2-7-24 PB Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

26 997 incursions into the Rural Buffer. Anybody who wants to follow this is going to have to stand before the 998 Planning Board and make similar arguments. They're going to have to argue like I did, and it's not going to be 999 the case if you want to make a discount retail store in the Rural Buffer, that you're going to be able to produce 1000 the same kind of arguments that I've produced. I'm so glad that I'm not arguing for a Dollar Store. 1001 1002 Marilyn Carter: Well, thank you for that. I appreciate it. And second question is a hypothetical that we 1003 may be getting closer to, which is if the Planning Board were to ask you and Mr. Stancil to go back and write a 1004 condition that addresses the item that is currently under negotiation, would that put either of you in an 1005 untenable position? Or is that something that this Planning Board could ask you to do with a motion? 1006 1007 Craig Nishimoto: So, I think that's a good question. Where we're at, where DEAPR is at in this early stage 1008 of envisioning what they want to do, I think we've come to enough of agreement to where it's as much as we 1009 should come to before putting either of us in a straitjacket of what to do next or wasting money for something 1010 that may not be of any good use, like rerouting a road now. It may turn out that the current road is perfectly 1011 compatible with what they're planning to do. It's just now that you can imagine that they want to put a soccer 1012 field or a grouping of soccer fields to make the lighting more efficient. They want to put them exactly right 1013 where the current access roads goes. Then it is entirely reasonable for us to work together and reroute. That 1014 just seems like totally reasonable. In all interactions with DEAPR, they've struck me as reasonable neighbors. 1015 We can come to a solution on this. What would be a problem is if suddenly they were saying, "Craig, you've 1016 got to build a southern route on your own dime before we allow you to do anything." It would break us. We're 1017 already sticking our neck out far in this. We couldn't afford that, but I just don't see that as being a reasonable 1018 recommendation. I think I would rely on argument to fight against that, and I think we'd come up with a 1019 reasonable solution. 1020 1021 Marilyn Carter: And just to clarify, a southern route and having you, as you've described in your response 1022 to Mr. Stancil, having to foot the bill for a southern route would be something that you'd push back on but not 1023 necessarily on continuing the negotiations. To clarify, what would happen with that northern route? 1024 1025 Craig Nishimoto: Well, the northern route, not only is it less expensive to build, but because it is also useful 1026 for maintenance crews, for the County's own work, or just access to the trails, if they can find a way to also 1027 jointly use it, then they can argue that we can also jointly fund that road, and then we can put our resources 1028 together and cooperate on that road. That would be just a perfect solution, I would think. If it comes to that. 1029 1030 Statler Gilfillen: On Page 119, is the recommendation from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources 1031 Commission, and they are talking about native plants and how you will treat the land itself. I assume your 1032 intention is to try to coordinate and follow up with what they have said? Do you see any conflict in what they 1033 have suggested? 1034 1035 Craig Nishimoto: No. There's a big stream riparian area that we just aren't going to touch. There's some 1036 beautiful hardwoods in there that we'd like to try to preserve. I mean, even for our own interests, we want 1037 trees to climb on, and practice on, and train on. There's other areas that are Ash trees that are dying and 1038 whatnot. 1039 1040 Charity Kirk: So, Marilyn asked one of my Rural Buffer questions, but I was wondering, on Page 75, the 1041 staff comments, this is more for you, Ashley. The staff comment is, the proposed ASE-CD zoning district for 1042 an arborist and tree processing center is consistent with the Rural Buffer rural land use classification, then you 1043 mentioned Appendix F, relationships between land use classifications and zoning districts. I don't understand 1044 that appendix end table. Could you explain why it is consistent according to that table? Because that is the 1045 crux of the question to me is, how much does this differ from the Rural Buffer current zoning? 1046