|
Approved 9/2/2020
<br />
<br />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 558
<br />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 559
<br />done. 560
<br /> 561
<br />Bob Bundschuh: I’m actually a vice-president of supply chain and logistics have a million sq. ft. of warehouse and six 562
<br />manufacturing things under my control so I know a little bit about this. Let’s just start with the proposal starts off 2½ 563
<br />pages talking about the project is going to offer 2¼ million sq. ft. of health and technology, info sciences, engineering, 564
<br />advanced manufacturing, science research and labs, warehouse and logistics and up to 4500 jobs. Then you 565
<br />actually bring COVID of all things and say the solution in your quote “to bring more manufacturing of life saving 566
<br />products back to the U.S.” quite impressive but when you get further in your proposal, it has nothing to do with 567
<br />manufacturing. You don’t even talk about it, its 100% warehouse. And we know this because when you do the traffic 568
<br />study, you use warehouse code 150, which is just warehouse. Not 140 which can be manufacturing or 130 an 569
<br />industrial park and additionally, in your environmental assessment on section six it says “no production will take place 570
<br />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 571
<br />warehouse complex? Or is it mixed use? The Planning Board needs to decide to approve or reject the zoning 572
<br />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 573
<br />brochure, and you’ve cherry picked your message. When it comes to job creation type of industry and the need, you 574
<br />talk about high end R & D, health technology, which I’m sure comes across as a great fit for the area. You’re thinking 575
<br />high paying jobs and even hints of life saving products but then when you talk about traffic and environmental, you 576
<br />pick the least impactful. The most benign possibility, no manufacturing, as far as traffic you use code 150 is towards 577
<br />the bottom of traffic generations. The applicant knows that if they use the land use code for manufacturing or light 578
<br />industrial, the ITE tables that you use show that peak traffic will go up and that would require recalculating the traffic 579
<br />and it would go to the negative. Planning for manufacturing would also alter the water and sewer requirements. It’s 580
<br />not quite a true bait and switch but its close. They noted that if this zoning, as approved, we can’t go back. Anything 581
<br />allowed under the zoning can be built on this property, anything that’s within the zoning. Absolutely nothing limits it to 582
<br />what they proposed tonight. Like several people have said, we don’t know what’s going in and neither do they. Now 583
<br />both the applicant and the staff have repeatedly used the reasoning that the development is just fulfilling what was 584
<br />laid down 40 years ago but 40 years ago, there was no Highway 40, there weren’t stores open on Sunday, there was 585
<br />no Amazon, no next day delivery, tractor trailers weren’t 53 ft. long. So justify a decision on rezoning because of 586
<br />something 40 years ago makes no sense. You can recommend this tonight on the premises in line but the question 587
<br />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 588
<br />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 589
<br />us on a different development that works for both us and the County. Thank you. 590
<br /> 591
<br />Sarah Shore: Hi, my name is Sarah Shore and I live 250 ft. away from the proposed development. One of the 592
<br />places the developer said was vacant land just as an FYI. My home has been here since the 1980s. This is my 593
<br />home, this is where I brought my babies to after they were born and now where they play outside. The land use plan 594
<br />originally said Davis Road would be a suburban office not a warehouse. Suburban office draws to mind Monday 595
<br />through Friday 9 to 5 cars, regular traffic not semis not three shifts of work. I have many concerns about this 596
<br />nebulous development being feet from my back door. My first question is for the developer, have you actually been 597
<br />to the parcels. We are not off of Davis Drive but Davis Road the Beaver Creek problems that you mentioned is 40 598
<br />minutes away from us and we are not in a Raleigh metropolitan area, we are two counties away. Please understand 599
<br />when you are speaking to us, where we actually live. Additionally, in regards to the jobs, I’m very concerned about 600
<br />the numbers are inflated or simply made up because tenants are not lined up or you will not say. You cannot 601
<br />guarantee that jobs are economic boom the only thing you can guarantee is raised land and empty warehouses. My 602
<br />final comment is for the Planning Board and the County and the follow up of what David said because the question 603
<br />was never answered. Is there a way to say Davis Road driveway is not a viable option and they must get Old 86 604
<br />access instead? Because I would truly love an answer to that question. Thank you. 605
<br /> 606
<br />Ashley Trahan: Hi, my name is Ashley Trahan and I live with my family off Davis Road when we relocated from 607
<br />Boulder Colorado in 2013. We chose Hillsborough as the best place to establish our life here in North Carolina even 608
<br />though it meant one hour each day commuting to RTP where I work because its delineative native, quality of life 609
<br />afforded by this small town and its rural surroundings. I must voice opposition to the zoning amendment being 610
<br />considered which will support the development of RTLP. Please give priority consideration to the local, rural and 611
<br />small town community and to the public interest at large over that of investors and developers. I now feel compelled 612
<br />to echo concerns expressed regarding the traffic impact analysis, conceptually I cannot understand how anticipated 613
<br />29
|