Minutes 09-01-2020 Virtual Business Meeting

Browse Search

7 2. As I'm sure you are aware by now. The applicant's proposal talks at length about manufacturing, R&D, etc., in addition to warehousing, when referring to the scope of the RTLP project, but then it states in the environmental assessment that "no production will take place on these parcels." Further, the Traffic Impact Analysis calculates added traffic based on a land use code of LUC 150, specific to warehousing. Keep in mind, this code results in one of the lowest rates of estimated traffic for this type of development. So the numbers I stated before and those which are listed in the application are the MINIMUM. Any business use that actually is in line with manufacturing, mixed use, etc. will greatly increase the amount of traffic this site would create. The Staff's response to the developer of June 30th even states: "As there will be a myriad of other development occurring within the Project - staff is concerned the Traffic analysis does not adequately anticipate and define impacts." One cannot `cherry pick' the data they use. You have to be consistent. This area will be developed in some way—we understand that— it is a highway intersection. The question is, why do we keep trying to ram a square peg into a round hole? Why do we try and change the whole area to accommodate a plan? Why don't we work within the parameters of this area and find the right fit--one that generates tax dollars, creates jobs AND fits in with the landscape? We know there are traffic concerns around what the Service Road can handle, and we know this plot of land backs up to residential and rural areas— but that doesn't mean it can't be developed in an appropriate way. The highway interchange at 1-40 and "new 86" (Exit 266) is the same layout, but the distance there between 1-40 and Eubanks Rd. is actually LESS than the distance at Exit 261 from 1-40 to the Service Road, and yet the new Carraway development is looking like a successful project. There is a compromise to all of this. • Take the 12-acre Davis Road parcel and its driveway off the table. This idea was actually proposed by David Blankfard, Chair of the Planning &Zoning Board! • Do not approve the zoning change; then • Work to develop the parcels that are already in the Economic Development area and have been zoned with a size and scale and a use that keeps the industry and traffic on the service road and close to the highway. You can create a bigger tax base and balance it with the nature of the area around it; we just need to stop trying to jam that square peg in a round hole. Work with the people in the county--not against them. Chair Rich advised Janet Marks to send emails to the BOCC email group. Rena Mitchell read the following remarks: I'm part of Save Hillsborough and I have serious concerns about RTLP. Growth is great and good. I don't want my town to look like it did in 1776 or 1876 or even 1976. 1 love seeing changes to our town, from Hillsborough BBQ to the new UNC Hospital. But this warehouse development is a poor fit. It's out of character with the rest of the district, has the potential to damage a significant watershed, and will absolutely increase flooding in the local neighborhood. But the poorest fit of all is the proximity of the development's main exit to a church, preschool and cemetery. Let's consider Orange County's plan to guide growth and development: the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Plan addresses issues ranging from land use to economic development, to housing, to public facilities, to environmental protection and beyond. As stated in the Plan, an underlying theme is the County's vision of becoming a more sustainable community. To encourage desirable economic development, the Plan set aside 2,450 acres of land in 3 areas along 1-85 and 1-40 known as the Buckhorn, Hillsborough, and Eno River Districts.