OCPB agenda 110117 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

24 1237 Jim Parker thanked Ms. Wegman. He reiterated that as developers, they see this as a transportation and interstate 1238 market. He said that what they have done is collectively bring parcels together to form one parcel to which this zoning 1239 would apply, as opposed to individual property owners having to go through individual rezoning processes, which 1240 may not be effective since the parcels alone make-up a smaller area. He said that they are trying to create the palette 1241 by which they can attract and bring in users into a development. He said that he cannot say what will go there except 1242 that they will be land uses that are needed and desired, or that are allowed to develop in that type of environment. He 1243 addressed concerns about the neighborhood meetings, notifications, and attendance. He said that the first and third 1244 Neighborhood Information Meetings (NIMs) were well attended with about 15 people, though the second meeting 1245 was not as well attended, but he believes there were about 10 people there. He conveyed that they would have liked 1246 to notify further but that that area of notification beyond the County’s requirement is hard to define. Where do you 1247 stop? With this dilemma in mind, he followed the County’s requirement. 1248 1249 Tony Blake pointed out that the County’s notification requirement goes further than what the state requires. The state 1250 only requires notification to property owners within 500 ft. of the subject property, not 1,000 ft. like the County’s 1251 notification. 1252 1253 Jim Parker remarked that the addition of the wells was a project component put in in 2008-2009 during dry spells in 1254 the County when people were trying to find different irrigation techniques without using potable water to put less of a 1255 demand on public water. He said that they have no problem taking out the wells out of the development design and 1256 will do so. 1257 1258 Lydia Wegman thanked him. 1259 1260 Jim Parker continued with his responses. He said that his traffic engineer could answer more technical questions but 1261 as far as the improvements to NC 86, they will be extensive when all of this land is developed. It is unlikely that this 1262 process will all happen at once. The ultimate build-out will likely be 4 lanes with turn lanes and signals at the 1263 interchanges serving the entrances to District 1 and 2. There will be 3-4 signals, one at the service road. In regards to 1264 comments about dying business in Hillsborough, he sees Hillsborough as a growing town. He said that the “interstate 1265 businesses” should be kept on the interstate and the ones in the intersections of town should grow healthy there. He 1266 said that his development provides a place for some of the businesses that one sees around interstates. He said that 1267 the vision for District 1 is for light industry and an increase in tax base by the land uses allowed there. District 2 is the 1268 interstate market, meaning commercial, restaurants, and a potential hotel that could provide a meeting space in 1269 addition to lodging. He hopes that the Board will approve this tonight. By doing so, the Board does not relinquish 1270 control. Staff will ensure that moving forward the development plan is in concert with the guidelines. He thanked the 1271 Board. 1272 1273 Kim Piracci asked Mr. Parker if the Board does not approve this tonight, will the project be “done.” She asked if this is 1274 what he said and how it would work if this is not approved. 1275 1276 Jim Parker said that they are on a timeline and not making a decision tonight will push the process back. He asked if 1277 Mr. Harvey knew how far it would be pushed back. 1278 1279 Michael Harvey replied that it is hard to say because the next item on the agenda deals with how public hearings are 1280 scheduled. The scenario that could be forthcoming on this project is that the Board tables the decision and takes it up 1281 at the November meeting and the Board makes a recommendation at the November meeting. It is conceivable that if 1282 the text amendment being reviewed next is approved, it could be schedules at a public hearing in December, 1283 January, or February to review this case. 1284 1285 Lydia Wegman asked if there was a possibility that this could be reviewed at the November 14th quarterly public 1286 hearing if the Board made a decision at its November 1st meeting. 1287 1288 28