Browse
Search
Agenda - 10-06-20; 6-c - Zoning Atlas Amendment – Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) for the Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP)
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2020's
>
2020
>
Agenda - 10-06-20 Virtual Business Meeting
>
Agenda - 10-06-20; 6-c - Zoning Atlas Amendment – Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) for the Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/1/2020 2:20:28 PM
Creation date
10/1/2020 2:58:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/6/2020
Meeting Type
Business
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6-c
Document Relationships
Agenda 10-06-20 Virtual Business Meeting
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2020's\2020\Agenda - 10-06-20 Virtual Business Meeting
Minutes 10-06-2020 Virtual Business Meeting
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2020's\2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
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
It’s crazy. I could expect it from the lawyers in Raleigh who don’t care what happens here because they don’t live 556 <br />here. They’re going to get this signed and they’re done they get their check but from our own Planning Board the 557 <br />people who are supposed to protect the citizens of this county they are the ones who are selling us up the river. It’s 558 <br />insane, it really is insane. That’s all I have to say. 559 <br /> 560 <br />David Blankfard: One thing, did you receive a letter from the planning department? 561 <br /> 562 <br />Jon Lorusso: No I did not. 563 <br /> 564 <br />Perdita Holtz: David as you can see there are 12 people with their hands up and it now 11 p.m. I don’t know if there 565 <br />wants to be any discussion among the Planning Board on how to handle the rest of the meeting, what some options 566 <br />might be. 567 <br /> 568 <br />Hunter Spitzer: I do recall that Michael had some comments that he wanted to make pertaining to us making 569 <br />recommendation. So I would like to hear those at the very least before we move forward. 570 <br /> 571 <br />Michael Harvey: As I indicated, your abstract had suggested that the Board, if they felt comfortable, make a 572 <br />recommendation in time for the County Commissioner’s September 15th hearing. Obviously the applicant will also 573 <br />need to weigh in on this. As I see it, there’s a couple of different options and scenarios here. Through no fault of the 574 <br />applicant, we got comments from the Department of Transportation on this project Friday, July 31st and again that is 575 <br />not anything that staff or the applicant could control. The applicant has responded to the Department of 576 <br />Transportation and we are waiting for a response to those comments. We’ve heard tonight from Planning Board 577 <br />members related to potential conditions that you all would to see vetted before you make a final decision. We have 578 <br />obviously heard some comments from the public and there’s going to be some additional comments as we continue 579 <br />discussion. 580 <br /> 581 <br />So as I see it the Board technically has a couple of options. The Board could table any decision providing the 582 <br />applicant with areas of specific focus that they want answers to, I’ve heard loud and clear and in my note the primary 583 <br />concerns is traffic impact and more review of the DOT comments and the applicants responses and what DOT says 584 <br />to some of the traffic concerns I’ve heard. So you could certainly delay any decision til or table the item until your next 585 <br />regular meeting, which would be September 2nd to wait for that information. Craig and I have had a texting 586 <br />discussion about this very topic over the last hour, you could identify areas where you have less concerns or you are 587 <br />satisfied with the conditions and the applicant’s responses and identify specific conditions you’d like to see fleshed 588 <br />out, you could adjourn this meeting to a date and time certain in a couple of weeks conceivably to revisit this 589 <br />discussion or the Board could vote either to make a recommendation to approve or make a recommendation to deny 590 <br />this evening. 591 <br /> 592 <br />I’m not trying to say you don’t have any of those options but staff was going to recommend was that we’re still waiting 593 <br />on DOT to get us some documentation as is the applicant and hearing some of the discussion tonight, I think that 594 <br />there is a comfort level lacking with the transportation component from staff, the applicant who is waiting on DOT and 595 <br />you all and that might need some discussion. Whatever you all’s decision is, I would like to strongly urge you to 596 <br />identify any specific areas of concern be it traffic, be it alternative energy conditions, whatnot so that the applicant 597 <br />and staff have a clear understanding of what we need to be working on in the interim to provide you the feedback 598 <br />you’re asking for so you can make an informed decision. If that makes sense and thank you Hunter for asking. 599 <br /> 600 <br />David Blankfard: So what does everybody have a concern with? 601 <br /> 602 <br />Adam Beeman: My biggest concern is I want to see whatever the DOT is come to them with and determine whatever 603 <br />steps necessary to rectify, my biggest concern is coming off of the highway and right there at the highway. I am not 604 <br />so concerned as Davis Road as much as the highway but that’s all part of the study so I’d like to see what DOT’s 605 <br />response was. 606 <br /> 607 <br />Hunter Spitzer: I would like the applicant to consider removing access to Davis Road as they move forward with the 608 <br />process cause I suspect that we will probably vote to delay at least until our Planning Board meeting and potentially 609 <br />until we, until you end negotiations with the DOT. Conditionally, I would like a more concise proposal on electrical 610 <br />15
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.