Agenda 03-19-24; 5-a - Zoning Atlas Amendment – 6915-UT Millhouse Road, Chapel Hill

Browse Search

148 APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24 996 incursions into the Rural Buffer. Anybody who wants to follow this is going to have to stand before the 997 Planning Board and make similar arguments. They're going to have to argue like I did, and it's not going to be 998 the case if you want to make a discount retail store in the Rural Buffer, that you're going to be able to produce 999 the same kind of arguments that I've produced. I'm so glad that I'm not arguing for a Dollar Store. 1000 1001 Marilyn Carter: Well, thank you for that. I appreciate it. And second question is a hypothetical that we 1002 may be getting closer to, which is if the Planning Board were to ask you and Mr. Stancil to go back and write a 1003 condition that addresses the item that is currently under negotiation, would that put either of you in an 1004 untenable position? Or is that something that this Planning Board could ask you to do with a motion? 1005 1006 Craig Nishimoto: So, I think that's a good question. Where we're at, where DEAPR is at in this early stage 1007 of envisioning what they want to do, I think we've come to enough of agreement to where it's as much as we 1008 should come to before putting either of us in a straitjacket of what to do next or wasting money for something 1009 that may not be of any good use, like rerouting a road now. It may turn out that the current road is perfectly 1010 compatible with what they're planning to do. It's just now that you can imagine that they want to put a soccer 1011 field or a grouping of soccer fields to make the lighting more efficient. They want to put them exactly right 1012 where the current access roads goes. Then it is entirely reasonable for us to work together and reroute. That 1013 just seems like totally reasonable. In all interactions with DEAPR, they've struck me as reasonable neighbors. 1014 We can come to a solution on this. What would be a problem is if suddenly they were saying, "Craig, you've 1015 got to build a southern route on your own dime before we allow you to do anything." It would break us. We're 1016 already sticking our neck out far in this. We couldn't afford that, but I just don't see that as being a reasonable 1017 recommendation. I think I would rely on argument to fight against that, and I think we'd come up with a 1018 reasonable solution. 1019 1020 Marilyn Carter: And just to clarify, a southern route and having you, as you've described in your response 1021 to Mr. Stancil, having to foot the bill for a southern route would be something that you'd push back on but not 1022 necessarily on continuing the negotiations. To clarify, what would happen with that northern route? 1023 1024 Craig Nishimoto: Well, the northern route, not only is it less expensive to build, but because it is also useful 1025 for maintenance crews, for the County's own work, or just access to the trails, if they can find a way to also 1026 jointly use it, then they can argue that we can also jointly fund that road, and then we can put our resources 1027 together and cooperate on that road. That would be just a perfect solution, I would think. If it comes to that. 1028 1029 Statler Gilfillen: On Page 119, is the recommendation from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources 1030 Commission, and they are talking about native plants and how you will treat the land itself. I assume your 1031 intention is to try to coordinate and follow up with what they have said? Do you see any conflict in what they 1032 have suggested? 1033 1034 Craig Nishimoto: No. There's a big stream riparian area that we just aren't going to touch. There's some 1035 beautiful hardwoods in there that we'd like to try to preserve. I mean, even for our own interests, we want 1036 trees to climb on, and practice on, and train on. There's other areas that are Ash trees that are dying and 1037 whatnot. 1038 1039 Charity Kirk: So, Marilyn asked one of my Rural Buffer questions, but I was wondering, on Page 75, the 1040 staff comments, this is more for you, Ashley. The staff comment is, the proposed ASE-CD zoning district for 1041 an arborist and tree processing center is consistent with the Rural Buffer rural land use classification, then you 1042 mentioned Appendix F, relationships between land use classifications and zoning districts. I don't understand 1043 that appendix end table. Could you explain why it is consistent according to that table? Because that is the 1044 crux of the question to me is, how much does this differ from the Rural Buffer current zoning? 1045