|
Approved 9/2/2020
<br /> 609 and out of this business. You're not just talking about a small vehicle. You're talking about a loud, large vehicle at
<br /> 610 any time of the day. I will be asleep next door to this and I beg you to consider that. Also, in one of the slide shows
<br /> 611 by Ms. Greene, she talked about averages of business on what this would look like. I am a former employee of a fast
<br /> 612 food corporation, every business is different. Some Kentucky Fried Chickens I worked for averaged 50,000 dollars a
<br /> 613 week, others 25,000 dollars a week. There is no way to know. Ms. Fletcher you put it best,there is no way to know
<br /> 614 what we're going to be up against when they start building this. I don't think that they're giving us all the facts. I'm
<br /> 615 done.
<br /> 616
<br /> 617 Bob Bundschuh: I'm actually a vice-president of supply chain and logistics have a million sq.ft. of warehouse and six
<br /> 618 manufacturing things under my control so I know a little bit about this. Let's just start with the proposal starts off 2'/z
<br /> 619 pages talking about the project is going to offer 2'/4 million sq.ft. of health and technology, info sciences, engineering,
<br /> 620 advanced manufacturing, science research and labs,warehouse and logistics and up to 4500 jobs. Then you
<br /> 621 actually bring COVID of all things and say the solution in your quote"to bring more manufacturing of life saving
<br /> 622 products back to the U.S."quite impressive but when you get further in your proposal, it has nothing to do with
<br /> 623 manufacturing. You don't even talk about it, its 100%warehouse. And we know this because when you do the traffic
<br /> 624 study,you use warehouse code 150,which is just warehouse. Not 140 which can be manufacturing or 130 an
<br /> 625 industrial park and additionally, in your environmental assessment on section six it says"no production will take place
<br /> 626 will occur on these parcels". That's what's in there, so which one is it? Is it manufacturing and R&D or is it a
<br /> 627 warehouse complex? Or is it mixed use? The Planning Board needs to decide to approve or reject the zoning
<br /> 628 change and they do that from the presentation. So what you've done is you've made a very nice, call it a time-share
<br /> 629 brochure,and you've cherry picked your message. When it comes to job creation type of industry and the need, you
<br /> 630 talk about high end R& D, health technology,which I'm sure comes across as a great fit for the area. You're thinking
<br /> 631 high paying jobs and even hints of life saving products but then when you talk about traffic and environmental,you
<br /> 632 pick the least impactful. The most benign possibility, no manufacturing, as far as traffic you use code 150 is towards
<br /> 633 the bottom of traffic generations. The applicant knows that if they use the land use code for manufacturing or light
<br /> 634 industrial,the ITE tables that you use show that peak traffic will go up and that would require recalculating the traffic
<br /> 635 and it would go to the negative. Planning for manufacturing would also alter the water and sewer requirements. It's
<br /> 636 not quite a true bait and switch but its close. They noted that if this zoning,as approved,we can't go back. Anything
<br /> 637 allowed under the zoning can be built on this property, anything that's within the zoning. Absolutely nothing limits it to
<br /> 638 what they proposed tonight. Like several people have said,we don't know what's going in and neither do they. Now
<br /> 639 both the applicant and the staff have repeatedly used the reasoning that the development is just fulfilling what was
<br /> 640 laid down 40 years ago but 40 years ago, there was no Highway 40,there weren't stores open on Sunday, there was
<br /> 641 no Amazon, no next day delivery,tractor trailers weren't 53 ft. long. So justify a decision on rezoning because of
<br /> 642 something 40 years ago makes no sense. You can recommend this tonight on the premises in line but the question
<br /> 643 is based on what we know and what we don't know, more importantly, is it the right thing? I appeal to your sense of
<br /> 644 what is right for the residents,what's right for the area and what's right for the County. Reject this and then work with
<br /> 645 us on a different development that works for both us and the County. Thank you.
<br /> 646
<br /> 647 Sarah Shore: Hi, my name is Sarah Shore and I live 250 ft.away from the proposed development. One of the
<br /> 648 places the developer said was vacant land just as an FYI. My home has been here since the 1980s. This is my
<br /> 649 home, this is where I brought my babies to after they were born and now where they play outside. The land use plan
<br /> 650 originally said Davis Road would be a suburban office not a warehouse. Suburban office draws to mind Monday
<br /> 651 through Friday 9 to 5 cars, regular traffic not semis not three shifts of work. I have many concerns about this
<br /> 652 nebulous development being feet from my back door. My first question is for the developer, have you actually been
<br /> 653 to the parcels. We are not off of Davis Drive but Davis Road the Beaver Creek problems that you mentioned is 40
<br /> 654 minutes away from us and we are not in a Raleigh metropolitan area,we are two counties away. Please understand
<br /> 655 when you are speaking to us,where we actually live. Additionally, in regards to the jobs, I'm very concerned about
<br /> 656 the numbers are inflated or simply made up because tenants are not lined up or you will not say. You cannot
<br /> 657 guarantee that jobs are economic boom the only thing you can guarantee is raised land and empty warehouses. My
<br /> 658 final comment is for the Planning Board and the County and the follow up of what David said because the question
<br /> 659 was never answered. Is there a way to say Davis Road driveway is not a viable option and they must get Old 86
<br /> 660 access instead? Because I would truly love an answer to that question. Thank you.
<br /> 661
<br /> 662 Ashley Trahan: Hi, my name is Ashley Trahan and I live with my family off Davis Road when we relocated from
<br /> 663 Boulder Colorado in 2013. We chose Hillsborough as the best place to establish our life here in North Carolina even
<br /> 664 though it meant one hour each day commuting to RTP where I work because its delineative native, quality of life
<br />
|