Agenda - 10-11-1995 - Items 1 and 2 - Appendix 2

Browse Search

oATTACHMENT 9 United ?arcei Service ?3� :a„c°e tea- .ra;. Sete 500. NorC�OSS. �.�_ Mr. W. Calvin Horton February 22, 1995 Town Manager VIA NEXT DAY AIR 306 N. Columbia St. Chapel Hill, NC 27516 RE: Town of Chapel Hill Rezoning Dear Mr. Horton: I would like to take this opportunity to introduce myself and also pass along a concern of United Parcel Service ("UPS") as it relates to the rezoning issue which the Town has been considering for the past 2 years. My name is Bill Stott and I am the Regional Real Estate Manager for the Southeast Region of UPS. towhavebthetopportunity towmeetuyoulthenting on March 1 and hope UPS has some concerns as it relates to the proposed Employment Campus ("EC") zoning designation which appears will be recommended for adoption in the future. The existing UPS facility located on Eubanks Road would fall within the boundries of this new designation. our concern relates to the definition of the EC zone as outlined on pages 32 and 33 of the Small Area Plan - Northwest Area Recommended Plan dated December 20, 1994. As background, UPS built its existing facility in 1989 at a cost in excess of $1 Million for the land, building and equipment. At the time our plans were approved we made it known that the proposed facility was expandable and that it would be expanded when our business in Chapel Hill justified an expansion. When our facility was constructed our use was and has been permitted as a matter of right under current zoning. our concern with the EC definition is that it leaves our use and its legality open to interpretation. Although we believe strongly that UPS is a service related business under the definition, we certainly have no assurance that 8 or to years from now when we seek to expand that the Town will interpret the ordinance as we and perhaps even current local officials do presently. Therefore, UPS is requesting that the potential question of whether our use is permitted as a matter of right in the EC zone be resolved now before the ordinance is finalized to avoid potential problems in the future. We would request that the following be considered in the final wording of the ordinance. If the ordinance will be substantially as stated in the Recommended Plan, we request that following "service related businesses" in the EC definition be followed by " (for example, parcel distribution) " . If the ordinance will be drafted to include a list of uses which are permitted in the EC zone as a matter of right we would request that "parcel distribution" be included on that list.