Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
7 <br /> proximity to the drive-thrus to absorb some of the carbon emissions that come from the idling <br /> that occurs with drive-thrus. <br /> Craig Benedict said that in the packet there is a combination of approvals or denials. <br /> On page 1, there is a Statement of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan if the Board <br /> finds that this project is consistent for rezoning purposes. If this is approved, the Board would <br /> move on to decisions on 3-a, b, c, and d. If the proposal is inconsistent, then the Board would <br /> vote to proceed with the Statement of Inconsistency and proceed to Attachment 5, which is a <br /> Resolution of Rezoning Denial. The applicant is in agreement with all conditions, A-U, with the <br /> exception of condition `S', which has to do with drive-thrus. <br /> APPLICANT: <br /> Roger Perry said that the applicants are in agreement with all conditions except `S'. He <br /> said that the conditions specified for drive-thrus are problematic and a serious impediment to <br /> the viability and success of the project. He said that the applicants do not care if there are any <br /> drive-thrus, but it is an issue of fairness and equity in the rest of the County. If this project is <br /> going to be competitive, there cannot be a set of restrictions and guidelines placed on it that <br /> are different than what might be imposed throughout the County. Rather than specify the <br /> conditions of a drive-thru, the applicant would propose that the language in `S' be amended to <br /> say that, "Drive-thrus at Buckhorn Village will be regulated in accordance with drive-thru <br /> regulations that are in place or to be put in place for all of Orange County." He said that the <br /> applicants are willing to live with whatever regulations that the Board of County Commissioners <br /> might impose for drive-thrus in the County. The stipulation that is the most problematic, which <br /> was never discussed with the staff, is number 2, which says that, "No drive-thru facilities shall <br /> be located within 100 feet of an exterior property line, including building, drive lane for the <br /> drive-thru, or parking facilities. He said that this renders any of the pad sites in the site plan <br /> unusable and unviable for a use that would require a drive-thru. He said that there was a <br /> discussion with staff about five drive-thrus and he thought that there was a compromise that no <br /> more than three of those would be for restaurants. This has been reduced to two. In addition, <br /> item #4 refers to the type of planting and he said that this would require that the area be at <br /> least 10-15 feet, which would dramatically impact the ability of the facility to fit on that site. He <br /> asked the Board to consider adopting the language under `S' that the applicants proposed and <br /> then establish Countywide guidelines for drive-thrus. <br /> Commissioner Carey asked for staff response to the proposed condition `S' by the <br /> applicant. Craig Benedict said that the majority of the setbacks in the EDD zones are 100 feet. <br /> The goal with the vegetative strip would be to absorb some of the emissions. Regarding <br /> alternate language, staff has noticed the consternation about drive-thrus in the Hillsborough <br /> EDD where drive-thrus have been prohibited. There are other sections of the County where <br /> drive-thrus are allowed. At the appropriate time, staff will take the direction from the Board to <br /> reexamine the drive-thru ordinance. <br /> Geof Gledhill said that, with respect to Mr. Perry's proposal, so long as it is written in a <br /> way that makes it apply to this permit, it is a good solution. <br /> Chair Jacobs said that the Board could refer this to the Planning Board and advertise it <br /> for the November 24th public hearing. He said that Commissioner Nelson is supportive of no <br /> drive-thrus and the Planning Board recommended one drive-thru for the entire development. <br /> He is sympathetic to Mr. Perry's argument that it is not fair to impose restrictions on this <br /> project. <br /> Chair Jacobs acknowledged the Planning Board members in attendance. He asked the <br /> Manager or Craig Benedict whether the $400,000 in Economic Development money has been <br />