Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
13 <br /> STAFF COMMENT: Both Planning and NC Department of Transportation (NC DOT) <br /> staff have reviewed the proposal. Comments from County staff are contained in <br /> Attachment 6. <br /> The TIA indicates a secondary access point serving the project shall be necessary <br /> giventhe anticipated intensity of the project, which NCDOT staff have determined <br /> Service Road is unable to support. At this time the applicant is proposing to use Davis <br /> Road to address this need. <br /> Staff has expressed concern over anticipated access onto Davis Road. The TIA for the <br /> project identified upgrades intended to ameliorate potential impacts to adjacent property <br /> owners. This includes installation of a traffic light at the intersection of Davis Road and <br /> Old NC Highway 86. <br /> Staff has recommended the imposition of various condition(s) to address access management <br /> issues as contained in Attachment 11. <br /> Land Uses: As previously indicated herein, the applicant is proposing various land uses <br /> focusing on warehousing/supply chain fulfillment services, research/development, and <br /> manufacturing activities. The proposal also includes a list of prohibited land uses. As part of the <br /> MPD-CZ process, only those approved land use categories can be eveloped within the project <br /> consistent with applicable development standards. <br /> STAFF COMMENT: Proposed uses are consistent with: <br /> • The existing MPD-CZ for Settlers Point; <br /> • Previous general use zoning district designation(s)for the parcels south of <br /> Interstate 40, specifically Economic Development Hillsborough (EDH-5); <br /> • Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO; and <br /> • Anticipated land uses for the area as reflected within the adopted Orange <br /> County Comprehensive Plan and the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County <br /> Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan <br /> Several comment(s) have been made insinuating the applicant is not providing <br /> sufficient/specific information on the actual `tenants' for the project. It has been <br /> suggested the County should deny the project unless/until specific tenants can be <br /> identified for public scrutiny and approval. <br /> Land use and zoning processes do not allow/require the level of scrutiny sought by the <br /> general public (i.e. veto power on specific tenants). The applicant is obligated to identify <br /> those land use categories it is seeking approval from the County to develop but are not <br /> obligated/required to provide a site specific development plan identifying actual `tenants' <br /> for approval. <br /> Through this process, the County is essentially creating a new zoning district with <br /> mandatory development standards/criteria governing actual development activities. The <br /> County does have the ability to comment/make conditions on proposed land use <br /> categories (i.e. manufacturing land uses, research land uses, professional office land <br /> uses, etc.) but does not have the ability to compel the applicant's identify specific clients <br /> or reject same. <br /> If there is a concern over a particular activity, the BOCC can impose conditions <br /> addressing same. <br />