Agenda - 10-06-20; 8-a - Minutes

Browse Search

7 1 increase in traffic on any road minimal? Not to mention that a large portion of these will 2 be large trucks! 3 4 2. As I'm sure you are aware by now. The applicant's proposal talks at length about 5 manufacturing, R&D, etc., in addition to warehousing, when referring to the scope of the RTLP 6 project, but then it states in the environmental assessment that "no production will take place on 7 these parcels." Further, the Traffic Impact Analysis calculates added traffic based on a land use 8 code of LUC 150, specific to warehousing. Keep in mind, this code results in one of the lowest 9 rates of estimated traffic for this type of development. So the numbers I stated before and those 10 which are listed in the application are the MINIMUM. Any business use that actually is in line 11 with manufacturing, mixed use, etc. will greatly increase the amount of traffic this site would 12 create. The Staff's response to the developer of June 30th even states: "As there will be a 13 myriad of other development occurring within the Project - staff is concerned the Traffic analysis 14 does not adequately anticipate and define impacts." One cannot `cherry pick' the data they use. 15 You have to be consistent. This area will be developed in some way—we understand that— it is 16 a highway intersection. The question is, why do we keep trying to ram a square peg into a round 17 hole? Why do we try and change the whole area to accommodate a plan? Why don't we work 18 within the parameters of this area and find the right fit--one that generates tax dollars, creates 19 jobs AND fits in with the landscape? We know there are traffic concerns around what the 20 Service Road can handle, and we know this plot of land backs up to residential and rural areas- 21 but that doesn't mean it can't be developed in an appropriate way. The highway interchange at 22 1-40 and "new 86" (Exit 266) is the same layout, but the distance there between 1-40 and 23 Eubanks Rd. is actually LESS than the distance at Exit 261 from 1-40 to the Service Road, and 24 yet the new Carraway development is looking like a successful project. There is a compromise 25 to all of this. 26 • Take the 12-acre Davis Road parcel and its driveway off the table. This idea was 27 actually proposed by David Blankfard, Chair of the Planning &Zoning Board! 28 • Do not approve the zoning change; then 29 • Work to develop the parcels that are already in the Economic Development area and 30 have been zoned with a size and scale and a use that keeps the industry and traffic on 31 the service road and close to the highway. You can create a bigger tax base and 32 balance it with the nature of the area around it; we just need to stop trying to jam that 33 square peg in a round hole. Work with the people in the county--not against them. 34 35 Chair Rich advised Janet Marks to send emails to the BOCC email group. 36 37 Rena Mitchell read the following remarks: 38 I'm part of Save Hillsborough and I have serious concerns about RTLP. Growth is great and 39 good. I don't want my town to look like it did in 1776 or 1876 or even 1976. 40 41 1 love seeing changes to our town, from Hillsborough BBQ to the new UNC Hospital. But this 42 warehouse development is a poor fit. It's out of character with the rest of the district, has the 43 potential to damage a significant watershed, and will absolutely increase flooding in the local 44 neighborhood. But the poorest fit of all is the proximity of the development's main exit to a 45 church, preschool and cemetery. 46 47 Let's consider Orange County's plan to guide growth and development: the Orange County 48 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Plan addresses issues ranging from land use to economic 49 development, to housing, to public facilities, to environmental protection and beyond. As stated 50 in the Plan, an underlying theme is the County's vision of becoming a more sustainable 51 community. To encourage desirable economic development, the Plan set aside 2,450 acres of