|
25
<br /> 947
<br /> 948 Craig Nishimoto: That's what I foresee. Yeah. There comes a point when you're traveling more than 30
<br /> 949 minutes away to do tree work where you lose efficiency, and you better open up a satellite or just let
<br /> 950 somebody else have that work, and so we really think we are serving this local area.
<br /> 951
<br /> 952 Delores Bailey: And my second question was, I thought I heard you mention that you were close to the
<br /> 953 landfill. Do you have a picture of that? Can you locate that?
<br /> 954
<br /> 955 Craig Nishimoto: And then the landfill is this, and you can see it's a big hill that's been sealed and covered,
<br /> 956 and now it's just a hill of grass, but that's the first part. That's where they were first doing their landfilling
<br /> 957 activities, and now, if you go farther south of there, then you have the grinding operation, the Recycling Center,
<br /> 958 and if you go across Eubanks Road, that's a new part of their landfill that has recently shut down, I think.
<br /> 959
<br /> 960 Marilyn Carter: So, Dr. Nishimoto, your package was incredibly well done. I'm not an expert on the UDO
<br /> 961 nor the Comprehensive Plan. We have some other folks who are here, but it read extremely clearly. You
<br /> 962 addressed almost all of the questions I had. And so I just want to commend you on an excellent job in your
<br /> 963 packet. I do have a couple of questions. You mentioned, and you addressed this in your packet, the
<br /> 964 precedent of why the Rural Buffer. And misuse of this land use is a precedent, but it's not a concerning
<br /> 965 precedent, and briefly can you briefly cover that?
<br /> 966
<br /> 967 Craig Nishimoto: This would be Section 9 of my detailed narrative. I'm glad you asked because I think this
<br /> 968 is the crux of the issue. This is why this is an issue. I would say there's about five related arguments, and
<br /> 969 they're very brief, and the first is that if we look at the Comprehensive Plan with a fine tooth comb there are
<br /> 970 three places where it talks about limiting development in the Rural Buffer. The first thing that we notice is that
<br /> 971 even if we took those three things as invaluable laws, like 10 Commandment-level laws, what we are doing is
<br /> 972 not in conflict with them. The wording does not prohibit them. Secondly, building on that point, it would have
<br /> 973 been very easy to have rewritten those so that it would have prohibited what we're doing by just making the
<br /> 974 language a little stronger. If it just changed a couple words, it would have prohibited what we have done. It
<br /> 975 looks intentionally meant to build in flexibility. Why? Because the Comprehensive Plan, it is known that not all
<br /> 976 of these goals and objectives are compatible with each other. They acknowledge there's going to be conflicts.
<br /> 977 There's going to have to be tradeoffs. There's built into these goals and objectives, room for judgment. So,
<br /> 978 then the third, the argument would be if it were the case that what we're trying to do is in conflict with these
<br /> 979 three sort of statements about the Rural Buffer, then many of the other things that are permitted would also be
<br /> 980 in conflict, or conversely, if some of the things that are expressly permitted are accepted, then ours should be
<br /> 981 as well. So, you can imagine why should a large facility solar array be allowed in the Rural Buffer if that
<br /> 982 violates the intensive non-residential uses? Well, that's permitted, but it's certainly not more intensive than
<br /> 983 anything that we are planning to do. One of the principles here about the Rural Buffer is to encourage a
<br /> 984 separation of urban and rural land uses. Well, then why should they allow these government facilities and
<br /> 985 office buildings like the Town of Chapel Hill Public Works, but it's not permissible for us to build an office space
<br /> 986 to accommodate our clerical staff? Then the third example is the objective in these principles is to maintain the
<br /> 987 rural low density land as Rural Buffer. Then why would it be permissible to build kennels, care facilities,
<br /> 988 recreational facilities, artificial turf and lights, artificial lights. Why is that consistent with rural land but not for
<br /> 989 us to create an indoor and outdoor facility to train future tree workers? And then fourth, there's a burden of
<br /> 990 proof problem here. We have, like I said, listed a lot of things that we are totally in alignment with. We are
<br /> 991 solving County problems, County needs, and these things don't prohibit us. You got to just not say that, "Oh,
<br /> 992 there's a little tension in between three of these things." You've listed dozens of things where you are helping
<br /> 993 the Comprehensive Plan or you're in line and you're advancing it's programs and its goals, but there's a little
<br /> 994 tension between three of these statements. Well, then show us how that problem overrides all of the positive
<br /> 995 things we're doing. I think it's a burden of proof problem. And then finally, and I think this is crux. If the Board
<br /> 996 of County Commissioners allows what we're doing, this does not, in any way, open the flood gates for more
<br />
|