Browse
Search
080520 Planning Board Minutes
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Minutes
>
2020
>
080520 Planning Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2020 1:32:23 PM
Creation date
9/29/2020 1:20:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/5/2020
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
Document Relationships
Planning Board - 080520 Agenda Packet
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Planning Board\Agendas\2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Approved 9/2/2020 <br /> 446 separate but really they go hand and hands. I really thought it would have been best in the interest of everyone if this <br /> 447 had been addressed and then questions had been asked. There's a major and no one has mentioned this, there are <br /> 448 major power lines that separate that 12 acres from the rest of this development. I don't know if that has been brought <br /> 449 to anyone's attention, I'm sure the planning committee is aware of that it just seems illogical that those 12 acres are <br /> 450 essential to them putting this development in. I concur the signs are super small, many people at the July meeting <br /> 451 voiced their concerns there weren't many of us but there were a few there. I do feel like it's absurd that we're talking <br /> 452 about changing the zoning of a residential area with residents and people's homes and lives that in and of itself <br /> 453 should say. What are we doing here? Why are we doing this? Are we doing this for money? I chose to buy land in <br /> 454 Orange County and pay the higher taxes because I wanted some space, I wanted 3 acres, I wanted some woods. 1 <br /> 455 didn't know at the time that all this was going to be occurring or I would have changed my mind. I could have bought <br /> 456 in a different county and paid a lot lower taxes so I hope the planners here will hear our voices and as it's been said, <br /> 457 we do the voting and I guess we'll need to remember that when we vote again. Again, time is of the essence but I'm <br /> 458 hearing a lot of questions from people on the planning committee so we might want to direct the time to constituents <br /> 459 and residents if we want to save time and save those planning committee questions for when you guys meet at a <br /> 460 later time. Thank you. <br /> 461 <br /> 462 Leslie Roberts: Thank you for letting me speak, this is Leslie Roberts and I live on Old 86 about a half a mile from <br /> 463 the Davis/86 intersection. I am opposed to this and I have some concerns that have not been mentioned yet. One of <br /> 464 them being that traffic on Old 86 is picking up quite a bit since I've moved here I've noticed and I think would be <br /> 465 erroneous to assume that the traffic will stay between this warehouse and 40 since 40 is right there. I think that traffic <br /> 466 will probably increase along Old 86 to New Hope Church Road as people bypassing go another to the interstate. 1 <br /> 467 think that is something that should be considered also considering the narrower parts of Old 86 out here as well as <br /> 468 cyclists and just people just trying to get out of their driveways. I am also concerned because I know that this is a <br /> 469 long time coming people have not heard that this has been in motion for many many years but the world we live in <br /> 470 now is not the same world we were in when this was thought of and I think it would behoove us to really take a step <br /> 471 back and consider the footprint that we are looking at leaving with this industrial complex. Many businesses are <br /> 472 opting to work from home options that may be permanent. They are finding that automation can make smaller <br /> 473 spaces for warehouses and not as big warehouses are needed. So I think it's frivolous at this point to consider such <br /> 474 a big industrial impact when we're very clearly seeing that in two or three years from now the same resources may <br /> 475 not be necessary and so I think that's really important to consider that what we're doing here will have a lasting <br /> 476 effect. I have a question to be considered for later, are there plans to consider that is there a pivot that can be made <br /> 477 if we realize that this is not going to be fruitful. So that's where I'm coming from. I appreciate you taking my <br /> 478 questions, thank you. <br /> 479 <br /> 480 Matthew Kostura: Just a couple of comments. First there have been a lot of question about what might go in here. 1 <br /> 481 think it's pretty clear what going to go in here, a very large warehousing distribution center, manufacturing is probably <br /> 482 not in the cards here. You are really talking about the big impacts is traffic and with all due respect to Randy about <br /> 483 asking where people live on Davis Road, 1.8 miles away, whatever. Last I heard cars move they are going to be <br /> 484 coming down this way and a point that I want to make is that for everybody out here on Davis Road, all the <br /> 485 comments about the biking and the walking and such are true and here's the reason why, in 20 years'time since I've <br /> 486 been living here based on North Carolina's own annual average daily trip data, the traffic on David Road has not <br /> 487 increased one bit it's been stuck around 800 trips a day. So this is not a road for us, it's a driveway. We don't view it <br /> 488 as a road it's our driveway that we come home to. Now at the top of it, you're going to be putting the traffic bog of <br /> 489 basically four years'worth of trips on this road, four years 3000 trips. That just doesn't make any sense. Secondly, 1 <br /> 490 want to go back to Melissa Poole's question because I think it's really important. It seems like this rezoning is <br /> 491 backwards. How I interrupt Tom Altieri's commentary is basically this way, we can rezone it because in the future we <br /> 492 have it marked for rezoning. So we can rezone it now. That's basically how I'm interrupting this, I think it's true but <br /> 493 it's really just as a way, an ad hoc way to say,we're going to get this way in that is critical for this development. They <br /> 494 need a second egress from that site and that land is for that. Oh and by the way, they're putting a 300,000 square <br /> 495 foot building there too. Right next to a bunch of homes, which they are free, to sell to anybody who wants to come in <br /> 496 and put up fence. It seems to me, I really want to address that issue of how this lays out because it seems to me like <br /> 497 this a very ad hoc exercise. I really like some explanations on how that works out because it seems to me what <br /> 498 you're justifying a present change because the future overlay that's going to occur. Really, that cuts back to Melissa <br /> 499 Poole's comments. Thank you, I'm done. <br /> 500 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.