|
444
<br />Michael Harvey: This is Michael Harvey, let me just provide Ms. Poole an answer. The permitted uses that the 445
<br />applicant put in their narrative are various general land use categories with sample or anticipated uses for 446
<br />development within the project. The narrative also provides a prohibited use list as well. The direct answer to your 447
<br />question is if a proposed activity falls into those general uses and is similar to the uses listed, much like the current 448
<br />County’s Table of Permitted Uses, it would be permitted. You could have an activity consistent with research and 449
<br />development activities that, not to make a judgement call, you may not necessarily find viable as other similar uses 450
<br />(other research and development activities) but it could be developed within the project because you’re allowing 451
<br />research and development. That goes directly to your example that there may be research and development 452
<br />activities that you are not comfortable with. We wouldn’t have the authority to say no you can’t do that as there is no 453
<br />specific prohibition. David is correct there would be building and other regulatory standards that the applicant would 454
<br />have to comply with, but if they meet the standard proposed by the applicant and approved by the County 455
<br />Commissioners staff would not have the authority to prohibit it (proposed land use) if it falls in the approved use 456
<br />category. That would be the same answer with the enforcement of the current Table of Permitted Uses. 457
<br /> 458
<br />If you are, for example, proposing a rec amenity and while you as an adjacent property may not like the actual 459
<br />amenity someone has chosen to develop, if the proposed use qualifies as an allowable use and meets applicable 460
<br />development requirements and criteria then it gets developed, it’s permitted as an allowable rec amenity. The 461
<br />Planning Board and County Commissioners wouldn’t have any ability to, I hate to use the word challenge but I’m 462
<br />going to, whether or not the validity of that land use is consistent with the approval. I will also say that every decision 463
<br />that the County makes as it relates to the enforcement of the UDO and as it relates to the enforcement of the 464
<br />conditions imposed on this project, is subject to appeal to the Orange County Board of Adjustment. That’s not a 465
<br />great answer but that is the answer, part of the answer I’m going to give you to try to address your question. 466
<br /> 467
<br />Ronald Sieber: Hello, this is Ronald Sieber again and first of all, I’m just trying to process the change from 800 cars 468
<br />per day traveling on our road, Davis Road, to 200 per hour. I mean that is a stunning, I repeat that is a stunning 469
<br />change in numbers. I want the Planning Board to think about that, you work for us. This is unreal that you are 470
<br />allowing this development to go forward. I just can’t believe it so therefore, I’ve prepared several and a couple of 471
<br />questions and I’d like to just run them by you and you don’t need to respond, I would just like you to hear, record and 472
<br />react to it at a later date. 473
<br /> 474
<br />David Blankfard: Ronald, before you start, can you tell us if you received a letter from the Planning … 475
<br /> 476
<br />Ronald Sieber: No, I receive no letter because I live, as Mr. Marshall would point out, 1.7 miles away from this 477
<br />development so therefore, I’m not relevant, so you know. 478
<br /> 479
<br />David Blankfard: I didn’t say that but thank you. 480
<br /> 481
<br />**Planning Board Member Melissa Poole left the meeting** 482
<br /> 483
<br />Ronald Sieber: Yes, ok, thank you Mr. Blankfard and I’ll proceed. First of all, I just want to point out that the 484
<br />developer does not seem to supportive of electrical charging stations. We’re at a point, and I’ve followed the 485
<br />automotive industry because that’s what I write about, I’m a professional writer. We’re at a point where fleets , I’m 486
<br />talking about fleets of trucks are developing electrical charging stations to charge and support their electrical fleets. I 487
<br />think it’s time that developers, especially those who are putting warehouses up for such facilities to be used by fleets 488
<br />of trucks. They need to start providing the infrastructure for these folks to attract them as businesses. I think that 489
<br />also, I’d like to point out, that on amendment 8 and I know this goes back to 8 and we’re talking about 10 but 8 is 490
<br />involved with 10. Four members of the Planning Board voted against amendment 8 and I do appreciate their 491
<br />support, however, I just want to put it on, put the remainder on notice that that property that you want to rezone from 492
<br />rural to something else is along a road that is inhabited by 100s of people, some of them are legacy businesses, 493
<br />some of them are farms, and many of them are residents who moved out here without any knowledge, like myself, 494
<br />without any knowledge of some sort of planned economic development section that is going to change our lives 495
<br />forever. We did not move out here to be next to an industrial park, we moved out here to be in a rural neighborhood 496
<br />and that’s what we want to preserve and I think it’s high time we change that development or designation and I’m 497
<br />going to work every way I can to change that if we can have a chance to do that but apparently it seems like the dice 498
<br />and the deck is stacked against us. Nevertheless, we as a community are going to fight this every way we can. We 499
<br />13
|