He said he cannot support any truck use of Davis Road. He said he would like to
support the project, and will if proper changes can be made. He said the Applicant needs a
clear and consistent message.
Commissioner Greene said she understands the stream does not flow towards Davis
Road, but asked if anything will be done to ensure flooding does not occur like that which was
referenced by a resident of Cornwallis Hills
72
Chris Bostic said the flood plain that exists on this property is a result of a back water
condition form the pipe that goes under 1-40, which is helpful to downstream property owners.
He said the amount of flow to that line is limited. He said the Applicant would be required to
contain the peak flow at a pre development level.
Commissioner Greene asked if 1,000 jobs is an accurate number in the proposal.
Michael Birch said yes, that is an estimate.
Commissioner Greene asked if that number included truck drivers.
Michael Birch said no.
Commissioner Greene asked if the percentage of jobs making $30,000 annually or more
is known.
Michael Birch said a minimal number of jobs would make less than $30,000 annually.
Commissioner Greene asked if the type of jobs found in warehouses could be identified.
Michael Birch said it depends on the user, but there will be management level positions,
technician/computer technician positions, robotic management, etc.
Commissioner Greene said she agreed with Commissioner McKee regarding Davis
Road. She said it sounds like someone will have to pay for some extra land for easements.
Michael Birch apologized and said he and his staff did not fully understand
Commissioner McKee's question last week. He said if the question that what percentage of the
truck traffic will use Davis Road, he agreed it would be 100%.
Michael Birch said if the improvements to the service road and 86 could be done prior to
the time that the development would have to make improvements to Davis Road and the Davis
Road intersection, then funds could be reallocated from the Davis Road side to this area
instead. He said the developer is not trying to achieve any cost savings, but rather obtain an
approval that is not subject to his control. He said he understands that no one wants truck
traffic on Davis Road, and whenever a signal and service road can be achieved at 86, all work
will stop on Davis Road.
Commissioner Greene asked if there is a reason this cannot be agreed to prior to any
work beginning.
Matt Peach with Stantec Consulting said NCDOT policy's is to not have any full
movement intersections or traffic signals 1000 feet from an interchange ramp terminal. He said
the service road is currently 400-450 feet from that ramp terminal, so NCDOT would need to
make an exception to its standard. He said this request has been made to NCDOT, and he is
awaiting an answer.
Commissioner Greene said that was not really what she was asking.
Michael Birch said the Applicant has pursued acquisition of property to have an alternate
access point onto 86. He said the Applicant has looked at options further south, and are
continuing to pursue this. He said there is a scoped and approved traffic analysis by DOT, and
if all can work together to signalize 86 and the service road, then Davis Road will not need to be
used.
Michael Birch said the project does not work without either access to Davis Road or full
movement at the service road and old 86. He said he questions if any project could work in this
location without one of those options being available. He said the Applicant is trying to provide
an avenue to allow the project to move forward, while still working towards taking Davis Road
out of the equation.
Commissioner Marcoplos said he is a big supporter of the economic development
districts, as they were created for very good reasons that protect the environment and contain
business development. He said the EDDs have been waiting decades for projects just like this.
He said the Hillsborough EDD location was chosen due to its proximity to the interstate, but he
does not believe it was ever expected that traffic would flow into a residential neighborhood. He
said he cannot support such a project, as it is antithetical to what the EDDs were designed to do
in the first place.
73
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the 60-day time limit proposed by the Applicant, is to
allow for a successful negotiation with NCDOT to avoid the use of Davis Road.
Michael Birch said it would be 60 days prior to a certificate of occupancy, which is not
likely for at least 18 months, and would allow more time for all involved to work out a solution.
Commissioner Marcoplos said the situation could possibly arise that construction would
be almost completed, with no resolution reached about Davis Road, and thus the trucks would
be able to revert to the use of Davis Road.
Michael Birch said the Applicant is seeking to provide as long as possible to reach a
resolution.
Commissioner Marcoplos said the bottom line is that this proposed solution could still
result in trucks using Davis Road. He asked the projected CO year is 2023.
Michael Birch said it would be 2022.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if a resolution to access old 86 could be reached with a
few months of solid effort on everyone's part.
Michael Birch said it depends, because the Applicant does not control the ability to
acquire right away, other than to make an offer. He said the State and the County has the
power to obtain the right away. He said it is his understanding that this is the barrier to having
these improvements completed.
Commissioner Marcoplos said this has to be resolved, and asked if a reasonable
timeframe for doing so could be identified.
Michael Birch said the question is how long will it take the State to acquire the right
away, and that is a question he cannot answer, as it outside his control.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is a history or precedence that could be
investigated.
Michael Birch said such a search would require a mixture of results.
Commissioner Marcoplos said it sounds like nothing can be known until a full court press
effort has been made. He asked if this could be done.
Michael Birch said a full court press effort has been made to obtain right away for a
multitude of options to avoid a connection to Davis Road. He said the Applicant understands all
the concerns that have been raised, but the Applicant has undertaken a full-court-press
approach.
Commissioner Marcoplos said it sounds like the Applicant feels the odds of successfully
finding an alternate option to Davis Road, no matter how much time is allotted, are slim.
Michael Birch said the Applicant has done a full court press within the confines of what it
can control. He said the Applicant does not have the full power of the State or County to obtain
right away. He said the Applicant framed the condition to allow for as many opportunities as
possible for the connection to not have to be made to Davis Road, or that it is removed in time.
He said there is inherently a role for someone, other than the Applicant, to play in acquiring that
right away.
Commissioner Price said asked if the Applicant has a plan to prevent right hand turns.
Michael Birch said it would be an engineered solution on the ground from improvements
that would shuttle turns to the left. He said it would be more than just a sign.
Commissioner Price said if there is a plan for Davis Road onto 86, as there is concern
people will turn right, go down New Hope and access 1-40.
Michael Birch said it will not only be 18-wheeler trucks. He said it might be vans,
delivery trucks, not just 18-wheelers. He said the signal at Davis and 86 is signalized, and the
modeling of the analysis shows there is adequate storage to accommodate the left hand turns
with signal timing. He said he did not know from where the idea of bottleneck came. He said it
is an extremely low probability that a truck will not wait a few seconds for a signaled left hand
turn.
74
Commissioner Price said the only vehicles that people are considering are large trucks
because it is a logistics park and warehousing.
Michael Birch said it is more likely to be Amazon type delivery van.
Commissioner Price said since the exact tenants are not known, it is difficult to predict
what will happen.
Commissioner Price asked if this facility would be a 24-hour facility. She said people
work all shifts and products move 24 hours a day, in this day and age.
Michael Birch said it is possible for a user to have a 24-hour operation. He said the type
of projects that are used to generate trip generation numbers included 24-hour operation
businesses.
Commissioner Price asked if was safe to assume shift work.
Michael Birch said not necessarily, and he could understand the frustration regarding the
uncertainty of the tenants/users, but in working with NCDOT through the scoping process, he is
confident in the likely trip characteristics.
Commissioner Price said this seems like a "build it and they will come" model, which is
confusing. She said a lot of the constituents are concerned about these unknowns.
Michael Birch said there will be multiple users with different traffic patterns, which will
reduce the peak traffic impact. He said one single user would have one specific traffic pattern.
Commissioner Price said the Eno River Association said there would be an
environmental impact, but the Applicant's analyst said no. She asked if there could be
clarification.
Chris Bostic said he has looked specifically at several things related to the property. He
said the concerns are related to habitat and quality of water. He said the project would be very
upland, and there will be 25% open space with this project that will be undisturbed. He said this
area will include the tributary to Cates Creek. He said much of the land has been clear-cut
already.
Commissioner Price said there seems to be conflicting opinions.
Chris Bostic said the project will include one small creek crossing.
Commissioner Price asked if more trees will be cut down to the west.
Chris Bostic said it was clear-cut in the past, and some trees have regrown over the past
20 years, which will be cut.
Commissioner Price said 20 years of growth is still significant.
Commissioner Price asked what data is being used to analyze the number of jobs that
are needed in Orange County. She said the County desires to have jobs that will lead to more,
or the next step in a career, and works with Durham Tech to elevate people. She wonders why
the Applicant thinks the County needs 1000 jobs for people with less than a high school
education.
Michael Birch said he is not sure about the statement about less than a high school
education, as it did not come from the Applicant. He said the Applicant has already been in
touch with Durham Tech, and these jobs are not dead end jobs.
Commissioner Price said those were her words.
Michel Birch said there are many meaningful jobs that will require training. He said the
Applicant reached out to Durham Tech because of the important relationship that could be built.
He said this logistic park would have a huge need for educate people.
Commissioner Price asked if the Applicant source its job data from a particular place.
Michael Birch said the Applicant worked with Orange County Economic Development to
understand what kind of jobs are wanted and needed.
Commissioner Dorosin said he understands the area was designated for Economic
Development years ago, and he is encouraged that the public recognizes this need and plan.
He said it is also important to recognize that Orange County has the access to the highway. He
said the concern is traffic going onto Davis Road, and the way for this project to succeed was to
75
find a solution to this problem. He asked if the following questions could be answered: (1) what
options have been considered to address this problem; (2) the property abuts the service road,
and it seems the property can accommodate any necessary widening of the service road; (3) in
the multitude of options that have been considered, there is a road that runs along the Duke
Power easement, and he asked if there was any consideration of using that road as a second
access to 86.
Commissioner Dorosin said creativity is needed to find a way to avoid Davis road.
Michael Birch expressed appreciation for Commissioner Dorosin thinking creatively to
address the Davis Road issue. He said Duke Energy prohibits public roadways in their
easements.
Michael Birch said the Applicant considered extending the service road to the south and
coming out further south on old 86, but this option requires use of someone else's property. He
said the Applicant has made numerous offers on properties to gain access to old 86.
Michael Birch said the property has frontage to the service road, but not near the access
to old 86. He displayed an aerial photo fro m the PowerPoint presentation. He said the
Applicant needs 60 feet of public right away, one way or another, to allow for a signalized
intersection on old 86.
Michael Birch said there is a good nineteen months between a rezoning approval and
getting a building open. He said the Applicant can work with the County and the State to
acquire the right away during this time. He said the Applicant has proposed a condition that
allows work to proceed, while working on the access issue. He said if the project cannot
proceed without the access issue determined, it is tantamount to a denial.
Chair Rich said she drove both the service road and Davis Road last week, and
observed the service road. She said it is beautiful piece of property, and it is so strategically
located to highway 40. She said it seems ridiculous that this cannot be worked out.
Chair Rich said the Applicant has referred to the County and the State being able to
help, and asked if what the Applicant is really talking about is condemning land.
Michael Birch said yes, and it would also have benefits for others in the area.
Chair Rich said it is important to be clear about this detail. She said the State has to
take the land or the County would have to condemn the land. She asked if the land was
condemned, would the Applicant still be rezoning the 12 acres on Davis Road to allow truck
access.
Michael Birch said the 12 acres would still be part of the project, but the truck access
would not be on Davis Road.
Chair Rich said it is just mind-boggling. She said it is a perfect property for economic
development, but Davis Road is the concern.
Chair Rich said Davis Road has 45 miles per hour speed limit. She said when she
visited the property, she drove the speed limit, and other cars were passing her.
Chair Rich said a living wage is very important in any economic development in Orange
County. She said the current living wage is $15/hour, and this is the source of the concern
about the types of jobs that are offered. She said the living wage is likely to go up soon.
Chair Rich said she would like to know what a typical day on the site would look like.
Michael Birch said a typical day at this development would not look much different than a
general office type environment. He said the 7:00 a.m. range would involve people arriving, a
typical amount leaving at lunch, and again at the end of the day. He said there may be some
businesses with shift work.
Chair Rich referred to page 45 in the original agenda, and asked the Applicant to clarify
the floor plan, and if it is consistent with the TIA.
Michael Birch said the .65 floor area ratio (FAR) is what is typically allowed in the
MPDCZ district. He said the Applicant is proposing the .32 FAR, which is what the traffic impact
76
analysis is based on. He said if development were to go over that threshold, it would trigger a
new traffic pattern analysis.
Commissioner McKee said he received wonderful advice when he was originally elected,
and that was he needed to be able to count to 4, as 4 votes are needed to pass a motion on the
BOCC. He said he does not see 4 affirmative votes at this point.
Commissioner McKee said he has four questions, for which he would like definitive
answers. He said it was his understanding that DOT was still an obstacle to the signalization of
the service road, or the intersection with the off ramps. He asked if DOT is still an obstacle.
Michael Birch said he does not know because the Applicant submitted a new plan idea
to the DOT this week, and does not yet have an answer back.
Commissioner McKee said this is not Michael Birch's first rodeo, and does he have an
impression as to whether DOT is open to discussion
Michael Birch said yes, he thinks DOT is open to the discussion.
Commissioner McKee asked if all the cost of any signalizations/intersection
improvements, less the acquiring of the land, is going to be picked up by the development.
Michael Birch said yes.
Commissioner McKee said the Applicant has mentioned talking to land owners and
making offers. He asked if the previous aerial photo could be put up (which it was). He
identified a specific plot of land on the photo, and asked if that specific landowner had been
contacted, and an offer made.
Michael Birch said inquiries have been made, but the property owner has not responded.
Commissioner McKee said this is not his understanding of the situation, after speaking
to the landowner on Friday.
Michael Birch clarified that the homeowner's response was that he would get back to the
Applicant.
Commissioner said there are 10 properties that abut 86 from the service road to Davis
Road. He asked if Michael Birch could identify which property owners have been contacted,
and had offers made. He said he does not need specifics, but just wanted to know how many of
the remaining 9 properties have had offers made.
Michael Birch said there is one large property that runs north-south between the site and
all 10 of these properties on 86. He said numerous offers have been made to that landowner, in
order to make a connection to one of the 10 on old 86, to no avail.
Commissioner McKee read an email from one of the property owners on old 86 stating
that the property owner, and its immediate neighbors, has not been contacted at all about
selling, despite the ideal nature of the land to allow access to old 86.
Commissioner McKee said he understands there is a north south property, and he is
aware he is spending the Applicant's money, but the Applicant needs to be aware that four
votes are needed to make this work. He said he wants to see this land developed, as it has sat
for almost 40 years. He said part of that delay is due to the County failing to provide the
necessary infrastructure, but someone is going to develop it.
Chair Rich asked Michael Harvey if he would pull up a picture from his PowerPoint
presentation, showing the land parcels in greater detail.
Commissioner McKee pointed out the property that may be a good option to expand the
additional turn lane. He said the large north south portion of land is the hold up.
Commissioner Greene said it is her understanding that when DOT does a partial taking,
it has the right to take the land with a fair value offer. She said if all can mutually agree to
extend that timetable, it would allow for the land to be secured so that Davis Road is not part of
the equation. She said she does not see the need for the zoning to have conditions attached to
it.
John Roberts said Commissioner Greene's understanding of DOT land acquisition is
correct. He said once DOT transfers money to a bank account, it has the right to the land. He
77
said the process of determining whether the cash amount was fair may continue in court for
sometime thereafter, but DOT has right to the land.
Commissioner McKee asked if the developer would be willing to remove Davis Road
from the application completely, without qualification.
Michael Birch said yes, only if there is an alternate solution for a fully signalized
intersection that is acceptable to DOT.
Commissioner McKee said the Board should make sure such a solution exists prior to
approving the project.
Chair Rich said the BOCC is not giving any approval or denial this evening, rather that
will happen on October 6th.
Commissioner Bedford asked if the intent is to discuss all of the conditions in attachment
11 tonight.
Chair Rich said the conversation could start tonight and be continued on October 6m
Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, said any Board feedback and questions
would be very helpful.
Commissioner Bedford said she drove up and down old highway 86, Davis Rd, and the
service road. She said this is prime land for an EDD, once a configuration is allowed for
highway 86. She re-read the condition that Michael Birch proposed, and said it makes no sense
to her. She asked if this condition could be submitted in writing, as she is a visual learner.
Commissioner Bedford repeated her request to receive the full report of the noise study.
She said she is a CPA and has a degree in mathematics, and feels confident she will be able to
understand the report.
Commissioner Bedford said she was glad to hear that not all trucks will be diesel, and
she has no problem with smaller trucks. She said a solution us needed. She asked what
interest would NCDOT have in condemning this land and funding this project.
Michael Harvey said he has not spoken with the NCDOT, but there is a process under
state law that NCDOT can go through to condemn property and secure right of way. He said it
would be best to get an answer directly from NCDOT.
Commissioner Bedford said NCDOT is in the midst of a budget and audit crisis, and she
does not anticipate anything happening quickly with NCDOT in this project.
Commissioner Bedford referred to page 46 of the agenda, and a request proposed to
FEMA to amend a 100-foot flood elevation, and asked if there is a status update on this issue.
Michael Birch said that particular item was still under review with FEMA.
Commissioner Bedford asked if the BOCC has any say is this type of request. She said
climate change is showing that the flood plain should be increased, not decreased.
Michael Harvey, Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said elected officials have no
rights related to this, as it is a FEMA issue. He said current planning is involved in the review
process. He said staff is involved, but it is truly a FEMA regulatory issue.
Commissioner Bedford referred to page 58 in the agenda package, which states the
Applicant will "strive to integrate" cool roofs, energy efficient lighting, etc. She said the verbiage
of"strive to integrate" has no teeth whatsoever. She said she would like to require things be
done (LED lighting, LEED certification, not spraying for bees, wildlife corridors, etc.), and
requested that the buildings and the parking lots be much more climate friendly.
Commissioner Bedford said it is still not clear if there will be activity at night and on
weekends. She said she would like to know this information.
Michael Birch said he thinks there is some stronger language regarding green efforts in
building, and he would work with staff on the other items.
Chris Bostic said when FEMA puts the maps together, it is concerned about the impact
of streams and creeks from a very high macro level. He said when FEMA does these studies, it
applies a certain flow of water every mile along a stream, and these inputs occur. He said the
site in question is at the high point at a stream, and the amount of water that FEMA was
78
applying to go under 1-40 is the same amount of water in Cates Creek a mile down the road,
and the Applicant is refining FEMA's model, which has an impact on the actual flood plain on
the property.
Commissioner Price referred to the design elements, and said she is concerned about
the weakness of that language. She said it is important to have buildings that are compatible
with the surrounding areas. She said she is also concerned about buffers, which were
recommended to be 100 feet by staff, but the Applicant says will be 50 feet. She asked if the
Applicant would consider having 100-foot buffers, as recommended by staff.
Michael Birch said no, as there are significant sire reasons as to why this cannot happen
around the entire property.
Commissioner Price asked if that is due to a desire for maximum build out.
Michael Birch said no, it is due to other site constraints, the location of features on the
site, like the flood plain and the Duke Energy easement to the south. He said the impacts are
significant when applying 100-foot buffers, given things that cannot move.
Commissioner Price said the Applicant could decrease its floor space.
Michael Birch said the project has already committed to 25% of green space, which is
more than is required.
Commissioner Price referred to the property on Davis Road, and said to assume Davis
Road access was not permissible. She asked if this land would still be developed, just without
the road.
Michael Birch said yes.
Commissioner Price said there is buffer and land in the middle, and asked if there is a
way to connect these two to allow for a bio-corridor.
Michael Birch said there is a north south connection due to the tributary, and the
County's enhanced flood plain buffer.
Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the southern plot of land that is currently zoned
rural buffer/residential, and that the Applicant would still want to use that land even if the road
access is denied. He said this portion of land was not part of the original EDD, and it is zoned
residential 1.
Chair Rich asked if it is zoned rural buffer.
Michael Harvey clarified by using the map, by saying there is a 26,000 square foot
portion of the property is zone rural buffer. He said the majority of the land is zoned rural
residential. He said the Applicant has said this portion of the property will remain rural buffer.
Commissioner Greene said she is still concerned about the Davis Road property. She
said there is a future land use map for this area, that has the two parcels in the EDD, but has
the Davis Road parcel zoned as a suburban use. She said she would like to know more about
the building that is going to be in the Davis Road parcel, and if it will be a warehouse, more
office like, and if there is a reason it has to be 60-feet tall.
Michael Birch said the Applicant would work with staff to work on reducing the height of
that building along Davis Road.
Commissioner Greene said if truck traffic can be diverted off of Davis, then the next step
is to insure that the building near Davis has a more office/suburban feel, rather than warehouse.
Commissioner Greene said it is 11:07 p.m., and she wants to make sure the Board will
have opportunity at the next meeting to go through these conditions with a fine toothcomb.
Chair Rich said yes, the agenda for October 6I" is mostly dedicated to this conversation.
Chair Rich said it is important that there be fairly opaque buffers on the southern and
western parts of this property, to allow a clear separation.
Chair Rich said there appears to be a committee of property owners that will discuss
what kinds of designs are used, along with conditions recommended by the Applicant. She
asked if further clarification can be given about this committee, and possibly some building
samples for the Board to review, at the Board's next meeting.
79
Chair Rich referred to the solar portion, and the Planning board's desire to have solar.
She said she would like to know a plan for how solar will be incorporated. She said she would
also like to know which types of concrete will be used. She asked if the Applicant could provide
more information at the Board's next meeting.
Chair Rich said a phased in construction map/timeline would also be helpful for the
Board's next meeting.
Commissioner McKee echoed Commissioner Greene's request for a shorter building on
Davis Road, and suggested possibly setting it further back.
Chair Rich asked if a vote was needed.
John Roberts said a vote was not needed, as the public hearing had closed. He said the
Board will continue the conversation on October 6th
b. Zoning Atlas Amendment— Parcels off Old NC Highway 86 (District 2 of Settlers
Point MPD-CZ)
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
reconvene the public hearing on agenda item 5-b.
Roll call ensued.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Michael Harvey, Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor, made the following
PowerPoint presentation:
ORANGE COUNTY
FORTH CAROLINA
Agenda Item 5 (b):
PUBLIC HEARING
Zoning Atlas Amendment- Rezoning
of parcels east of
Old NC Highway 86
Hillsborough Township
Orange County BOCC
September 15,2020
BACKGROUND:
,,� 6 parcels—
approximately 46
acres of land area:
r" = District 2 of Master
} Plan Development
Conditional Zoning
(MPD-CZ)District
., (Settlers Point)
approved in 2018;
c Development only
permitted consistent
with MPD-CZ
approved conditions;
Area intended to
support development
of officelretaillhotel
land uses;
ORANGECOUNTY
80
WHAT'S HAPPENED:
Developer seeking approval of new MPD-CZ district
requiring elimination of Settlers Point MPD-CZ.
STAFF COMMENT: This request only involves
parcels west of Old NC Highway 86 (District 1 of
Settlers Point MPD-CZ);
•Action necessary for these 8 parcels to be
developed;
STAFF COMMENT: Property owners will have
difficulty developing consistent with remaining MPD-
CZ conditions if new MPD-CZ application approved.
•Staff believes most appropriate course of action is to
rezone properties guaranteeing viable development
options)for owners. ORANGE CO NTY
-- PROPOSAL:
Rezone properties
back to original
zoning designation
(i.e.what they were
prior to approval of
- _ MPD-CZ);
D e v e I c pment
--
h consistent with
_ UD6 standards{i.e.
each lot developed
separately);
Provides owners
,.:�-v.... with path forward
for reasonable use
t cf their prn perty.
ORANGE COl1NTY
STAFF COMMENT-
Properties being rezoned back to what they
were zoned before the MPD-CZ for Settlers
Point;
•7 parcels rezoned to Economic Development
Hillsborough Limited Officer(EHD-2)
Development of low intensity office uses and
supporting services including restaurantsand hotels,
= Retail land useswould not be permitted_
•32 acre parcel rezoned to Economic
Development Hillsborough Office/Retail(EHD-4)
Development of high intensity office uses and
supporting retail or service uses_
ORANGE CWNTY
STAFF COMMENT-
Staff action means no financial impact to
property owners (i.e. owners not incurring
expense to rezone property);
•Rezoning consistent with Comprehensive Plan;
•Proposal consistent with Town of Hillsborough!
Orange County Central Orange Coordinated
Area(COCA)land use plan;
•Rezoning allows for reasonable development
opportunities consistent with applicable policies.
.Each property owner will have ability to make use of
their property VOTE OUT having to develop with joint
open spacelaccesslbuilding limits associated with
the M PD-CZ. ORANGE couNTY
81
Planning Board Action:
Board reviewed item at its August 5, 2020
regular meeting;
Voted unanimously to recommend approval of:
—Statement of Consistency(Attachment 5),and
—Zoning Atlas Amendment(Attachment 6)_
ORANGE COUNTY
RECOMMENDATION:
The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Receive the request,
2_ Conduct the public hearing and accept comment;
3_ Close the public hearing;
4. Authorize acceptance of written comment(s)via e-mail to
the Board at ocbocc(a)orannecountync.nov or by delivery
to the Planning Department's office at 131 West Margaret
Lane;Hillsborough;North Carolina 27278,until 9:00 a.m.
on Thursday September 17,2020;
5_ Schedule a vote to approve Statement of Consistency
(Attachment 5), and Zoning Atlas Amendment
(Attachment&)atthe Board's October6,2020 meeting
No additional public comments shall be received at
October6 meeting if hearing closed. _
For more inbrmafi! of Questions on IM1Is orcoosal'.
ORANGE COUNTY
PAir.M1;.al HsrmL'.Currant Planni�95.ir.rvisnr �rru,,,e,�xrn inn
nrM1nnrrv-`�nrsnux rn(914`�b�i-��4]
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to open
the public hearing.
Roll call ensued.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
PUBLIC COMMENT:
NONE
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
close the public hearing and authorize written comments until 9:00 a.m. on September 24, 2020.
Roll call ensued.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. Proposed Amendments to the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central
Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan and to the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
reconvene the public hearing on agenda item 5-c.
Roll call ensued.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
82
Tom Altieri, Hillsborough Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, made the following
PowerPoint presentation:
Proposed Amendments
Town of Hi .. . Orange County
Central Orange Coordinated Area
Orange Countyf _ _ _ Plan
Future Land Use Map
Public Hearing Item 5.c.
August 5,2020
Presenter:Tom Alfieri,AICP
Purpose of Agenda Item
To hold a public hearing,to receive the Planning
Board recommendation and public comment,
close the hearing,and schedule action for a
future date on County-initiated amendments to
the:
1)Town of Hillsborough/Orange County COCA
Land Use Plan; and
2)Orange County Comprehensive Plan FLUM.
This item is not far the Research Triangle
Logistics Park(RTLP)--the proposed
warehousing and distribution center,which
requires a rezoning,and was earlier on the
agenda.
Approximately 12-acres of RTLP are located in
the amendment area discussed herein as part of
this agenda item.
Purpose of Expanding Hillsborough
Economic Development(ED)Area
•County has plans to extend water and sewer
infrastructure to parcels south of Interstate 40.
Preserve planned sewer capacities for non-
residential uses.
•Expand upon ED opportunities.
•Consistency among long-range plans.
83
Brief History of Hillsborough ED Area
and Joint Planning with the
Town of Hillsborough
Hillsborough EDD
originally
established in 1994
along with two
other EDDs
(Buckhorn and
Eno).
Formerly Transition
Areas(1981
Comprehensive Plan)
Some History of Joint Planning
with Hillsborough
Water and Sewer Management,Planning and Boundary
Agreement and Map(2001,Amended from time to time,
and amendment to the Hillsborough Primary Service Area
currently in process)
HillsboroughlOC Urban Transition Area Task Force(2004)
HillsboroughlOC Strategic Growth Plan Phase I(2006)
Phase 11-Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management
Agreement(2009,Amended 2014)
Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange
Coordinated Area Land Use Plan(2013,Amended 2016)
Expansion of Hillsborough ED Area
Amendment Specifics
(involves 2 Planning Constructs)
•COCALand Use PLan("joint"plan)
•County Comprehensive PLan FLUM
(if needed,3-slides hidden that cover how Future Lond
Use Plans are different from Zon0)
84
Proposed Ammdmmt to:
Reflect expanded T n llr6an Service Bo dory
Apply"Sibvtan OM�Can p4 land rse d—fl-t-tr expanded area
Rwoaxtl Tvrvn MNillldIX0u9tlprdiga GOUYq Cl,rtlal Qaye
Coortllvretl Ne3laM LMe F1n
li
Suburban Office Complex uses:
Office and employment enterprises
which don't rely on walk-in customers
Large or small businesses in a
campus setting
Limited supporting services
Compatible CountyfTown Zoning
Districts include:
Limited Office;Office Institutional;
Business Park,EDD;Entranceway
Special Use,and Special Design Special
Use.
arap«.�e ame�emmt '
From:Rural De�d Resie P.
To:Economic opmen[Tra'ra lion
ea—w comwe�e� vurl rrwre�aao cae mm
From: Rural Residential-Land in the rural
areas of the County which is appropriate for
low intensity and low-density residential
development and which would not be
dependent on urban services during the plan
period.
To: Economic Development Transition-
Land in areas ofthe County which has been
specifically targeted for economic development
activity consisting of light industrial,
distribution,office,service/retail uses,and flex
Space.
Compatible CountylTovm Zoning Districts
include:
EDH 1-5; Special Zoning Overlay District;and
Master Plan Development—Conditional
Zoning(MPD-CZ).
85
I
No Rezoning Proposed as Part of the County-Ini Initiated
Plan Amendments
•Currently Rural Residential{R-1)
Any future development application for non-residential uses
will require rezoning and subsequent public hearing
��zomo
p d—tely 12-a _
s V RTLP are �
Lted in the
m \ •h
d—t area S
dmussed herein as k"
1
part of the agenda _
item
Amendment Processes
Town of Hillsborough on COCA Joint LUP:
Sept.26,2017-Joint Public Information Session
March 15,2018-Hearing and Planning Board
recommendation
March 26,2018 -Town Board adopted
Orange County on COCA Joint LUP and Comprehensive
Plan FLUM
July 21,2020-Public Information Session
August 5 and 19,2020-Planning Board
recommendation
Sept.22,2020 -Board of County Commissioners
Continued Public Hearing and schedule action
Planning Board Recommendation
-The OC Planning Board,at its meetings last
month,voted 6-4 to recommend approval of the
proposed amendments.
•Minutes of the Planning Board meetings are
provided in the agenda materials for this item.
Planning Director Recommendation
•The Planning Director is recommending approval
of the amendments and Resolution contained in
Attachment 5.
The Manager recommends the Board:
1.Receive the request;
2.Conduct the public hearing and accept comment;
3.Close the public hearing;
4,Authorize the acceptance of written comment s via e-
man to ine ticara a oc occ oranggeccun ync gov or by
delivery to the Plgganningg Departme I at 131 W Margaret
Laneemberbor, 2020NC 2d7278,until 9:00 a.m.on Thursday,
Sept5,Schedule a vote to approve the Resolution Attachment 5)
amen Inge g e OVA Land Use Plan and the range County
Comprehensive Plan FLUM at the Board's October G 2020
Business meeting.No additional public comments s a fie
received at this meeting.
86
Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the small portion of rural buffer that crosses Davis
Road, and asked if there has ever been discussion of tidying up such boundary issues by
having the rural buffer follow the road.
Tom Altieri said this boundary follows the ridgeline.
Craig Benedict, Planning and Inspections Director, said new GIS techniques show that
Davis Road is the ridgeline. He said staff is working on a way to amend the water and sewer
boundary for technical uses, such as this.
Commissioner Greene said there appears to be a discrepancy between the Hillsborough
map and the County map, and she is focusing specifically on the suburban space. She said
the acreage in the lots is not exactly the same, and some of the uses seem in conflict with each
other. She asked if there is a reason the maps were not more aligned
Tom Altieri said the Town of Hillsborough does not have an Economic Development
District land use like the County has. He said this plan was developed to serve as
Hillsborough's land use plan, for areas within its jurisdiction, and using its land use categories
those were applied to its fringe areas outside the towns extraterritorial jurisdiction, but inside its
primary service area for water and sewer services. He said that is why the suburban office
classification was used here. He said the joint land use plan started with the Town of
Hillsborough, and it used a slightly different southern boundary configuration than what was
actually shown as economic development in the County's comprehensive plan.
Commissioner Greene asked if staff thought there could be a time when Hillsborough
and the County might disagree over the use of these lands.
Tom Altieri said this has been agreed upon by both Town and County staff, and has
been adopted by the Town's Planning Department.
A motion was made by Commissioner Marcoplos, seconded by Commissioner Price to
open the public hearing.
Roll call ensued.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Luke Farley said he is a lawyer out of Raleigh, representing 14 residents, who are
opposed to amending the land use plan. He said the BOCC's commitment to hearing from the
public is unequaled. He thanked the BOCC for its service. He said he will submit written
comments to the BOCC about statements made earlier this evening regarding traffic issues. He
said there will be legal issues if this plan is amended, as there has been no change is this parcel
to necessitate an amendment.
Daniel Arneman said changing the zoning of this land would be a rejection of 40 years of
land use planning. He referenced a FAQ sheet, question 1.6, which states the 12 acres are not
related to the RTLP project. He said he disagrees with this assertion, and feels the land is
related to RTLP, even though he thinks it should not be. He said it is fair to develop land that is
zoned for EDD, but it is not fair to develop land that has been zoned residential for 40 years. He
said he against this rezoning.
Bob Bundschuh thanked the BOCC for listening to the public. He said he works in
logistics, and is very familiar with the details involved in a project like RTLP. He said the daily
way of life is very different now than 40 years ago. He said the BOCC must make decisions
based on what is in front of it today, not what was intended 40 years ago. He said large
warehouse complexes are needed in the "work from home" lifestyle of modern life. He said he
is opposed to this proposal, and favors more appropriate development that fits into the
87
surrounding area. He said if the 12 acres are taken out of the equation, then Davis Road is
taken out of the equation as well.
Lisa Sutton said she is opposed to Davis Road being included in any development, and
encouraged the BOCC to vote against this proposal.
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos
to close the public hearing.
Roll call ensued.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Rich reminded everyone that written comments may be submitted to the Board
until 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, September 24, 2020.
ADJOURMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to
adjourn the meeting at 11:59 p.m.
Penny Rich, Chair
Allen Coleman
Assistant Deputy Clerk
Submitted for approval by Greg Wilder, Interim Clerk to the Board