Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
19 <br /> 1 b. Nutrient Removal: Project will not exceed: <br /> 2 i. Nitrogen: 1.2 pounds per acre per year; and <br /> 3 ii. Phosphorous: 0.24 pounds per acre per year. <br /> 4 Nutrient export loads are equal to/less than export loads from property in current, <br /> 5 undeveloped state. <br /> 6 5. Use of Private Mitigation Credits: Consistent with 6.14.7(D) of the LIDO applicant shall: <br /> 7 a. Purchase approved `private mitigation bank credits' within the Upper Eno River <br /> 8 Watershed. If no credits are available, applicant shall: <br /> 9 i. Purchase approved private mitigation bank credits within Orange County (if <br /> 10 available); OR <br /> 11 ii. Purchase approved private mitigation bank credits in the Falls Lake <br /> 12 Watershed (if available); OR <br /> 13 iii. Utilize any mitigation option permitted by the UDO. <br /> 14 Conditions must mutually be agreed to by the applicant. Staff is seeking direction from the <br /> 15 BOCC on said condition(s) for final review/agreement by the applicant. The current list of <br /> 16 condition(s) is contained within Attachment 5. <br /> 17 <br /> 18 During review of the Project, local residents identified the following concerns: <br /> 19 a. The Project is out of character with the rural Efland community; <br /> 20 b. There has been insufficient public outreach, including concerns the Town of <br /> 21 Hillsborough had not been more involved in reviewing the Project; <br /> 22 c. Economic development benefits have been exaggerated and are overestimated; <br /> 23 d. The Project will not generate the types of jobs desired by the County (i.e. provision <br /> 24 of a living wage, jobs meeting County social justice goals, etc.); <br /> 25 e. Development of a `60 pump/120 individual fuel station' travel center is inconsistent <br /> 26 with a County goal of reducing dependency on fossil fuels; <br /> 27 f. There is no guarantee that `Phase 2' of the Project (i.e. hotel, offices, retail, <br /> 28 manufacturing, etc.) will ever be developed; <br /> 29 g. Proposed traffic changes, including the elimination of Exit 160 and prohibition of <br /> 30 left turns from Ben Johnson Road to the 1-85/US Highway 70 connector road, will <br /> 31 have negative impacts on motorists. <br /> 32 Traffic redesign will exacerbate existing traffic congestion and create public safety <br /> 33 concerns; <br /> 34 h. Stormwater runoff will have a negative impact on adjacent sensitive water features <br /> 35 as well as the County's Seven Mile Creek Preserve; <br /> 36 i. Insufficient information has been provided ensuring adequate protection of <br /> 37 groundwater from fuel contamination; <br /> 38 j. The Project will significantly increase/exacerbate existing light pollution in the area; <br /> 39 k. There is no justification for an 80 ft. tall freestanding sign advertising the Project. <br /> 40 Attachment 3 contains the applicant's responses to these concern(s). Staff's comments will be <br /> 41 provided separately. <br /> 42 <br /> 43 Effect of Denial or Withdrawal: In the event the rezoning application is denied or withdrawn, it <br /> 44 should be noted that Section 2.2.8 of the LIDO states that no application for the same or similar <br /> 45 amendment, affecting the same property or portion thereof, may be submitted for a period of <br /> 46 one year. The one year period begins on the date of denial or withdrawal. <br /> 47 <br /> 48 Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the: <br /> 49 1. Statement of Consistency indicating the zoning atlas amendment(s) are reasonable <br /> 50 and in the public interest as contained in Attachment 4. <br /> 51 2. Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas, as well as imposing development conditions, <br />