030716March 7, 2016
The Randolph County Board of Commissioners met in regular session at 6:00 p.m. in the
1909 Randolph County Historic Courthouse Meeting Room, 145 Worth Street, Asheboro, NC.
Commissioners Frye, Haywood, Kemp, Lanier and Allen were present. Dr. Bob Shackleford,
RCC President, gave the invocation and everyone recited the pledge of allegiance.
Public Comment Period
Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 153A-52.1, Chairman Frye opened the floor for public comment.
County Attorney Ben Morgan read aloud the Rules of Procedure for Public Comment Period.
Jason Hunter, 630 Old Castle Dr., Randleman, NC, stated that he was attending to speak of
his gratitude. Mr. Hunter said he was employed with the Sheriff's Office for 13 years and had
served under Sheriff Reid. He said he was no longer employed with the Sheriff's Office as of
February 1 st but was lucky to have been able to do a job in which he had always wanted to do
and it was an experience like no other. Mr. Hunter said he felt indebted to have played a small
part in helping the community in which he lives and plans to stay. He spoke of all the positions
he had held and the one that meant the most, the Internet Crimes Task Force, where he was
charged to find criminals who prey on children. Mr. Hunter said he was grateful to have served
under the late Sheriff Reid who set a great example for the department. He thanked the
Commissioners and the citizens of Randolph County for what he described as a "grand
adventure."
Consent Agenda
Commissioner Allen made a motion to remove Item C. Approve Site Development Project
Ordinance Budget Amendment #4 Megasite Maintenance froin the Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Haywood seconded the motion, the Board voted unanimously and Item C was
r^einoved.
Commissioner Allen asked for additional information about the Item C. budget amendment 44
to the Site Development Project Ordinance for megasite maintenance. Finance Officer Will
Massie recommended that all related costs the County would incur for the megasite (i.e.
security, mowing , etc.) be accounted for in the Site Development Project Ordinance and that the
cell tower revenues were the best way to pay for those costs. After clarification, Commissioner
Allen made a new motion.
On motion of Allen, seconded by Haywood, the Board voted unanimously to approve the
Consent Agenda, as initially presented and as follows:
• approve minutes of the 211116 regular meeting, 211116 closed session I & II, the 219116
special meeting, the 2111116 special joint meeting. (No quorum for the 2116116 special
meeting Economic Development Corporation planning retreat);
• unseal Closed Session Minutes 1112115 H and 211116 I;
• approve Site Development Project Ordinance Budget Amendment #4 Megasite
Maintenance, as follows:
3/7/2016
2015-2016 Budget Ordinance
Site Development Capital Project Ordinance —Budget Amendment #4
Revenues
Increase
Decrease
Sales and Services
$90, 000
Appropriations
Increase
Decrease
Professional Fees
$45, 000
Miscellaneous
$45, 000
• amend the 2016 Holidav Schedule (Seagrove Library), as follows:
Holiday
County*
Solid Waste Facility"
Library
New Year's Day
1/1 (Fri.)
1/1 (Fri.) CLOSED
1/1 (Fri.)
M. L. King Jr.'s B-day
1/18 (Mon.)
1/18 (Mon.) OPEN
1/18 (Mon.)
Easter / Good Friday
3/25 (Fri.)
3/25 (Fri.) OPEN, 3/26 (Sat.)
CLOSED
3/25 (Fri.)
Memorial Day
5/30 (Mon.)
5/30 (Mon.) CLOSED
5/30 (Mon.)
Independence Day
7/4 (Mon.)
7/4 (Mon.) CLOSED
7/4 (Mon.)
Labor Day
9/5 (Mon.)
9/5 (Mon.) CLOSED
9/5 (Mon.)
Fall Festival (Asheboro Library Only)
10/1 (Sat.)
Veterans' Day I 11/11Fri.) 11/11 (Fri.) OPEN
11/11 (Fri.)
Seagrove Pottery Festival (Seagrove Library Only)
11/19 (Sat.)
Thanksgiving
11/24 & 25
(Thur. & Fri.)
11/24 (Thurs.) CLOSED
11/25 (Fri.) OPEN; 11/26 (Sat.) OPEN
11/25 & 26
(Thurs. & Fri.)
Christmas
12/23, 12/26,
12/27
(Fri., Mon-Tue)
12/23 (Fri.) OPEN;
12/24 (Sat.) CLOSED;
12/26 (Mon.) & 12/27 (Tues.) (OPEN)
12/23 (Fri.) OPEN;
12/24 (Sat.) CLOSED;
12/26 (Mon.) CLOSED;
12/27 (Tues.) (OPEN)
• approve 2017 Holidav Schedule (Same as State Schedule), as follows:
Holiday
County*
Solid Waste Facility"
Library
New Year's Day
1/2 (Mon.)
1/2 (Mon.) CLOSED
1/2 (Mon.)
M. L. King Jr.'s B-day
1/16 (Mon.)
1/16 (Mon.) OPEN
1/16 (Mon.)
Easter / Good Friday
4/14 (Fri.)
4/14 (Fri.) OPEN, 4/15 (Sat.)
CLOSED
4/14 (Fri.)
Memorial Day
5/29 (Mon.)
5/29 (Mon.) CLOSED
5/29 (Mon.)
Independence Day
7/4 (Tue.)
7/4 (Tue.) CLOSED
7/4 (Tue.)
Labor Day
9/4 (Mon.)
9/4 (Mon.) CLOSED
9/4 (Mon.)
Fall Festival (Asheboro Library Only)
10/7 (Sat.)
Veterans' Day
11/10 (Fri.)
11/10 (Fri.) OPEN
11/11 (Sat.) OPEN
11/10 (Fri.)
Seagrove Pottery Festival (Seagrove Library Only)
11/18 (Sat.)
Thanksgiving
11/23 & 24
(Thur. & Fri.)
11/23 (Thurs.) CLOSED
11/24 (Fri.) OPEN; 11/25 (Sat.) OPEN
11/23 & 24
(Thurs. & Fri.)
3/7/2016
Christmas
12/25, 12/26,
12/25 (Mon.) CLOSED;
12/25 (Mon.) CLOSED;
12/27
12/26 (Tue.) OPEN;
12/26 (Tue.) CLOSED;
(Mon. -Wed.)
12/27 (Wed.) OPEN
12/27 (Wed.) OPEN
• accept bequest of $25, 000 to the Library Trust Fund;
• appoint Mary Anne Hyatt to replace Susan Behr on the Randolph County Nursing Home
Community Advisory Committee;
• approve Budget Amendment #26 for Emergency Services Emergency Management
Performance Grant ($17.917). as follows:
2015-2016 Budget Ordinance
General Fund —Budget Amendment #26
Revenues
Increase
Decrease
Restricted Intergovernmental
$17,917
Appropriations
Increase
Decrease
Emergency Services
$17,917
• approve Emergency Services Headquarters Capital Project Ordinance Budget
Amendment #3 , as follows:
2015-2016 Budget Ordinance
Emergency Services Headquarters Capital Project Ordinance
Budget Amendment # 3
Revenues
Increase
Decrease
Appropriations
Increase
Decrease
Professional Services
$70, 000
Construction
$70, 000
• appoint Spencer Patton to the Randolph County Juvenile Crime Prevention Council;
• appoint Tammy R. Brady as Deputy Finance Officer (Jail) and set Surety Bond at
$50, 000;
• approve Resolution in Support of the "ConnectNC" Bond Proposal, as follows:
RESOLUTIONBY THE RAND OLPH COUNTYBOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
INSUPPORT OF THE "CONNECTNC" BOND PROPOSAL
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly and the Governor approved
the Connect NC Bond Act during the 2015 legislative session which proposed a $2
billion bond initiative; and
WHEREAS, we recognize that investment needs to be made to essential
infrastructure in Randolph County and North Carolina in order to sustain jobs and
economic growth; and
WHEREAS, the bipartisan sponsored bond package known as "ConnectNC'
would provide $5 million to Randolph Community College, and $25 million to the
North Carolina Zoo for capital construction; and
3/7/2016
WHEREAS, accessible and high quality education and workforce training
opportunities provided by Randolph Community College are essentialfor Randolph
County to attract employers; and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Zoo provides 750,000 visitors each year a one -
of -a -kind educational and recreational experience that generates an annual economic
impact of $150 million, including $8 million in state and local taxes that cannot be
exported; and
WHEREAS, the $2 billion will target refurbishment and construction of
infrastructure vital to North Carolina's competitiveness in attracting business,
industry, and jobs; and
WHEREAS, as a result of North Carolina's fiscal strength and strong balance
sheet, no tax increase would be required to fund these bonds; and
WHEREAS, the $2 billion will be spent on State and Community Colleges,
WaterlSewer Loans and Grants, Local Parks, National Guard facilities, State Parks
& the North Carolina Zoo.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Randolph County Board of
Commissioners hereby support the ConnectNC Bond issue coming before voters on
March 15, 2016.
Capital Needs Presentations from County and City Schools and RCC
Assistant County Manager/Finance Officer Will Massie stated that this is the annual update
on the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Debt Analysis, but since he covered the debt portion
at the December meeting he would only be covering the capital needs.
Mr. Massie said the most effective CIP is one where priorities have been determined and
projects are planned several years in advance. This allows all parties adequate time to design
and prepare for specific projects. Corresponding decisions such as bond referendums,
infrastructure development or school realignment can also be arranged in time.
County departments, our public school systems, and the community college all have
substantial capital needs. The Commissioners must regularly prioritize these projects and decide
on financing sources in order to meet the County's statutory responsibilities.
Mr. Massie said there are several projects that were identified as priorities several years ago
in the CIP that are in process: a new emergency services headquarters (ESHQ), ambulance bases,
and a new animal shelter. The construction phase of the ESHQ project has begun, with
completion expected in early 2017. The new Liberty ambulance base is operational and the new
Southeast base is nearly complete. The location for the new Trinity area base is still to be
determined. The animal shelter project is in the design phase and is expected to begin in the fall
of 2016.
Other County needs that have been mentioned are jail expansion, DSS expansion, Courthouse
expansion, and water system infrastructure. Mr. Massie said the public schools and RCC have
capital needs and will be presenting their requests.
Mr. Massie said no action is required tonight.
3/7/2016
Asheboro City Schools
Dr. Terry Worrell, Asheboro City Schools Superintendent, opened with their capital plan
summary. Renovations and expansions at the high school have been established in three phases.
Phase one would include two new classrooms, six renovated classrooms, program expansion,
ADA compliance restrooms, sound proofing, ramps, and additional storage at a cost of
$500,000-$700,000. Phase two would provide 25,461 additional square feet which would
include eight new classrooms, and cafeteria space with additional storage. Renovations in the
main building would provide 8,804 additional square feet allowing for two new classrooms,
storage, and ADA compliant restrooms. Phase two will be added to the back of the building
where the band rooms are located.
Specific needs and estimates consisted of updates to the Charles W. McCrary ($357,633) and
the Lindley Park ($438,041) kitchens, HVAC additions to North Asheboro Middle School gym
($389,000), South Asheboro Middle School gym ($410,000), and Asheboro High School old
gym ($292,000).
Dr. Worrell highlighted their year one progress of their ten-year plan as follows: Roofing
sections at NAMS, SAMS, Loflin, and the Central Office; mechanical units in the Media Center
and the Office at McCrary and the Office at Lindley Park; painting and flooring at Lindley Park;
the intercom at NAMS; and the fire alarm at Balfour. The total of those projects were $720,800.
With the annual Capital Outlay of $700,000 allocated to construction/renovation the following
capital needs have been deferred: the chiller at Balfour; and plumbing and masonry repairs
system wide at an estimated cost of $159,200.
Capital needs estimated in the amount of $868,624 for the 2016-17 year are as follows: five HVAC
units, asbestos removal in the air handler, and painting, all at NAMS; roofing and windows at SAMS;
and roofing, the Office mechanical unit, insulation in the gym, and waterproofing the stadium
masonry at the High School.
Commissioner Haywood asked about the life expectancy of the new roofs being installed and City
School Director of Facilities and Maintenance Mike Mize responded they have been getting 25-30
years out of each.
Randolph County Schools
Randolph County Schools Superintendent Dr. Stephen Gainey gave an update on their capital
needs based on changes in the last year. Needs that were established in March of 2015 for
Southeastern Randolph Middle and Randleman Elementary Schools have changed due to the
capacity levels dropping. A middle school in the Archdale -Trinity area is still needed due to the
overcrowding in the Braxton Craven and Archdale -Trinity Middle Schools. Upgrades to
Braxton Craven Middle School are in year seven of the nine-year facility plan. He stated that if
Braxton Craven is not a long-term solution then those projects should not be completed.
In conclusion, Dr. Gainey stated that Coleridge Elementary School is currently the most
overcrowded school. However, there are enough vacant seats at Franklinville and Ramseur
3/7/2016
Elementary Schools to address the issue if needed. They will continue to monitor enrollment
numbers to identify long-range facility needs.
Randolph Community College
Dr. Bob Shackleford, RCC President, presented the college's capital needs, summarized, as
follows:
• Allied Health Center with simulated Health Care Community ($14,000,000). RCC
already owns land for this facility. If the ConnectNC Bond is approved, the funds would
go toward this project.
• Bost Property - Phase two —Space for New Program Development (dependent on cost of
new program selected) .
• Real Property Acquisitions ($6,000,000)- As adjacent properties become available for
additional programs.
• Backlog of Renovation Projects ($10,500,000) which are left and were identified as part
of their facilities master plan. One third of the projects have been completed from the
original plan.
Multi -Party Agreement — NCRR, Greensboro -Randolph Megasite Foundation, Inc., and
Randolph County
County Attorney Ben Morgan spoke about the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite Project
Agreement. He stated that the document was prepared with the help of attorneys Garrett Walker,
representing the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite Foundation; Mike Winters from the NC
Railroad Company; and County staff. He said the document is an outline of how the three
parties will conduct themselves marketing the project and will ensure that no individual partner
markets this property for themselves during the term. He highlighted specific points from the
document as follows:
• Paragraph H gave a representation of the whole document. It is in the mutual interest
of the parties that the County, the Megasite Foundation and NCRR enter into an
agreement setting forth their mutual understandings and obligations with respect to the
joint development and marketing of the County Properties, the Megasite Foundation
Properties, and the NCRR Properties as the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite.
• The document is basically an outline of what can and can't be done by all parties.
• The joint marketing period has a six year term with automatic renewal for three years as
long as no partner gives written notice 120 days prior to expiration of the contract.
• Each party will cooperate with state agencies involved in the project.
• Economic Development Corporation (EDC) will pursue site certification with NCDOC
and KPMG.
• Marketing materials will be approved by all parties.
• Parties are required to work together throughout the term.
• Any party can conduct environmental or engineering studies.
• Nothing obligates the County to additional expenditures.
• Pages 5-6, paragraph 4
o a. All parties work together to obtain extension of various utilities to the
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite including the extension of water and sewer by the
3/7/2016
City of Greensboro, or other water and sewer providers, the extension of natural
gas service by Piedmont Natural Gas, and the extension of telephone, fiber optics
and other data services...
o b. The parties shall negotiate with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (the "DOT') for the permitting and construction of one or snore
interchanges on US Highway 421...
o d. Any party can clear or grade their land provided that all parties have consented
to the area to be cleared and graded...
o f. The parties inay retain a site or project manager or managers, upon terms and
conditions [that must] be unanimous...
• No party will develop, transfer, or sell property without the consent of the other parties.
• A representative from each entity will be appointed to a steering committee. Initially
those members will be Chairman Frye; Jim Melvin, Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
Foundation; and Scott Sayler, NCRR. Members will share information, keep open lines
of communication, and ensure to do what needs to be done. These members will not
have the authority to override any requirements of the County.
• At the end of the term, the NCRR has the right of first refusal to purchase the property
from Greensboro -Randolph Megasite Foundation or donate to the other entities.
Chairman Frye asked if all of the questions the Board has had were addressed in the contract.
Mr. Morgan said they had and mentioned that it had been a challenge in writing this document to
include all compliances for government and non-profit entities.
At 7:00 p.m., Chairman Frye opened public hearing.
William Fay, 401 Silver Grove, Cary, urged the Board to reconsider and renegotiate the
contract. He acknowledged that an agreement was needed. Because the County has purchased
property and rezoned it, he said the project must be successful. Looking at the agreement
between the Railroad, the Megasite Foundation and Randolph County, he stated that the County
is not fully represented. As an example to this, he directed the Board to page 16 and made note
that the other two entities had full addresses but there was not one for Randolph County. Next,
he questioned the use of legal expertise from the other two entities and said that those attorneys
were only there to protect their employers not Randolph County. If this project fails, he stated
that the County can still use their land but it will always have an easement for the railroad. He
asked why the Railroad wanted an easement without an end user and suggested that it was to
coerce the owners of lots 94 and 52 to sell their property. He mentioned that a map had been
published with a train going right through the homes on those lots and implied that it had been
planned all along to take this property.
Chairman Frye asked Mr. Fay if the map he saw was part of this agreement and his response
was no. Chairman Frye stated that property owners within the existing footprint of the site had
sold their land without a threat of eminent domain. Mr. Fay said that someone representing the
Megasite had visited with his client, told them that this was coming and there was nothing they
could do. Chairman Frye responded that the person did not stay in the process long. Mr.
Morgan asked when that had occurred and Mr. Fay replied four or five years ago. Mr. Fay said
3/7/2016
that was when a group of land owners were organized and they were able to negotiate higher
prices for the property. He closed by asking that the Board "do this the right way."
Commissioner Lanier asked Mr. Fay how many times, besides this meeting, had he given
presentations about megasites and he replied "none."
Alan Ferguson, 4794 Troy Smith Rd., Liberty, said he was sorry to see the County in
business with the NCRR because of the use of eminent domain. He stated that eminent domain
is also available to utility companies. He said that Duke Energy was struggling to get power to
the site coming from the north through Guilford County and they cannot exercise eminent
domain until there is an end user. He listed his dislikes of this agreement. First was the eminent
domain issue he had already discussed. Second was the request for additional money. He said
he thought the agreement would require the County to reimburse the partners and provide
incentives which will cost the County a lot of money. He mentioned the term of the agreement
could go as long as nine years with no jobs if a user does not come. He agreed that Randolph
County did need jobs but was concerned that the EDC and the County would be distracted and
only focus on the Megasite. He warned against giving the property away for free and said the
County would be giving up its authority by signing this agreement. He suggested that the three
person steering committee would not be following open meetings law because they could meet
anytime without citizen input. He reminded the Board that a project like this has never been
done in North Carolina before and indicated that citizens will have to pay for the mistakes.
Lastly, he spoke of DOT condemning property then not using it. He characterized the property
surrounding the Megasite as condemned and said that like the DOT, the County, NCRR, and
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite Foundation should not be able to condemn property.
Commissioner Haywood stated that one side said this was a bad agreement while the other
side said it was a good agreement. Because of this, he said that the Board should take more time
to look at it closely.
Commissioner Lanier commented that rail going through property was normal in cases where
a business would require it in order to operate.
Hearing no additional comments, the public hearing was closed at 7:36 p.m.
Chairman Frye addressed some of the previous comments and said everything that has been
done to construct a Megasite has been done for the citizens of Randolph County. The County
could not make this happen without partners, he said, and those partners are making investments
in our County for economic development for jobs. He stated that all actions of the Board have
been in open meetings with public hearings and he hoped that Mr. Ferguson was not trying to
slander his character with his statement. He reminded everyone that his seat on any board as an
individual cannot bind the Randolph County Board of Commissioners. He is acting as a
representative and liaison only and any action required by the Board cannot be made by him
alone.
Mr. Morgan agreed with Chairman Frye's comments but disagreed with Mr. Ferguson about
the County being forced to spend more money. He stated that the document said the opposite;
3/7/2016
the Board can choose to spend money but they are not obligated to do that.
Chairman Frye emphasized that eminent domain had not been used to obtain any of the
property, citizens had been paid and dealt with fairly, and now there was enough property for the
site.
Commissioner Allen applauded the Board for the agreement and noted that he had asked
about an agreement a year ago. He questioned why the "County bought the property by the
railroad to have control but now is giving the NCRR control." He also commented that the
prohibited uses of the property could be some that the County may want to use down the road if
this site does not attract an end user. Ultimately, he cannot support this agreement based on the
easement, he said.
Chairman Frye said that the permitted use of the property could change after nine years.
Commissioner Haywood commented that the NCRR and Duke Energy can use eminent
domain regardless. If we enter into an agreement with them, he said, it gives them the right to do
whatever they want. He asked if this was a good agreement.
Mr. Morgan replied that he was not comfortable with the characterization of the agreement as
good or bad. He stated that Duke Energy is not a party to this agreement. The document says
that the three partners will cooperate to bring public utilities and Mr. Morgan agreed with
Commissioner Haywood that public utilities can use eminent domain.
Commissioner Haywood said that the County owns land there, so if Duke Energy uses
eminent domain, the County will get "stomped on."
Commissioner Lanier compared the extension of utilities to the installation of public water in
portions of the County. He said it had worked in that situation and that power must be provided.
He stated that he was trying to be practical in his thinking during this process because this must
be done to promote industry. He said eminent domain had not been used. He pointed out that if
the NCRR and the Bryan Foundation hadn't stepped in, the Board would still be trying to figure
out how to survive with no jobs in the County.
In response to Commissioner Haywood's question about the agreement, Mr. Morgan said it
was a fair agreement with a partner that is spending $13.5 million to assist in assemblage of the
site. He advised the Board to look at the project in its entirety and keep in mind the ultimate goal
of bringing someone to the site.
Commissioner Allen asked why an easement would be granted without an end user. He also
inquired if the easement would decrease the property value if no user was found after nine years.
Commissioner Kemp mentioned that offers to buy lots 94 and 52 had been made without
acceptance and the easement is there because those properties cannot be purchased. He said the
NCRR and the County doesn't need the properties but it seemed that those two properties were
holding the project "hostage." He stated that if something is not done to bring jobs to the
3/7/2016
County, the County will "dry up." He was adamant that the Board be proactive in order to
provide jobs and so the youth will have jobs to return to in Randolph County after college. He
said this agreement was good for everyone involved but would never be perfect for everyone.
Commissioner Haywood asked if the County could use its property to bring in smaller
companies. Mr. Morgan responded that it could after the agreement had expired.
On motion of Keinp, seconded by Lanier, the Board voted 4-1, with Connnissioner Allen
opposing, to approve a multi party agreement between the NC Railroad Company, Greensboro -
Randolph Megasite Foundation, Inc., and Randolph County, as presented. (ATTACHMENT A)
Recess
At 7:56 p.m. the Board took a recess.
Regular Meeting Resumed (Reconvened)
At 8:01 p.m., the Board returned to regular session and Chairman Frye announced that the
Board would be amending the order of the agenda to hear the rezoning cases beginning with the
request of BKM Randolph, LLC, to be courteous of time since there are a large number of
families attending with children.
Rezoning Public Hearing & Action
At 8:02 p.m., the Board entered into a duly advertised public hearing to consider rezoning
requests. Jay Dale, Planning Director, presented the following requests and Chairman Frye
opened the public hearing for comments and closed each before taking action.
BKM RANDOLPH, LLC., Asheboro, North Carolina, (Zoo City Motor Sport Park) is
requesting to amend the Conditional Zoning District located at 279 Joe Farlow Road, on 25.02
acres, Richland Township, Primary Growth Area, Zoning District HI -CD. Tax ID4 7666058421.
The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow the property to be used as a
motor sports facility and outdoor physical fitness events as per site plan. The Planning Board
reviewed this request at public meeting on February 16, 2016, and recommended, by a vote of 4
to 2, that this request be denied. The Planning Board found the following policies within the
2009 Growth Management Plan that support determination of consistency with the adopted plan
with this recommendation are:
Policv L I Sustainable economic development, environmental protection, and quality of life,
shall be pursued together as mutually supporting public policy goals.
policy 3.2 Heavy industrial sites should be separated fi^oin nonindustrial areas by natural
features, green belts and/or other suitable means.
Mr. Dale stated that trail bikes are currently used on the track. They are now requesting the
additional use of ATVs, UTVs, and go-carts. They have also asked to be allowed to host fitness
events and other special events such as Fourth of July fireworks or a haunted trail. He said they
have planned to add restroom facilities. He advised that the applicant has made changes to their
application since the Planning Board hearing. Tractor pulls, truck pulls, mud bogs, and
demolition derby events have been removed and would not be allowed. Notices were sent to
adjoining property owners.
3/7/2016
Chairman Frye asked Mr. Dale if he thought those changes would have made any difference
if they had been removed at the Planning hearing. Mr. Dale responded that he couldn't speak for
the Planning Board but thought that it could have made a difference based on questions and
comments by the Planning Board and public.
Chairman Frye asked County Attorney Ben Morgan to elaborate on the Planning Board
actions. Mr. Morgan said this request was not a brand new request but was a request to amend
the current conditions. He said if it was not approved, the existing zoning conditions established
in 2008 would remain.
Chairman Frye asked Attorney Morgan if Commissioners decided to deny the request would
their actions close the facility. Mr. Morgan said it would not, but Mr. Maness would have to
elaborate on what was meant by statements in emails and on social media that the facility would
be forced to close. The application before the Board was an expansion of existing conditions.
Chairman Frye stated that he felt the applicant made the request for changes based on complaints
about the way the facility was currently being used. Mr. Dale said that the mission grew bigger
than the initial plan and that Mr. Maness wanted to continue what he's been doing by amending
the application. Chairman Frye and Mr. Dale agreed that the facility is successful and has grown
beyond expectations.
David Puryear, 5501-E Adams Farm Lane, Greensboro, Attorney representing BKM
Randolph, LLC, spoke about the request of the Maness'. He said the Maness' have lost many
opportunities to enter into contracts for events pending the outcome of this hearing. They wish
to add events that benefit the community and County economically. He restated the specific
items that were withdrawn from the application and said that only motorcycle racing events and
a few non -motorized events were being considered. He said they had not heard any complaints
about the facility until the Planning Board's public hearing. Mr. Puryear said many people
support the growth of the motor park.
He stated that declining the request would negate this successful tourism business in
Randolph County as well as possibly eliminating a place where families who enjoy riding dirt
bikes can go to spend time together. Zoo City will not be able to support the basic operation of
the track as a training facility if they cannot continue to earn money from the other type of events
that fund the expenses.
Commissioner Kemp asked if there were current plans to construct a go-cart track within the
facility. Mr. Puryear said not at this time, but they didn't want to have to come back again later
if they did decide to add events for go-cart racing.
Barry Maness, 1413 Richard Circle, Asheboro, owner of Zoo City located on Joe Farlow
Road, opened by telling the story of why he began the Zoo City facility. He was injured at an
early age while riding his dirt bike on a trail that had a cable across it. It caught him at his neck
and paralyzed a vocal cord. He wanted others to have a safe place to ride, practice, and race trail
motorcycles, so he invested $500,000 to begin this operation eight years ago. The first year they
had 8,900 visitors and over 26,000 visitors the second year. They have had a partnership with the
3/7/2016
Tourism Development Authority and area hotels that has led to a positive impact on tourism in
Randolph County.
He said he did not realize he was in violation of the conditions set forth in his original zoning
until November 1, 2015. He immediately contacted the County Planning staff and was advised
to apply for a new permit if he wished to host anything beyond the conditions allowed and set
forth in the original permit. He said he has hosted a tractor pull for a school fundraiser as well as
donated thousands of dollars to charities, schools and churches. Mr. Maness spoke of the
Rugged Maniac event that was held at the facility for several years and the number of people it
attracted to Randolph County from six countries and thirty eight states in the first year alone. He
also explained more about the type of events he would like to host. He said he had also been
approached by the military to host a physical fitness competition. His new application also asked
for a change to an 11 p.m. closing to allow time if an accident were to happen on the track that
delayed completion prior to 10 p.m. He said that such an incident has only happened twice in
eight years, but the events were still finished by 10:30. The area's dining options are extremely
limited so he also requested the ability to provide options for food on site.
Mr. Maness said that most who spoke against the request at the Planning hearing were not
against the activities, just the expansion of events that utilized much louder engines. In the
interest of the neighbors, he has pulled those items.
In regards to the statement of property buffers, he said there has been no cutting of trees since
he bought the property. There is an easement to the power company on one side and the
easement for I 73/74 on another side.
The Maness' feel if they have to pull back on the scope of operations to be consistent with
current zoning conditions, they would probably have to close the facility. He stated they did lose
the opportunity to negotiate for a physical competition (Navy Seals) and another family fitness
event.
Mr. Maness said the facility is family -friendly and sportsmanship is taught and expected.
Sue Snipes, 354 Scott Farm Rd., Asheboro, spoke in opposition to the request. She inquired
as to why the Maness' have not built their home on the property yet. Ms. Snipes also felt the
motorcycle events were in violation of the County's noise ordinance. She asked that the Board
consider the neighbors of the property.
Brent Trotter, 753 Moore Rd., Asheboro, said that he has worked for the Cycle Center for
over 33 years and his customers have no places to ride and have to go out of county and state to
do so. He stated that Zoo City furnishes a controlled environment for enthusiasts. Saturday
night is his family night, and he and his wife spend it at a track as the pit crew for both their
children who ride. Mr. Trotter spoke highly of Mr. Maness and emphasized that `Barry is all
about kids" especially the ones who come to the facility. The top 1500 riders in the country
qualify for a national event held at Loretta Lynn's facility and several local riders have qualified.
He said the track was already zoned heavy industrial use which accommodated industries whose
normal operations include noise and potential dust. The opposition at the Planning Board
3/7/2016
hearing seemed to have no problem with the way things were now but didn't want any additional
noise from specific newly requested conditional uses events, which have now been pulled from
the request. He asked that they approve the conditions allowing Zoo City to continue what
they've been doing and follow the time limits on the County's Noise Ordinance to let them
remain open until 11 p.m. for emergency situations. He said he doesn't plan to keep his children
out that late, but also understood accidents happen.
Jacob Trotter, 753 Moore Rd., Asheboro, is 13 years old and has been riding since he was
three. He spoke of their family times at the track and how much he enjoyed spending time at the
track with them and his friends on Saturday nights.
James Voncannon, 7529 Old Hwy 13, Asheboro, spoke in support and said he never hears
anything from Zoo City when outside. He said he knew the kids enjoy going there and said
Randolph County needed more events that bring business to the County to better the economy.
Tim Setzer, 481 Hwy 49 South, Asheboro, spoke in support saying he has been to the track
several times and is impressed with the spectators, participants, and the positive atmosphere for
both parents and their kids.
Jack Cleary, 340 Colonial Loop, Randleman, stated he is linked with this training facility
and one other track because of his involvement with children. He has been part of an outreach
ministry that works to prevent drug use and abuse in youth. He asked that the Board consider the
request in order to give the youth a positive family oriented environment in which to play and
grow.
Ray Kennedy, 171 Edna St., Asheboro, lives one and a half miles from the track and said he
doesn't want to close the facility and could live with the noise as it is, but not additional
operations or extensions to the site. He said he is confused about what Mr. Maness is requesting
and asked why Mr. Maness doesn't live there.
Homer Beheler, 6436 US 220 South, Asheboro, owner of Poor Boys Auto Repair and
Towing located below the facility, said he lives a mile and a half from the facility as well and
doesn't have a problem with Zoo City. The events that have been held have brought lots of
tourists to the area that have stayed and spent their money here.
Lisa Pullium, 121 Bullins Lane, Asheboro, spoke in support of the request. She said her
property abuts the facility and the noise doesn't bother her even as close as she lives. She said
she hears traffic on the interstate more than the track. She asked that the facility not have so
many stipulations that it cannot exist as it has.
Tammy O'Kelley, Executive Director of the Randolph County Tourism Development
Authority, 145-B Worth St, Asheboro, spoke in favor of Zoo City Motor Sports Park's request.
The Tourism Development Authority has been affiliated with Zoo City Motor Sports Park since
2008 when they first submitted a request for inclusion in the 2009 official visitors guide. The
facility has been featured in various TV and commercial video segments as well as print and
3/7/2016
digital online ads, including three years in a row on WFMY TV's "Summer Fun Guide" as a
premier outdoor motor cross attraction in the Piedmont.
She said that although Zoo City has from 3,000 to 3,500 regular local riding members,
attendance for this facility from outside the boundaries of Randolph County has steadily risen
from 8,000 visitors in 2009 to 32,648 in 2014, ranking it the eighth most visited attraction in
Randolph County in 2014.
In 2011, Mr. Maness approached the TDA about hosting the Rugged Maniac event in 2012.
In the first year of this event, there were 4,956 participants. Each participant received a visitor
guide, sports water bottle, and Premier Discount card, which included special deals and discounts
for out-of-town visitors that encourage them to purchase goods and services in the area where
they are staying. The event was hosted again in April 2013 and April 2014. The economic impact
of those three years was substantial.
Ms. O'Kelley said since she has been working with Zoo City, to her knowledge, the facility
has been open no more than 50 days per year and that is normally over weekends. This included
practice events and the Southeast MX Series event of which the Heart of NC Visitors Bureau is a
2016 sponsor. This event has submitted dates of March 26t1i, April 16 to & 23', May 7 ', 14 t', &
21st, June 11 ti', 18 �' & 25 �', July 9 �', 16 t', & 23rd, August 6', 13', & 27 th, and September 10 th
& 17 th, which were received in office in September 2015. According to their event submission
form, the gates open at 3 p.m., practice begins at 4 p.m., and the race would follow. She said
businesses sponsor Zoo City because of the clear and measurable return on investment of being
affiliated with the facility.
Ms. O'Kelley stated that the Tourism Development Authority has never been contacted by a
resident, visitor, county staff member or elected official with a complaint about excessive noise,
or notified of any violations. She said that up until November 2015, they were unaware there
were any issues with Mr. Maness' permit, which he is now seeking to rectify.
Chris Elkin, 6732 US Hwy 220 S., Asheboro, said he lives 1500 feet from the track and
asked for information about the additional events that were being considered above what they are
doing now. He wanted to know if there was a way to put a decibel limit on the noise. He said it
sounded like Zoo City is doing good things for the community and he and the neighbors may
have to put up with it for the betterment of the community.
Michael Poindexter, 6220 US Hwy 220 S., Asheboro, Pastor of the Lighthouse Baptist
Church located beside of the facility, stated in 2008, both Boards heard the request to have a
motor cross training facility on the site. He said that over time the facility has abused their rights
and has evolved from a training facility to a full-fledged motor racing facility and that there is a
difference in training and racing. He said he had contacted other training facilities and quoted
their hours and days of operation and no racing was allowed. He asked that the Board uphold
their original ruling to be a training facility only. "Neighbors are being made out to be villains,"
he stated. "You can't lose privileges you were never granted."
3/7/2016
Derrick Johnson, 6703 Old NC Hwy 13, Asheboro, stated that the facility is an opportunity
for kids and a place for the family to go. He said Mr. Maness has respect for the community and
doesn't hold events on Wednesday or Sunday. He stated he works two jobs so he can spend
time on the weekends with his family and his kids can practice and participate in racing.
Beth Russell, 209 Lassiter Lane, Asheboro, said she lives less than a mile away and the noise
does travel in her direction. She complained that she cannot open her windows due to the noise
and has not been able to sell her property for the same reason. If conditions are expanded, she
felt that will lessen her chances even more.
James Langley, 5320 Joel Jessup Rd., Seagrove, said his original concern was the noise from
the additional events Mr. Maness wanted to add. Since he has withdrawn those, Mr. Langley was
satisfied with the way it is being operated currently.
Audrey Maness, 6419 Hwy 220 S., Asheboro, original owner of the land, said she now lives
across the road and can hear the noise. She said she sold the property to the Maness' in good
faith that it would only be a training facility, and they would build their home there. Ms. Maness
apologized to her neighbors and said she felt they were all were deceived on the intent of use.
She said she should have complained when the racing began.
Scott Etheridge, 4305 New Hope Church, Rd., passed out a notebook with information to be
introduced into the record. (ATTACHMENT B / Sectionsl-8) Mr. Etheridge referred to these
items during the time he spoke in opposition of the request. He said that he does feel the
request would have passed at the Planning Board hearing if Mr. Maness had withdrawn the items
of concern when asked that night. He stated that no one is trying to shut the facility down but
that was the way the argument is being framed to the Board. Words have different meanings and
specific rules need to be established, defined, and followed. He said there has been no
clarification on what type of go-carts were being considered. He spoke of the initial 2008
meeting in which Mr. Maness presented a picture of the house he planned to build on the site.
Other materials presented were highlighted where referenced "training facility," the specified
buffers, and where applicant mentioned the building of a home in the request during the initial
public hearings and Mr. Etheridge discussed those. He also provided a copy of the expired
building permit in the notebook. Mr. Etheridge stated that when Mr. Trotter spoke earlier he had
stated they had been racing there for the last seven years, which meant racing began to happen
within a year after zoning for use as a training facility. He also included a racing schedule for
2016 Southeast MX Series from the Zoo City website, which were scheduled to be held there.
Mr. Etheridge asked the Board to leave the existing zoning conditions as they were
established and to enforce them.
Tom Wright, 301 N. Elm St., Greensboro, Attorney, stated he was representing Scott
Etheridge, Johnny Dorsett, and Anthony Copple. He requoted the original request and approved
conditions for the property. He then elaborated on the initial site plan characteristics which
include two areas; a trail bike course area surrounded by fence and a trail bike training area
which had a buffer. He said Mr. Maness' current application was a request to amend current
conditions to allow a motor sports facility and outdoor physical fitness events as per site plan.
3/7/2016
The site plan has changed to the entire area being identified as a motor sports competition
course, with proposed bleachers and a portable stage which, he stated, was a significant
expansion from the 2008 request.
Mr. Wright said the Planning Board packet included a list of items BMK requested in an
attachment A but the attachment was not included in the packet given to the Commissioners. On
the list: dirt bike, motocross, ATV, and UTV competitions; racing track and trails/cross country
trail; physical fitness competition; mountain bike events; seasonal events; and the items which
they have now withdrawn. He said no one was in opposition to the physical fitness or seasonal
events which generate no noise (Fourth of July, Christmas, etc.).
Mr. Wright suggested if the Board approved the request that they establish guidelines to
minimize noise, limit events to one at a time, and restrict the hours and days of motor operation.
Bruce King, 4235 New Hope Ch. Rd., spoke in opposition to the request. He said they did
not know about the facility until it opened and that it has progressively gotten worse. The sound
traveled across the interstate and said he is tired of the noise from the motorcycles and PA
system. Mr. King said the noise occurs seven days a week.
Mary Brewer, 245 Bobby Moran Dr., said it is 150 yards from the corner of her house to the
track and said the noise was unbearable. She said that the Maness' never told her about a
motorcycle track; only that they were building a home there. She then referred to the initial
report where there was a statement that the facility would be building a berm to protect the
neighbors along Bobby Moran Drive, but stated that it hasn't been built. Ms. Brewer said the
dust and fumes were a health hazard.
Brent Allen, 2555 Jimmy Scott Rd., Climax, stated this is a training facility for national
titles. Mr. Maness was trying to teach the kids to work hard, set goals and accomplish things.
Anthony Copple, 6254 US Hwy 220 S, Asheboro, stated he felt the facility was zoned
accidentally. He thought the property was to revert back to Residential Agriculture (RA) when
the asphalt plant closed. He said no one has any problem with the physical fitness events even
though there were parking problems, people walking through yards, and muddy clothes left
behind. He said they didn't complain and probably should have. They asked for the conditional
zoning to not be allowed in 2008 but were overruled and the motor bikes came.
Hearing no additional comments, the public hearing was closed at 10:29 p.m.
Chairman Frye said he felt they need clarification on the request.
Commissioner Kemp stated he felt this request should go back to the Planning Board after
parties have worked together to refine the request for something agreeable.
Chairman Frye stated the lack of understanding and enforcement of the original zoning
combined with the success of the facility has brought about this request and asked Mr. Dale to
work with the applicant and opposing neighbors on something they can agree on so the Planning
3/7/2016
Board and Commissioners have clarification of the request and conditions.
On motion of Kemp, seconded by Lanier, the Board voted unanimously to revert the request
of BKM Randolph, LLC, back to the County Planning Boardfor clarification of the conditional
uses to be imposed.
CLIMAX SOLAR PROJECT, LLC., Carrboro, North Carolina, is requesting that 48.07
acres located on NC Hwy 22 North (approximately 500 ft. north of Old Red Cross Road),
Providence Township, be rezoned from RA to RIO-CD. Tax ID# 7797590264. Secondary/Rural
Growth Area. Sandy Creek Watershed. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would
specifically allow the development of a 5 mega -watt PV solar farm as per site plan. Property
Owner - David R. Hinshaw. The Planning Board reviewed this request at public meeting on
February 16, 2016, and unanimously recommended that this request be approved. The Planning
Board found the following policies within the 2009 Growth Management Plan that support
determination of consistency with the adopted plan with this recommendation are:
Policv 2.11 The County should continue to encourage & promote "clean" industry within
Randolph County.
Policv 3. 6 The County should encourage the use of performance -based rural industrial overlay
zoning when the use of large acreage, natural buffers, and extensive landscaping would not have
substantial adverse impact upon the general area growth characteristics, and the location of
such a site would substantially increase economic activity, job creation, and the tax base of
Randolph County.
April Montgomery, 151 Chatham St., Sanford, NC, represented Climax Solar and stated that
they did a revision to the site plan after the Planning Board meeting to add a Level 3 buffer.
They are working with neighboring land owners to try and lessen their concerns about the view.
Harmon Coble, 3276 Greeson Rd., Climax, has 63 acres that adjoin the property to the north
and spoke in opposition to the request with concerns about property values.
Ms. Montgomery replied that they have screened for existing structures and public right of
way but couldn't screen farmland for future unknown development.
Kevin Gunter, 8267 NC Hwy 22 N., Climax, spoke in opposition. His house faces the
facility entrance. Mr. Gunter asked if this solar farm would generate income for Randolph
County. He said no one's bills would decrease because of the installation and sees no benefit of
it.
Commissioner Kemp asked Randolph County Tax Collector Debra Hill to address the
questions in regards to value of property with solar farms.
Ms. Hill said on a solar farm, the panels are taxed at 20% of their value based on state
guidelines and the land is then taxed based on what it is used for. In this case, the County will
receive more tax revenue because it will be removed from its timber deferred status. The panels
would be taxed and the land would be taxed for its Residential Industrial Overlay -Conditional
District use.
3/7/2016
Commissioner Lanier asked about the topography of the land. Ms. Montgomery said it
currently was timber which would be harvested. She said the site would produce enough power
through Duke Energy for 600-700 homes.
Commissioner Allen questioned the life expectancy of a solar farm and Ms. Montgomery
responded it would be 30-40 years. At the end of its life, they either retool the project and
continue or remove everything to sell the property.
Kim Gunter, 8267 NC Hwy 22 N., Climax, spoke in opposition and stated that she lived
directly across the road from the site in a 150 year old house that they have renovated and
doubled in size. She said eight new houses have been built in the area in the last year. She was
concerned about the tax value of surrounding properties if a solar farm was installed.
Ms. Montgomery asked Rich Kirkland to speak in regards to property values.
Rich Kirkland, 9408 Northfield Ct., Raleigh, is a state certified general appraiser and an
MAI appraiser working in commercial and land appraisals for 30 years. He said he was asked to
look at this project and its impact to surrounding property values. He has been working with
solar projects for the last four years. He spoke on behalf of Climax Solar and gave examples of
similar settings. He said there has been no negative value impact to adjacent properties of any
solar farm thus far. Some properties have shown an increase and 95% of the farms adjoin
residential developments.
Chairman Frye said others that have been constructed in the County have not been around a
residential area.
Commissioner Allen said he has an issue with it being in a residential area and felt it will
impact the surrounding land owner's ability to develop their property. If the megasite comes, he
sensed it would be a prime area for housing.
On motion of Keinp, seconded by Lanier, the Board voted 3-2, with Connnissioners Frye
and Allen opposing, to approve the request of Climax Solar, LLC., as determined consistent with
the standards and policies contained within the Growth Management Plan outlined in the
reconnnendations provided by the County Planning Board; and having further found froln
information and testimony provided at public hearing, that the proposed rezoning is reasonable
and in the public interest.
JULIAN BUTLER, Greensboro, North Carolina, is requesting that 5.00 acres (out of 24.18
acres) located at 3079 Pike Farm Road, Liberty Township, be rezoned from RA to RBO-CD.
Primary Growth Area. Rock River Watershed. Tax ID# 873567280. The proposed Conditional
Zoning District would specifically allow an event center in a proposed 69 ft. x 49 ft. structure as
per site plan. The Planning Board reviewed this request at public meeting on February 16, 2016,
and unanimously recommended that this request be approved. The Planning Board found the
following policies within the 2009 Growth Management Plan that support determination of
consistency with the adopted plan with this recommendation are:
3/7/2016
Policy 4.1 Providefor sites in Randolph County jurisdiction where rural commercial activity
can locate; with the goal of increasing economic activity; job creation, and the provision of
services to the rural community.
Policv 7.1 Development activities in the 100 yeas^ floodplain shall be discouraged. If
development must occur, low -intensity uses such as open space, recreation, and agricultural
activities shall be preferred.
Resolution Adopting the 2009 Randolph County Management Plan, Resolution #3. Ensure the
opportunityfor landowners to achieve the highest and best uses of their land that are consistent
with growth management policies in order to protect the economic viability of the County's
citizens and tax base.
Julian Butler, 3108 Carrborough Road, Greensboro, NC, spoke in favor of his request. He
said when his oldest daughter wanted to get married and they were pricing venues he decided
building a barn on family property located on Pike Farm Road in Liberty might be cheaper than
renting a facility. Now, he would like to be able to rent the barn and property for other events,
primarily for weddings on weekends.
On motion of Allen, seconded by Kemp the Board voted unanimously to approve the request
of Julian Butler, as determined consistent with the standards and policies contained within the
Growth Management Plan outlined in the recommendations provided by the County Planning
Board; and having further found fi^om information and testimony provided at public hearing,
that the proposed rezoning is reasonable and in the public interest.
Creation of County Service Districts for Level Cross, Northeast and Staley
Aimee Scotton, Associate County Attorney, stated at the January meeting, the Commissioners
officially considered moving forward to create county service districts for fire protection for the
above -referenced areas mirroring the existing rural fire protection districts in these areas. For
each district, they considered the resident or seasonal population and population density of the
proposed district, the appraised value of property subject to taxation in the proposed district, the
present tax rates of the County and any cities or special districts in which the proposed district or
any portion thereof is located, the ability of the proposed district to sustain the taxes necessary to
provide the services planned for the district and the desirability that all districts for fire
protection in the County be capped at a tax rate of fifteen (15) cents per one hundred dollar
($100) valuation. After carefully considering these matters, the Board passed resolutions,
respectively, declaring their intent to create the proposed districts, calling for a report to be
prepared for each district in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes, and providing
that, if the proposed districts are indeed created, their tax rates would be capped at fifteen (15)
cents per one hundred dollar ($100) valuation. These resolutions also set public hearings on the
creation of these districts for 6:30 p.m. on March 7, 2016:
Ms. Scotton said that at the close of each public hearing, if found that there is a demonstrable
need for providing fire protection services in the proposed district, that it is impossible or
impracticable to provide fire protection services on a countywide basis, that it is economically
feasible to provide fire protection services in the proposed district without unreasonable or
burdensome annual tax levies and that there is a demonstrable demand for fire protection service
in the proposed district, then the Board may pass the resolution creating the district. If the
3/7/2016
resolution passes creating a county service district, it will then be necessary to pass a second
resolution adding emergency medical services as a permitted service in the district. This must be
done for each district as two separate resolutions.
Fire Marshal Erik Beard said these are services district overlays of the existing ones and no
change to district lines is needed. (Maps attached- ATTACHMENT C-1,2, and 3.)
At 11:14 p.m., Chairman Frye opened the public hearing and after hearing no comments
closed it.
Adoption of Resolutions Creating the Level Cross Fire Service District
On motion of Allen, seconded by Lanier, the Board voted unanimously to adopt a resolution
creating the new Level Crossfire service district, as follows:
RESOLUTION CREATING LEVEL CROSS SERVICE
DISTRICT FOR FIRE PROTECTION
WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 153A-309.2 allows a county to establish
a county service district for fire protection services with a tax rate limitation of fifteen
(15) cents per one hundred dollar ($100) valuation; and
WHEREAS, it has been requested that the Board of County Commissioners create
a county service district for fire protection for the Level Cross Fire Protection District;
and
WHEREAS, the Board has passed a resolution limiting the tax rate of the proposed
service district to a maximum of fifteen (15) cents per one hundred dollar ($100)
valuation and has held a public hearing on the matter in accordance with North Carolina
General Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the Board has considered the population of the proposed district, the
appraised value of property in the proposed district, the present tax rates in effect in the
proposed district, the ability of the proposed district to sustain the taxing of the proposed
district, the comments made at the public hearing, and other matters that the Board
deemed relevant; and
WHEREAS, the Board, having considered such matters, makes the following
findings:
1. There is a demonstrable need for providing fire protection services in the proposed
Level Cross service district; and
2. It is impossible or impracticable to provide fire protection services on a countywide
basis; and
3. It is economically feasible to provide fire protection services in the proposed Level
Cross service district without unreasonable or burdensome annual tax levies; and
4. There is a demonstrable demand for fire protection services in the proposed Level
Cross service district.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board hereby creates a county
service district for fire protection in the Level Cross area effective July 1, 2016, with
3/7/2016
boundaries as shown on the map included as Attachment A to this Resolution and
containing the exact same properties currently included in the Level Cross Rural Fire
Protection Tax District.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that property taxes for fire protection within said
county service district may not be levied in excess of a rate of fifteen (1 S) cents on each
one hundred dollars ($100) of property subject to taxation.
On motion of Allen, seconded by Lanier, the Board voted unanimously to adopt a resolution
permitting emergency medical, rescue, and ambulance service to the new Level Cross fire
service district, as follows:
RESOL UTION PERMITTING EMER GENCY MEDICAL, RESCUE AND
AMBULANCE SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED IN THE LEVEL CROSS SERVICE
DISTRICT FOR FIRE PROTECTION
WHEREAS, the Randolph County Board of Commissioners, pursuant to North
Carolina General Statute 153A-309.2, has established a county service district for fire
protections services with a tax rate limitation of fifteen (1 S) cents per one hundred dollar
($100) valuation in the Level Cross area; and
WHEREAS, it has been requested that the Randolph County Board of County
Commissioners authorize the provision of emergency medical, rescue and ambulance
services in said district and that property taxes may be leviedfor such purposes; and
WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 153A-309 allows a board of county
commissioners to permit, by resolution, the service district to provide emergency
medical, rescue and ambulance services and to provide that property taxes are leviedfor
such purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Randolph County Board of
Commissioners does hereby authorize the provision of emergency medical and rescue
services in the Level Cross Service District for Fire Protection and does hereby resolve
that property taxes may be levied for this purpose, provided however, that the rate
limitation of fifteen (1 S) cents per one hundred dollar ($100) valuation continues to
apply.
Adoption of Resolutions Creating the Northeast Fire Service District
On motion of Allen, seconded by Lanier, the Board voted unanimously to adopt a resolution
creating the new Northeast fire service district, as follows:
RESOL UTION CREATING NORTHEAST SERVICE
DISTRICT FOR FIRE PROTECTION
WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 153A-309.2 allows a county to establish
a county service district for fire protection services with a tax rate limitation of fifteen
(1 S) cents per one hundred dollar ($100) valuation; and
WHEREAS, it has been requested that the Board of County Commissioners create
a county service district for fire protection for the Northeast Fire Protection District; and
WHEREAS, the Board has passed a resolution limiting the tax rate of the proposed
service district to a maximum of fifteen (1 S) cents per one hundred dollar ($100)
3/7/2016
valuation and has held a public hearing on the matter in accordance with North Carolina
General Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the Board has considered the population of the proposed district, the
appraised value of property in the proposed district, the present tax rates in effect in the
proposed district, the ability of the proposed district to sustain the taxing of the proposed
district, the comments made at the public hearing, and other matters that the Board
deemed relevant; and
WHEREAS, the Board, having considered such matters, makes the following
findings:
1. There is a demonstrable need for providing fire protection services in the proposed
Northeast service district; and
2. It is impossible or impracticable to provide fire protection services on a countywide
basis; and
3. It is economically feasible to provide fire protection services in the proposed
Northeast service district without unreasonable or burdensome annual tax levies; and
4. There is a demonstrable demand for fire protection services in the proposed
Northeast service district.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board hereby creates a county
service district for fire protection in the Northeast area effective July 1, 2016, with
boundaries as shown on the map included as Attachment A to this Resolution and
containing the exact same properties currently included in the Northeast Rural Fire
Protection Tax District.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that property taxes for fire protection within said
county service district may not be levied in excess of a rate of fifteen (15) cents on each
one hundred dollars ($100) of property subject to taxation.
On motion of Allen, seconded by Lanier, the Board voted unanimously to adopt a resolution
permitting emergency medical, rescue, and ambulance service to the new Northeast fire service
district, as follows:
RESOLUTIONPERMITTINGEMERGENCYMEDICAL, RESCUE AND
AMBULANCE SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED IN THE NORTHEAST SERVICE
DISTRICT FOR FIRE PROTECTION
WHEREAS, the Randolph County Board of Commissioners, pursuant to North
Carolina General Statute 153A-309.2, has established a county service district for fire
protections services with a tax rate limitation of fifteen (15) cents per one hundred dollar
($100) valuation in the Northeast area; and
WHEREAS, it has been requested that the Randolph County Board of County
Commissioners authorize the provision of emergency medical, rescue and ambulance
services in said district and that property taxes may be leviedfor such purposes; and
WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 153A-309 allows a board of county
commissioners to permit, by resolution, the service district to provide emergency
3/7/2016
medical, rescue and ambulance services and to provide that property taxes are leviedfor
such purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Randolph County Board of
Commissioners does hereby authorize the provision of emergency medical and rescue
services in the Northeast Service District for Fire Protection and does hereby resolve
that property taxes may be levied for this purpose, provided however, that the rate
limitation of fifteen (15) cents per one hundred dollar ($100) valuation continues to
apply.
Adoption of Resolutions Creating the Staley Fire Service District
On motion of Allen, seconded by Lanier, the Board voted unanimously to adopt a resolution
creating the new Staley fire service district, as follows:
RESOLUTION CREATING STALEY SER VICE
DISTRICT FOR FIRE PROTECTION
WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 153A-309.2 allows a county to establish
a county service district for fire protection services with a tax rate limitation of fifteen
(15) cents per one hundred dollar ($100) valuation; and
WHEREAS, it has been requested that the Board of County Commissioners create
a county service district for fire protection for the Staley Fire Protection District; and
WHEREAS, the Board has passed a resolution limiting the tax rate of the proposed
service district to a maximum of fifteen (15) cents per one hundred dollar ($100)
valuation and has held a public hearing on the inatter in accordance with North Carolina
General Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the Board has considered the population of the proposed district, the
appraised value of property in the proposed district, the present tax rates in effect in the
proposed district, the ability of the proposed district to sustain the taxing of the proposed
district, the comments made at the public hearing, and other matters that the Board
deemed relevant; and
WHEREAS, the Board, having considered such inatters, makes the following
findings:
1. There is a demonstrable need for providing fire protection services in the proposed
Staley service district; and
2. It is impossible or impracticable to provide fire protection services on a countywide
basis; and
3. It is economically feasible to provide fire protection services in the proposed Staley
service district without unreasonable or burdensome annual tax levies; and
4. There is a demonstrable demand for fire protection services in the proposed Staley
service district.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board hereby creates a county
service district for fire protection in the Staley area effective July 1, 2016, with
boundaries as shown on the map included as Attachment A to this Resolution and
3/7/2016
containing the exact same properties currently included in the Staley Rural Fire
Protection Tax District.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that property taxes for fire protection within said
county service district may not be levied in excess of a rate of fifteen (1 S) cents on each
one hundred dollars ($100) of property subject to taxation.
On motion of Allen, seconded by Lanier, the Board voted unanimously to adopt a resolution
permitting emergency medical, rescue, and ambulance service to the new Staley fire service
district, as follows:
RESOLUTIONPERMITTINGEMERGENCYMEDICAL, RESCUE AND
AMBULANCE SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED IN THE STALEYSERVICE
DISTRICT FOR FIRE PROTECTION
WHEREAS, the Randolph County Board of Commissioners, pursuant to North
Carolina General Statute 153A-309.2, has established a county service district for fire
protections services with a tax rate limitation of fifteen (1 S) cents per one hundred dollar
($100) valuation in the Staley area; and
WHEREAS, it has been requested that the Randolph County Board of County
Commissioners authorize the provision of emergency medical, rescue and ambulance
services in said district and that property taxes may be leviedfor such purposes; and
WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 153A-309 allows a board of county
commissioners to permit, by resolution, the service district to provide emergency
medical, rescue and ambulance services and to provide that property taxes are leviedfor
such purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Randolph County Board of
Commissioners does hereby authorize the provision of emergency medical and rescue
services in the Staley Service District for Fire Protection and does hereby resolve that
property taxes may be leviedfor this purpose, provided however, that the rate limitation
of fifteen (1 S) cents per one hundred dollar ($100) valuation continues to apply.
Eminent Domain Discussion
County Attorney Ben Morgan said that at the last County Commissioner meeting,
Commissioner Haywood specifically requested some information about eminent domain. Mr.
Morgan had compiled information and included it with the Board agenda packet. He had sent an
overview of eminent domain prepared by Ronald Payne from the UNC School of
Government. He said while it was a lengthy article, it provided a very detailed outline of
eminent domain in NC. He included an article prepared by Charles Szypszak from the UNC
School of Government entitled "Ten Common Misconceptions about Eminent Domain." He said
it answered some basic questions about the process in NC. Also included was House Bill 3 that
was currently pending in Raleigh. It basically changed the definition of eminent domain to
amend Chapter 40A of the NC General Statutes. Specifically, House Bill 3 stated that private
property shall not be taken by eminent domain except for a public use. House Bill 3 also
amended the language of Chapter 40A to state that property can only be condemned for "public
use" and not for "public benefit." While this was a very technical amendment, Mr. Morgan
believes that it has been proposed to ensure that property can only be subject to eminent domain
for public use—i.e. water/sewer.
3/7/2016
Mr. Morgan stated that the Board does not have the authority to exercise eminent domain. It
is reserved solely for the utilities and said he would be happy to answer any specific questions.
Watershed Impact Discussion
County Manager Hal Johnson said that at the February 9th County Commissioner meeting,
more information was requested pertaining to existing watershed regulations and how they might
relate to impacts on Sandy Creek Reservoir due to development of the proposed megasite. Mr.
Johnson spoke briefly on the background information that was provided in the agenda packet.
That information included was, as follows:
The N.C. General Assembly passed legislation in June 1989 which called for mandatory
statewide watershed protection regulations. The responsibility for enforcing these mandatory
state laws was given to local governments who were required to comply with the State
regulations by January 1, 1994.
The intent of the Watershed Protection Act is to control development in watershed basins and
thus ensure that water quality is protected. The State legislation classified the watersheds in each
county by their level of development and attempted to maintain that level by limiting the density
of new developments within the watersheds.
Watershed regulations apply to land areas that drain into lakes and rivers used as public water
supplies. The regulations restrict development densities; limit the type of land uses; and require
the use of stream buffers to reduce harmful impacts of stormwater runoff.
A watershed is defined by the State as the entire land area contributing surface drainage to a
reservoir. Within each watershed there are areas classified as "Water Critical Areas." These
critical areas are generally located 1/2 mile of the reservoir water line. All development within a
critical area is given heightened development density protection due to its closeness to the actual
water supply.
Beginning in the 1980s, Randolph County began to change from what was once a
rural/agricultural county, to a county that was experiencing urbanization and land use changes.
During this time of growth and change, Randolph County began to recognize that orderly growth
and protection of our water resources would be one of the critical issues facing Randolph County
in the 21st century. Our County's concerns for consistent watershed protection rules were always
looked at on a countywide basis. Out of our 793 square mile county, over 240 square miles are
located in 10 individual watersheds. Reservoirs of the cities of Asheboro, Ramseur, Randleman,
and the Randleman Lake regional reservoir are located primarily in Randolph County regulatory
jurisdiction. Watershed regulations impact all cities located within Randolph County.
Randolph County became a leader among counties in North Carolina in 1988 when the Board
of County Commissioners adopted countywide watershed protection regulations (six years
before mandatory State requirements in 1994). Randolph County watershed protection
regulations, in many ways, have always exceeded state -mandated requirements.
3/7/2016
All water supply watersheds in North Carolina have been assigned one of five watershed
classifications based upon their existing level of development and their pollution potential. The
classification determines the future density and development limits.
Sandy Creek Watershed (totaling 34,150 acres) has been classified by the State since 1994 as
a WW III Watershed. The WS III Classification applies to moderately developed water supply
watersheds. Most other watersheds in Randolph County are also classified as WS III. These
include Lake Reese (46,000 acres); Polecat Creek (18,747 acres); Rocky River (2500 acres);
and Bear Creek (1670 acres).
Randolph County Watershed Protection regulations for Sandy Creek have exceeded State
requirements since their enactment by the Board of County Commissioners in 1988. The
following is a general listing of State requirements compared to Randolph County watershed
regulations in Sandy Creek Watershed:
A. State: Limits new residential development in Watershed to one dwelling unit per 1/2 acre.
In Water Critical Area allows one dwelling unit per one acre.
B. Randolph County: Limits new residential development in Watershed to one dwelling per
two or three acres (depending on type of development). Requires minimum of three acre
residential lot in Water Critical Area.
C. State: Stream Buffer Protection: 30 feet
D. Randolph County: Stream Buffer Protection: 50 feet
hi 2002, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Randolph County's first Growth
Management Plan. This Plan prepared broad policy statements that would, when combined with
designated Growth Management Areas (Primary, Secondary, and Rural Growth) form an overall
growth strategy for Randolph County. The extension of Rural Growth Management Areas into
large areas of the Sandy Creek Watershed has provided enhanced standards for low density/rural
residential subdivision developments.
Sandy Creek Watershed Calculations
Designation
Total acres
Protected Area
35,315.07
Water Quality Critical Area
2,749.51
TOTAL
38,064.58
Growth Management Areas within Sandy Creek Watershed
Designation
Total acres
Municipal Growth Area
3,389.62
Primary Growth Area
3,199.38
Rural Growth Area
17,838.22
Secondary Growth Area
13,637.26
TOTAL
38,064.58
3/7/2016
Watersheds in Randolph County
Watershed name
Area in acres
Badin Lake
2,148.86
Bear Creek
1,698.41
Big Alamance Creek
94.33
Lake Lucas
9,998.62
Lake Reese
49,490.65
McCrary Lakes
1,605.42
Polecat Creek
19,472.49
Randleman Lake
28,015.73
Rocky River
7,225.55
Sandy Creek
38,064.58
TOTAL
157,814.64
Growth Management Areas in Randolph County
Management Area
Area in acres
Municipal
66,320.29
Primary
48,952.40
Rural
235,619.75
Secondary
148,095.54
Zoo
6,126.75
TOTAL
505,114.73
Mr. Brian Maas, Environmental Consultant with ECS Carolinas, stated they were hired by
Randolph County to evaluate and outline protection standards for streams and wetlands in the
megasite boundary. They prepared a preliminary wetland and stream map for the megasite
which has been approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Division of Water
Resources and is valid for five years. With respect to the conceptual site plans the Timmons
Group has prepared, the primary areas of development for the megasite are on the northern
portion of the site between an existing railroad right-of-way and a high tension power line that
bisects the approximate size center of the site. Large floodplains are present on the southern
portion of the site, adjacent to Highway 421, which limit development in these areas. If future
development is ever planned for these southern areas of the proposed megasite, it would have to
meet the rigorous stream and wetland protection regulations required by the Army Corps of
Engineers and the N.C. Division of Water Quality. He said all permits must include storm water
protection and downstream water protection.
Me2asite Buffer Discussion
Mike Soloman, Timmons Group, said Mother Nature has given the site an incredible buffer on
the south side of the megasite. The natural buffer protection is a minimum of 500 feet back from
Highway 421 on the south and could not be developed. The north is bounded by roadway and
railroad. When an end user identifies their need in terms of rail spurs, then those buffers will be
3/7/2016
established. The great thing about this site is stormwater management in a rural setting gives one
lots of opportunity to use the land to manage the water. He said the site is an ideal ecological
setting for water run-off to be naturally cleaned and treated to put back on the land and into a
water source.
Approval of Amendments to the County Unified Development Ordinance (Zoning
Ordinance)
Chairman Frye stated that this is the second reading of the request for the proposed text
amendments to the Randolph County Zoning Ordinance. The Randolph County Planning
Department is asking to amend the Unified Development ordinance Chapter II, Article VII
Section I, Intent of Zoning Districts, to include additional verbiage. The Planning Board
reviewed this request at a public meeting on January 26, 2016, and recommended that this
request be approved.
For the definition of HC-CD Heavy Industrial Conditional District which currently reads
"Identical to the Heavy Industrial District except site plans and individualized development
conditions are imposed only upon petition of all the owners of the land to be included in the
Conditional District." It is being recommended to:
A. Add industrial marks or integrated industrial districLs larger than 400 acr ec y Inay have
within the park or district boundary any retail or service use which is accessory in nature
to the industrial park or integrated industrial district to Unified Development Ordinance,
Chapter II. Zoning Ordinance, Article VII District Regulations, to Section 1. Intent of
Zoning Districts HI -CD Heavy Industrial Conditional District.
The Planning Department also requests to Amend Article VII Section 4, Table of Permitted
Uses, to allow the following uses in HI districts:
B. Amend the County's Unified Development Ordinance to expand the list of uses allowed
in HI (Heavy Industrial) districts. The proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments
relating to standards and permitted uses within the Heavy Industrial Zoning District are
as follows:
• Advanced battery or.firel cell develrplvent
• Aerospace, Aviation and MililarvlDe Anse rvanzrfaclzrring
• Athletic, fields
• Antr lvolive, Truck and Heavy Equil-anent lvanirfaclnring and asselvbly
• Aulr lvolive sales
• Bigfirels production
• BiolechnologY, Phartnacenticals, Medical and L fL- &iences lvanirfaclnring
• Corporate Offices or Headquarters
• Daycares
• Distribution or Logistics Center
• Drugslores
• Edncalional.facililies and training centers
• Electronics and cornponent lvanirfaclnring
• Energy storage
3/7/2016
• Engine or engine parts lvanirfacturing
• T abricatcd or prilvary metal lvanirfacturing
• T arm Inachincry and equipment manufacturing
• T'ilncss and rccrcations sports center
• T ood processing
• Glass lvanirfacturing
• Household products lvanirfacturing
• Medical/Dental clinics or labor^ator^ics
• Motor vehicle parts lvanirfacturing
• professional and business offccs
• Faint and coating lvanirfacturing
• Faint shop
• Plastics and resin lvanirfacturing
• press shop
• printing shop
• Railroad rolling stock lvanirfacturing
• I�cscarch and Dcvclopmcnt facilitics
• I�ubbcr products lvanirfacturing
• Tire lvanirfacturing
• Transportation equipment lvanirfacturing
• Warehousing and distribution
Determination of Consistency--UDO
The following was submitted in the 21912016 Board packet as a Determination of
Consistency recommending approval of the amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance
Table of permitted Uses to expand the types of uses allowed in Heavy Industrial districts.
DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY of the proposed amendment to the Unified
Development Ordinance to expand the uses allowed in Heavy Industrial districts and the
proposed rezoning from RA and RM to Heavy Industrial — Conditional District.
The proposed amendment of the Unified Development Ordinance and the proposed
rezoning are consistent with the 2009 Randolph County Growth Management Plan in
numerous ways.
I.
Amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance
The following is submitted as a Determination of Consistency recommending approval of the
request to amend the Unified Development Ordinance Table of Permitted Uses to expand the
types of uses allowed in a Heavy Industrial districts.
Policy 1.2 The county will encourage new and expanding industries and businesses which:
(1) diversify the local economy, (2) utilize more highly skilled labor force, and (3) increase our
residents' income.
3/7/2016
Consistency Summary: The UDO's Table of Permitted Uses has been adequate to serve a more
traditional, 20th century economy and the uses which were common in the 1980s and 1990s.
However, some of the emerging and more modern industries which Randolph County must be
able to attract and recruit are not listed. The county cannot compete with other states or regions
unless it specifically provides for a complete mix of 21" century industries.
The following provisions in the Growth Management Plan support and are consistent with the
proposed amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance:
It is one of the main objectives of the Growth Management Plan to "encourage quality and
sustainable growth." (page 1)
The GMP notes that "national and global recession certainly has negatively affected the
economic condition of the Triad." (p. 3)
"Our County has long been recognized the need for job development and diversification." (p. 3)
New companies are the lifeblood of economic growth. (p. 4)
The GMP recognizes the "continued challenges of providing a high level of public services while
keeping taxes at a reasonable level." (p. 8)
Approval of the amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance District would therefore
be consistent with the Randolph County Growth Management Plan.
On motion of Kemp, seconded by Lanier, the Board voted unanimously, to amend the Unified
Development Ordinance, as presented, (Pursuant to N.C. Gen Slat §§ 153A-341 and 342)
finding that the proposed amendments (above) are consistent with the Randolph County Growth
Management Plan and reasonable and in the public interest based upon the Determination of
Consistency statements incorporated in the minutes above, and the Statement of Reasonableness,
also incorporated in these minutes, as follows:
Incorporated into these minutes from the commissioners 21912016 packet is the Statement of
Reasonableness for the Unified Development Ordinance, as follows:
Statement of Reasonableness
Pursuant to N. C. Gen Slat §§ 153A-341 and 342, the Randolph County Board of
Commissioners finds that the proposed amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance and
rezoning described in the applications of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite Foundation, Inc.
are reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons.
I.
Unified Development Ordinance Amendment
3/7/2016
The proposed amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance addresses a situation
that has evolved over tune and which is highlighted by an application which creates a site
conducive to advanced 21" century manufacturing.
In its current form, the Randolph County UDO provides for most of the industries that
existed when the UDO was adopted and which were logical growth targets through the mid and
later part of the 20th and early part of the 21" centuries. Among the industries which existed then
but which have been lost or diminished are furniture and textiles and the supplier industries they
supported. However, as our local economy becomes increasingly globalized, it is necessary that
our zoning ordinance provides for the industries that would reasonably be needed in this county
moving into the 21" century. Such industrial uses include but are not limited to aerospace and
aviation inanufacturing, logistics, biofuels, and pharinaceutical and biotechnology industries.
We have the universities and community college educational infrastructures to support these
industries through education and job training, and the transportation networks to support these
industries through available rail, interstate highways, and Piedmont Triad International Airport.
For these reasons we conclude that the proposed amendment to the Randolph County
Unified Development Ordinance is reasonable and in the public interest.
Adoption of Resolutions Concerning Establishment of Fire Service Districts for Southwest,
Seagrove and Ulah; and Capping Property Tax Rate
Aimee Scotton, Associate County Attorney, said the majority of the fire protection tax
districts in Randolph County are rural fire protection districts. In order for ease of administration
and continuity across the County, the Board of County Commissioners indicated a desire to
create county service districts to supplant those rural fire protection districts. A county service
district for fire protection is created under North Carolina General Statutes 153A-302 and 153A-
309.2. She asked to begin this process for Seagrove, Southwest and Ulah.
When the County created county service districts to supplant other rural fire protection districts, it
was suggested that the county service district be comprised of exactly the same parcels as the previous
rural fire protection district. In this request, we are suggesting some changes. When the rural fire
protection districts were initially created, properties were placed into the district most able to provide
fire protection to those individual properties. With the construction of new roads and a new
substation, circumstances have changed since then, and it is necessary to propose some changes in
order to provide our citizens with the best possible service at the least cost to them. For properties
located within six road miles of the fire department that provides its service, the homeowner receives a
considerable discount on his/her homeowners' insurance premium. The County has received a
petition requesting properties to be moved into a district that would allow them the discount. All of
the properties that she is proposing be moved from one district to another are currently located too far
from a fire department to receive this benefit. Moving them will fix that problem. It also places them
within the district closest to them.
She and the Fire Marshal recommended that, in forming the new service districts, 48 parcels be
moved from the Seagrove district to the Ulah district and that 119 parcels be moved from the
Southwest district to the Ulah district. This will result in a reduction in the appraised value of property
within the Seagrove district of $3,419,164.00 and a reduction in the appraised value of property within
the Southwest district of $5,922,249.00.
3/7/2016
She said if the Board decided to move forward with the creation of the requested service districts,
the Board would need to consider the following for each proposed district:
a. the resident or seasonal population and population density of the proposed district;
b. the appraised value of property subject to taxation in the proposed district;
c. the present tax rates of the County and any cities or special districts in which the district or
any portion thereof is located;
d. the ability of the proposed district to sustain the additional taxes necessary to provide the
services planned for the district; and
e. any other matters that the Commissioners believe to have a bearing on whether or not the
district should be established.
Fire Marshal Erik Beard provided a fact sheet for each district containing the items that are
required to be considered. Ms. Scotton said the Board may consider any other item that they
deemed relevant to the matter, but once these issues are considered they must pass resolutions if
you find that the following apply for each respective district:
a. there is a demonstrable need for providing fire protection services in the district;
b. it is impossible or impracticable to provide these services on a countywide basis;
c. it is economically feasible to provide the proposed services in the district without
unreasonable or burdensome tax levies; and
d. there is a demonstrable demand for the proposed services by persons residing in the district.
The resolutions make certain the findings, call for the creation of a report that must be made
available for public inspection and set public hearings on the creation of the respective districts for
6:30 p.m. on May 2, 2016. The resolutions also state that the tax levied in the proposed district for fire
protection may not be in excess of a rate of fifteen (15) cents on each one hundred dollars ($100) of
property subject to taxation.
Ms. Scotton said if the Board passes the resolutions and sets the public hearing, staff will compile
the report and publish notice of the public hearing in accordance with state law for each proposed
district.
On motion of Lanier, seconded by Allen, the Board voted unanimously to adopt a Resolution
Capping Southwest Fire Service District's Property Tax Rate at fifteen cents on each one
hundred dollars of property subject to taxation, direct the Associate County Attorney to prepare
the required report referenced in the resolution, and to set a public hearing on the matter for
6: 30 p.in. on May 2, 2016, as follows:
RESOL UTION CAPPING PROPOSED SOUTHWEST FIRE PROTECTION
SERVICE DISTRICT TAX RATE AT FIFTEEN CENTS
WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 153A-309.2 allows a County to establish
a county service district for fire protections services with a tax rate limitation of fifteen
(15) cents per one hundred dollar ($100) valuation; and
WHEREAS, it has been requested that the Board of County Connnissioners create
a county service district for fire protection for the Southwest area with the boundaries
3/7/2016
shown on the map included as Attachment A to this Resolution, said area hereinafter
referred to as the proposed Southwest County Service District; and
WHEREAS, the Board has considered the population of the proposed district, the
appraised value of property in the proposed district, the present tax rates in effect in the
proposed district, the ability of the proposed district to sustain the taxing of the proposed
district, and other matters that the Board deemed relevant; and
WHEREAS, the Board, having considered such matters, makes the following
findings:
1. There is a demonstrable need for providing fire protection services in the proposed
Southwest County Service District; and
2. It is impossible or impracticable to provide fire protection services on a countywide
basis; and
3. It is economically feasible to provide fire protection services in the proposed
Southwest County Service District without unreasonable or burdensome annual tax
levies; and
4. There is a demonstrable demand fog^ fire protection services in the proposed Southwest
County Service District.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board intends to pursue the
creation of a county service district for fire protection for the Southwest area with the
boundaries shown on the map included as Attachment A and therefore sets a public
hearing on the matter for 6: 30 p. in. on May 2, 2016; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a report shall be prepared containing a map of
the proposed district, a statement that the proposed district meets the findings contained
herein, and a plan for providing fire service to the proposed district; and
BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED that, after the public hearing referenced
above, if the proposed Southwest County Service District for fire protection is created,
property taxes for fire protection within said district may not be levied in excess of a rate
of fifteen (15) cents on each one hundred dollars ($100) of properly subject to taxation.
On motion of Lanier, seconded by Allen, the Board voted unanimously to adopt a Resolution
Capping Seagrove Fire Service District's Property Tax Rate at fifteen cents on each one hundred
dollars of property subject to taxation, direct the Associate County Attorney to prepare the
required report referenced in the resolution, and to set a public hearing on the matter for 6: 30
p.m. on May 2, 2016, as follows:
RESOL UTION CAPPING PROPOSED SEAGROVE FIRE PROTECTION SER VICE
DISTRICT TAX RATE AT FIFTEEN CENTS
WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 153A-309.2 allows a County to establish
a county service district for fire protections services with a tax rate limitation of fifteen
(15) cents per one hundred dollar ($100) valuation; and
WHEREAS, it has been requested that the Board of County Commissioners create
a county service district for fire protection for the Seagrove area with the boundaries
3/7/2016
shown on the map included as Attachment A to this Resolution, said area hereinafter
referred to as the proposed Seagrove County Service District; and
WHEREAS, the Board has considered the population of the proposed district, the
appraised value of property in the proposed district, the present tax rates in effect in the
proposed district, the ability of the proposed district to sustain the taxing of the proposed
district, and other matters that the Board deemed relevant; and
WHEREAS, the Board, having considered such matters, makes the following
findings:
1. There is a demonstrable need for providing fire protection services in the proposed
Seagrove County Service District; and
2. It is impossible or impracticable to provide fire protection services on a countywide
basis; and
3. It is economically feasible to provide fire protection services in the proposed
Seagrove County Service District without unreasonable or burdensome annual tax
levies; and
4. There is a demonstrable demand fog^ fire protection services in the proposed Seagrove
County Service District.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board intends to pursue the
creation of a county service district for fire protection for the Seagrove area with the
boundaries shown on the map included as Attachment A and therefore sets a public
hearing on the matte^ fog^ 6: 30 p. in. on May 2, 2016; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a report shall be prepared containing a map of
the proposed district, a statement that the proposed district meets the findings contained
herein, and a plan fog^ providing fire service to the proposed district; and
BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED that, after the public hearing referenced
above, if the proposed Seagrove County Service District for fire protection is created,
property taxes forfire protection within said district may not be levied in excess of a rate
of fifteen (15) cents on each one hundred dollars ($100) of properly subject to taxation.
On motion of Lanier, seconded by Allen, the Board voted unanimously to adopt a Resolution
Capping Ulah Fire Service District's Property Tax Rate at fifteen cents on each one hundred
dollars of property subject to taxation, direct the Associate County Attorney to prepare the
required report referenced in the resolution, and to set a public hearing on the matter for 6: 30
p.m. on May 2, 2016, as follows:
RESOLUTION CAPPING PROPOSED ULAH FIRE PROTECTION SER VICE
DISTRICT TAX RATE AT FIFTEEN CENTS
WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 153A-309.2 allows a County to establish
a county service district for fire protections services with a tax rate limitation of fifteen
(15) cents per one hundred dollar ($100) valuation; and
WHEREAS, it has been requested that the Board of County Commissioners create
a county service district for fire protection for the Ulah area with the boundaries shown
3/7/2016
on the map included as Attachment A to this Resolution, said area hereinafter referred to
as the proposed Ulah County Service District; and
WHEREAS, the Board has considered the population of the proposed district, the
appraised value of property in the proposed district, the present tax rates in effect in the
proposed district, the ability of the proposed district to sustain the taxing of the proposed
district, and other matters that the Board deemed relevant; and
WHEREAS, the Board, having considered such matters, makes the following
findings:
1. There is a demonstrable need for providing fire protection services in the proposed
Ulah County Service District; and
2. It is impossible or impracticable to provide fire protection services on a countywide
basis; and
3. It is economically feasible to provide fire protection services in the proposed Ulah
County Service District without unreasonable or burdensome annual tax levies; and
4. There is a demonstrable demand for fire protection services in the proposed Ulah
County Service District.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board intends to pursue the
creation of a county service district for fire protection for the Ulah area with the
boundaries shown on the map included as Attachment A and therefore sets a public
hearing on the matter for 6: 30 p. m. on May 2, 2016; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a report shall be prepared containing a map of
the proposed district, a statement that the proposed district meets the findings contained
herein, and a plan for providing fire service to the proposed district; and
BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED that, after the public hearing referenced
above, if the proposed Ulah County Service District for fire protection is created,
property taxes for fire protection within said district may not be levied in excess of a rate
of fifteen (1 S) cents on each one hundred dollars ($100) of properly subject to taxation.
Adoption of the FY 2016-17 Budget Meeting Schedule
Chairman Frye said that Will Massie, Assistant County Manager/Finance Officer, presented
the FY 16-17 proposed budget meeting schedule to the Board in February and asked all to review
for a decision this month.
On motion of Allen, seconded by Haywood, the Board voted unanimously to adopt the
following budget meeting schedule for the FY 16-17 proposed budget deliberations:
Tuesday, May 31 6: 00
- 6: 40 p.m.
Proposed Budget Presented to Commissioners
6: 40 -
7: 00 p. m.
Asheboro City Schools
7: 00 -
7: 20 p. m.
Randolph County Schools
7: 20 -
7: 40 p.m.
Randolph Community College
7: 40 -
8: 00 p.m.
Sandhills Mental Health
Thursday, June 9 6: 00 - 8: 00 p. m. All County Departments
3/7/2016
Monday, June 13 6: 00 6: 30 p.in. Connnunity Agencies Requesting Funding
6: 30 p.in. Fire Department Presentations
Public Hearing on County Budget
Monday, June 20 6: 00 p. in. Approve Close-out Budget Ainendinents fog^ FY 15-16
Budget Discussion
Adopt School and Fire District Tax Rates
Adopt Fee Schedules
Adoption of Final Budget
Reschedule Planning Retreat
On motion of Allen, seconded by Haywood, the Board voted unanimously to reschedule the
planning retreat for March 17, 2016, at 1: 00 pin at the Randolph County Office Building, 725
McDowell, Rd., Asheboro, in Meeting Rooin A.
Updates and Other Business
Chairman Frye stated, and the Board agreed unanimously, that due to the time, Items J.
Workforce Development Lead Agency Update and K. Regional Update, be tabled until another
meeting. Also tabled until a later time, was Item L. Approve Letter of Support for the
Certification of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite by the State of NC Department of Connnerce
which was to be added to the New Business agenda.
Adjournment
At 11:39 p.in., on motion of Allen, seconded by Lanier, the Board voted unanimously to
adjourn.
Darrell L. Frye, Chairman Phil Kemp
Arnold Lanier
David Allen
Stan Haywood
Amanda Varner, Clerk to the Board
3/7/2016
533
GREENSBORO-RANDOLPH MEGASITE PROJECT AGREEMENT
THIS GREENSBORO-RANDOLPH MEGASITE PROJECT AGREEMENT (this
"Agreement") is made and entered into as of March , 2016 by and among RANDOLPH
COUNTY, a North Carolina county and governmental body (the "County"), the NORTH
CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY, a North Carolina corporation ("NCRR"); and
GREENSBORO-RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION, INC., a not for profit
corporation organized and existing under the laws of North Carolina (the "Megasite
Foundation"), hereafter the "Parties."
RECITALS.
A. The County is a North Carolina county. The County desires to promote economic
development in the County by attracting to the County a transformational manufacturing facility
or other high yield projects that will create a significant number of jobs for County residents.
B. NCRR is a North Carolina corporation the stock of which is owned by the State of
North Carolina. One of NCRR's corporate purposes is to encourage economic development in
North Carolina by promoting the attraction to and location within the State of transformational
manufacturing entities or other entities that will invest significant sums in plant and equipment
and will create a significant number of jobs. NCRR is particularly interested in attracting to the
State manufacturing facilities, such as an automobile manufacturer, that can be expected to
increase the use of and freight traffic on the railroad line owned by NCRR. NCRR desires to
assist in bringing to the State a transformational, high job yield project.
C. The Megasite Foundation is a not for profit corporation existing under the laws of
North Carolina. Its primary corporate purpose is to foster meaningful job growth in Randolph
County, the City of Greensboro and surrounding communities by acquiring and developing, in
conjunction with others, a large tract of land in Randolph County suitable for use as a
manufacturing facility by a transformational manufacturer, such as an automobile manufacturer,
or other high yield projects and by offering the site as an inducement to a transformational
manufacturer or another high yield project to construct and operate a facility upon the site.
D. In furtherance of its corporate purpose, the Megasite Foundation has identified the
area shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Map") as the envisioned site in
Randolph County for the location of a transformational manufacturing facility or other high yield
project and it has entered into or has acquired through assignment multiple contracts to purchase
various properties within the footprint of the site which contracts cover in the aggregate
approximately 1,532 acres. In addition, Megasite Foundation has acquired certain tracts as
shown on the Map. (Each of the properties shown on the Map has been assigned a lot or tract
number as shown on the Map and those numbers will be used to identify specific properties for
the purposes of this Agreement.)
E. Randolph County has purchased and currently owns multiple properties within the
footprint of the proposed Greensboro -Randolph Megasite containing approximately 425 acres.
959789v.v12
534
The properties owned by Randolph County are also shown on the Map, are listed on Schedule 1
attached hereto, and shall be referred to herein as the "County Properties". While no additional
acquisition of property is presently contemplated by Randolph County, the term "County
Properties" shall also include any other properties shown on the Map as may hereafter be
acquired by the County.
F. NCRR desires to assist Randolph County, the Megasite Foundation and the State
of North Carolina in the acquisition, development and marketing to transformational
manufacturers or other high yield projects of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite. To that end,
NCRR has agreed, subject to certain terms, provisions and conditions, to purchase an assignment
from the Megasite Foundation of the Megasite Foundation's interest in the properties or in the
contracts to purchase the properties listed in Schedule 2 attached hereto and to acquire, develop
and market such properties as a portion of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite. (The properties
which are the subject of the contracts identified on Schedule 2 shall be referred to herein
collectively as the "NCRR Properties.") The term "NCRR Properties" as used herein shall also
include any other properties shown on the Map as may hereafter be acquired by the NCRR.
G. The Megasite Foundation has acquired the properties located within the
contemplated Greensboro -Randolph Megasite as are listed in Schedule 3 attached hereto (the
"Properties Currently Owned by the Megasite Foundation") and the Megasite Foundation has
agreed to acquire those additional properties shown on the Map as are identified in Schedule 4
attached hereto (the "Properties to be Acquired by the Megasite Foundation'). The Properties
Currently Owned by the Megasite Foundation and the Properties to be Acquired by the Megasite
Foundation shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Megasite Foundation Properties." The
term "Megasite Foundation Properties" as used herein shall also include any other properties
shown on the Map as may hereafter be acquired by the Megasite Foundation.
H. It is in the mutual interest of the parties that the County, the Megasite Foundation
and NCRR enter into an agreement setting forth their mutual understandings and obligations
with respect to the joint development and marketing of the County Properties, the Megasite
Foundation Properties, and the NCRR Properties as the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite.
1. The parties hereto also desire to provide for alternative site development plans for
their properties in the event a user is not obtained for the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite during
the Joint Marking Period. NCRR contemplates that such alternate development will benefit the
economic development interests of all parties to this Agreement.
J. The Megasite Foundation and the County desire to accept the assistance of NCRR
in the acquisition, development and marketing of the various properties comprising the
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite and are willing to enter into this Agreement to set forth the
respective understandings of the parties with respect to the joint development and marketing of
the County Properties, the Megasite Foundation Properties and the NCRR Properties as the
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING RECITALS,
the mutual agreements set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
2
969789v.1 2
535
and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the County, the Megasite Foundation and
NCRR hereby agree as follows:
1. Agreement to Hold, Develop and Market Properties for the purposes herein: Each
of the County, the Megasite Foundation and NCRR hereby agree that for the duration of the Joint
Marketing Period (as defined below) each of them shall own, hold, develop, market, use,
encumber, and transfer or make available the County Properties, the Megasite Foundation
Properties and the NCRR Properties, respectively, subject to and in accordance with the terms
and provisions of this Agreement. Without limiting the foregoing, the County, Megasite
Foundation and NCRR hereby agree that each may maintain, preserve, or use its respective
properties during the Joint Marketing Period in any manner as allowed by current zoning and
other legal requirements and regulations consistent with the purposes of this Agreement, except
as may be specifically limited by this Agreement. The terms of this Agreement shall apply to the
County Properties, the Megasite Foundation Properties, and the NCRR Properties as well as to
any other additional properties shown on the Map as may be subsequently acquired by any of the
County, the Megasite Foundation or NCRR during the Joint Marketing Period. In this regard,
any of the parties hereto may (but shall not be obligated to) acquire, with or without the consent
of the other parties, additional properties shown on the Map but if such acquisition occurs during
the Joint Marketing Period, such additional properties shall be subject to the terms of this
Agreement. (For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "Greensboro -Randolph Megasite"
shall mean collectively the County Properties, the Megasite Foundation Properties, and the
NCRR Properties together with any other properties shown on the Map which are acquired by
any of the County, the Megasite Foundation or NCRR during the Joint Marketing Period.)
Upon expiration or earlier termination of the Joint Marketing Period, the parties hereto
shall own, hold, market, use, encumber and transfer their respective Properties pursuant to the
terms of the applicable provisions of this Agreement which survive expiration or earlier
termination of the Joint Marketing Period.
2. Joint Marketing Period: For the purposes of this Agreement, the Joint
Marketing Period shall be that period of time commencing on the date hereof and continuing
until the sixth (6t') anniversary of the date of this Agreement. The term of the Joint Marketing
Period shall be automatically renewed for a period of three (3) additional years unless any party
shall provide notice of termination at least ninety (90) days prior to expiration of the initial six
(6) year period. The Joint Marketing Period may be extended or shortened, but only pursuant to
a written agreement mutually acceptable to and executed by each of the County, the Megasite
Foundation and NCRR.
3. Agreement for Marketing the County Properties, the Megasite Foundation
Properties, and the NCRR Properties as a Single Megasite: During the Joint Marketing
Period, the County Properties, the Megasite Foundation Properties, and the NCRR Properties
shall be marketed jointly as a single combined megasite available for use and conveyance or
lease or other transfer only to one or more transformational manufacturers (such as an
automobile manufacturer) or other high yield project, who will commit to construct upon the
properties comprising the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite one or more transformational
manufacturing facilities or other high yield project for which the manufacturer, or owner of the
3
969789v.12
high yield project, is obligated to directly employ a minimum of 1,750 employees on the
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite. During the Joint Marketing Period, but subject to the following
sentence, none of the County Properties, the Megasite Foundation Properties, or the NCRR
Properties shall, without the prior written consent, of the County, the Megasite Foundation and
NCRR, be marketed by the owner as an independent site (or as multiple independent sites)
available for use or conveyance or lease or other transfer to any party or potential user
independent of the other properties and no owner shall convey, lease, transfer or otherwise make
its properties or any portion thereof available to any entity or person for any purpose.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing contained herein shall prohibit any parry from
implementing any studies, investigations, tests, feasibility studies, or plans for the development
of the property owned by it prior to expiration or earlier termination of the Joint Marketing
Period. In the event a user has not been identified for the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite by the
fifth (5th) anniversary of the date of this Agreement, any party may begin marketing its
properties for alternate use or development provided that no party, without the consent of the
other parties, shall enter into a contract for sale, lease or conveyance of such properties until
expiration or earlier termination of the Joint Marketing Period.
During the Joint Marketing Period, all of the following provisions shall apply;
(a) Each of the County, the Megasite Foundation, and NCRR will cooperate
with one another and with all appropriate North Carolina state agencies, departments,
officials and economic development entities (including without limitation, the North
Carolina Department of Commerce, the North Carolina General Assembly, the Governor,
the Economic Investment Committee established pursuant to NCGS Section 143B-437.54
and the Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina, Inc.) and with local
economic development organizations and entities in marketing the Greensboro -Randolph
Megasite to transformational manufacturers and other high yield projects.
(b) The parties initially contemplate that the Randolph County Economic
Development Corporation and the Greensboro Partnership shall be authorized to organize
and lead the marketing efforts with respect to the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite with
input and participation from NCRR in marketing decisions. In addition, the Randolph
County Economic Development Corporation shall be authorized to seek certification of
the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite by the North Carolina Department of Commerce and
by KPMG, or other consultant agreed to by the parties, and the parties shall cooperate
with the efforts to seek such certifications. Without limiting the foregoing, either the
Randolph County Economic Development Corporation or the Megasite Foundation shall
be authorized to and may engage KPMG, or other consultant agreed to by all of the
parties, (at no expense either to the County or to NCRR) to market the Greensboro -
Randolph Megasite Foundation subject to the limitations set forth herein.
(c) All marketing materials, advertisements, responses to requests for
proposals and presentations shall be subject to the approval of the County, the Megasite
Foundation and NCRR and each party shall have the right to object to any public or non-
public materials, advertisements, responses and presentations made by any other party or
by any entity engaged by any party to market the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite. The
4
969789v.12
537
approval rights granted pursuant to this provision shall extend to and include all logos, all
websites, and all marketing brochures, promotional videos and similar materials. If a
party objects to any public or non-public materials, advertisements or presentations and
such objections cannot be resolved promptly to such parry's satisfaction, then the
materials, advertisements or presentations to which an unresolved objection has been
made will not be used unless and until the objections to such use are resolved.
(d) Subject to the prior approval of the other parties and to the approval rights
set forth in subsection (c) above, any party or any combination of the parties may engage,
at such party's or parties' sole expense, such firms, persons and entities as such party or
parties may desire to assist with the marketing of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite to
advanced manufacturers and other high yield projects.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, no party shall be obligated
pursuant to this Agreement to pay any portion of any cost or expense incurred in connection with
any activities undertaken by any party or any combination of parties pursuant to this Paragraph 3.
Any party may by one or more separate agreements executed from time to time by such party
agree to pay or to reimburse any of the other parties for any costs or expenses incurred in
connection with the activities undertaken pursuant to this Paragraph 3.
4. Enhancement of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite: Subject to the
limitations set forth in Paragraph 5 below, the parties will cooperate with one another to pursue
and provide for various enhancements of the attractiveness and marketability of the Greensboro -
Randolph Megasite. The activities the parties may pursue shall include, without limitation, all of
the following:
(a) Any of the parties or any combination of the parties may advocate for and
seek to obtain the extension of various utilities to the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
including the extension of water and sewer service by the City of Greensboro, or other
water and sewer providers, the extension of natural gas service by Piedmont Natural Gas,
or other natural gas providers, the extension of electric power service by Duke Energy, or
other electric service providers, and the extension of telephone, fiber optic and other data
services by such providers as the parties may agree upon. To the extent reasonably
necessary, each of the parties shall grant to the providers of such services such easements
across their respective parties as may be reasonably necessary to provide such services to
the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite, provided that the location of such easement shall be
subject to the reasonable approval of the party owning the servient tract and such
easement shall not interfere with the intended use of such party after expiration or earlier
termination of the Joint Marketing Period.
(b) The parties shall negotiate with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (the "DOT") for the permitting and construction of one or more
interchanges on US Highway 421 to provide access from such highway to the
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite as called for in agreed site plans, provided, however, any
and all agreements between any party and the DOT with respect to any such interchange
shall be subject to the prior review and unanimous approval of all of the parties. In
969789v,12
addition, any party or any combination of the parties may at its or their expense engage
an engineering firm to assist in the environmental impact analysis and in the planning and
engineering for such interchange or interchanges provided, however, that prior to
submission to DOT, any proposed interchange or interchanges shall be subject to review
and unanimous approval of all of the parties.
(c) Any of the parties or any combination of the parties may, at such parry's
or parties' sole cost and expense, engage one or more environmental consulting firms or
civil engineers to assist such party or parties in determining and assessing any
environmental features affecting or existing at or upon the Greensboro -Randolph
Megasite, including without limitation: (i) a determination and delineation of any
wetlands upon any of the properties comprising the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
(including obtaining inspections of such properties by the US Army Corp of Engineers
and any department or agency of the State of North Carolina); (ii) studies and analyses of
the soil conditions of any of the properties comprising the Greensboro -Randolph
Megasite including soil borings and other samples; (iii) environmental assessments and
evaluations; and (iv) any other assessment, inspection or analysis that may be necessary
or appropriate to obtain certification of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite by the North
Carolina Department of Commerce or by KPMG.
(d) Any of the parties or any combination of the parties may, at such party's
or parties' sole cost and expense, cause any portion of the Greensboro -Randolph
Megasite owned by such parties to be cleared and graded provided that all parties have
consented to the area to be cleared and graded and provided further that such work is
calculated to promote and enhance the attractiveness, marketability and development of
the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite as a whole.
(e) Any of the parties or any combination of the parties may, at such party's
or parties' sole cost and expense, cause any other development or site preparation work to
be performed upon the portions of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite owned by such
party or parties provided all such development or site preparation work is of a nature and
type that will promote and enhance the attractiveness, marketability and development of
the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite as a whole and will not create any barriers to or
burdens upon the development or marketability of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite as
a whole.
(fj The parties may retain a site or project manager or managers, upon terms
and conditions agreeable to the parties, for the purpose of managing the development and
operation of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite. The selection of the project manager(s)
shall be subject to the unanimous consent of all parties. The site or project manager(s)
shall serve at the direction of the Steering Committee.
(g) In the event that any party conducts studies or requires access onto the
property of another party, the party requiring access shall indemnify and hold harmless
the party who owns the property across which access is granted, for any loss, cost,
damage or expense incurred by said property owner due to entry by the entering party, its
6
969789v.12
539
agents, consultants, contractors, employees or representatives. Any party requesting such
entry shall execute a right of entry agreement in a form as set forth on Exhibit B attached
hereto, and have any party entering on its behalf execute, a right of entry agreement. All
parties entering onto the property of another party shall provide evidence of liability
insurance to the property owner.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, no party shall be obligated
pursuant to this Agreement to pay any portion of any cost or expense incurred in connection with
any activities undertaken by any party or any combination of parties pursuant to this Paragraph 4.
Any party may by one or more separate agreements executed from time to time by such party
agree to pay or to reimburse any of the other parties for any costs or expenses incurred in
connection with the activities undertaken pursuant to this Paragraph 4.
S. Restrictions on Development, Alteration, Use and Encumbrance of the
County Properties, the Megasite Foundation Properties, and the NCRR Properties: During
the Joint Marketing Period, none of the County, the Megasite Foundation or NCRR will
(a) undertake any development, alteration, improvement, or use of the County Properties, the
Megasite Foundation Properties, or the NCRR Properties if such development, alteration,
improvement or use would materially adversely affect the development or marketability of the
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite as a single megasite available for use by a transformational
manufacturer or other high yield project, or would materially hamper or burden the efforts to
develop, market and use the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite as single site; or (b) encumber by
any lien, restriction, easement, covenant or other agreement any of the County Properties, the
Megasite Foundation Properties, or the NCRR Properties if such encumbrance would materially
adversely affect the development or marketability of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite as a
single megasite available for use by a transformational manufacturer or other high yield project
or would materially hamper or burden the efforts to develop, market and use the Greensboro -
Randolph Megasite as a single site; or (c) encumber any property -located in the Greensboro -
Randolph Megasite by mortgage, deed of trust or other financing, or (d) convey, sell, transfer or
lease for a period of longer than one year, any of its interest in the property owned by it in the
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite without the written consent of all other parties hereto. Without
limiting the foregoing, each of the County, the Megasite Foundation and NCRR agree that during
the Joint Marketing Period, it will not, without the prior written consent of the other parties to
this Agreement or as specifically set forth in the paragraph below, take any of the following
actions with respect to the portions of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite owned by such party:
(i) construct or permit the construction of any buildings (other than temporary buildings which
must be removed by the constructing owner prior to conveyance to a Megasite user), parking
areas, roadways, or other site improvements; (ii) extend or permit the extension of any utilities of
any kind across such properties; (iii) consent to or permit the construction of any railroad spur
lines; (iv) construct or permit the construction of any storm water retention or detention ponds;
or (v) drain or reconfigure any existing lake or pond upon the properties.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in the preceding paragraph, a party
may:
7
969789v.12
A. Undertake any studies, investigations or tests deemed appropriate
by it for the potential development of its property subsequent to the Joint Marketing
Period, provided that such studies, investigations or tests do not interfere with the
potential development, marketing, or use of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite as a
single site.
B. Convey easements across its property for utility or access purposes
provided that such easements do not interfere with the development, use or marketing of
the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite as a single site. Prior to granting any such
easements, a party shall provide the other parties with notice of its intent to grant the
easement(s).
C. Request that an adjacent party grant easements for access, utilities
or drainage on such adjacent parties land, provided the adjacent party shall have the right
to deny the request in its reasonable discretion.
D. Pursue and consider Department of Transportation driveway
permits, access or interchange approvals to the extent such approvals would not be detrimental to
the development, use and marketing of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite as a single site.
E. Clear, grade or undertake other site preparation work for future
development provided that such activity is not detrimental to the development, use or marketing
of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite as a single site.
F. Provide for short term leasing for farming, timber removal or
residential use provided that such uses are not detrimental to the development, use or marketing
of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite.
G. Undertake planning, design, and marketing activities for
development of its property subsequent to the Joint Marketing Period provided that such
activities are not detrimental to the development, use and marketing of the Greensboro -Randolph
Megasite as a single site.
Within ninety (90) days after the execution of this Agreement, each of the parties shall
execute a document in recordable form subjecting the County Properties, the Megasite
Foundation Properties and the NCRR Properties to the restrictive covenants set forth in Exhibit C
attached hereto.
6. Owners' Representatives: With respect to granting or withholding its consent or
approval to the matters to which its consent or approval is required pursuant to this Agreement as
well as to all other matters with respect to the marketing, development and transfer or disposition
of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite, each of the County, the Megasite Foundation and NCRR
shall at all times designate an owner's representative with the power and authority to bind such
owner. (Each person designated by an owner shall be referred to herein as such owner's
"Owner's Representative" and the three individuals designated to represent the three owners
shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Owners' Representatives.") The County hereby
designates Darrell Frye as its initial Owner's Representative. The Megasite Foundation hereby
969789v.12
541
designates E.S. Melvin as its initial Owner's Representative. NCRR hereby designates Scott
Saylor as its initial Owner's Representative. The party who designated an Owner's
Representative shall have the unilateral right at any time, with or without cause, to remove such
person as the Owner's Representative and to designate another person as the Owner's
Representative for such party; provided, however, until each of the other two parties receives
notice of the removal and replacement of an individual as the Owner's Representative of a party,
such other parties may continue to rely upon the approvals, consents, actions and commitments
made by the individual who has been previously designated to them as the Owner's
Representative of the other party or parties. Each Owner's Representative will act on behalf of
the owner who appointed such Owner's Representative: (i) to grant or deny any consents or
approvals of any and all matters to which an owner's consent or approval is required under this
Agreement; (ii) to enter into additional agreements or commitments on behalf of such owner,
including without limitation, agreements or commitments to provide funds to defray costs and
expenses incurred in pursuant of activities pursuant to Paragraphs 3 and 4 above; and
(iii) generally to act on behalf of and to bind such owner with respect to all matters involving the
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite and the properties owned by such owner comprising a portion of
the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite. Each Owner's Representative will procure necessary
approvals from the owner that it represents. Each party may rely upon any approvals or consents
granted by any Owner's Representative and upon any instrument or agreement executed by an
Owner's Representative and upon any commitment made by such Owner's Representative.
7. Steering Committee: The three individuals designated from time to time as the
Owners' Representatives shall constitute a committee of the owners (the "Steering Committee').
The Steering Committee shall meet from time to time (with such meetings to occur not less than
once per calendar quarter during the Joint Marketing Period) and upon the request of any
Owner's Representative. Any member of the Steering Committee may call with no less than five
(5) days' notice, a meeting of the Steering Committee. Meetings of the Steering Committee may
be held at such locations as may be acceptable to the members of the Steering Committee and
any member of the Steering Committee may participate in any meeting by telephone. The
Purposes of the Steering Committee shall be: (i) to provide a mechanism by which the County,
the Megasite Foundation and NCRR can coordinate, communicate, review and evaluate their
respective efforts to market, develop and enhance the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite; and (ii) to
serve as a forum in which issues associated with such activities may be discussed and addressed.
Except as expressly set forth herein, any and all decisions of the Steering Committee shall be
made by a unanimous vote by the members of the Committee. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
where specifically set forth herein, a unanimous consent may be required. The Steering
Committee may consider and develop from time to time a list of potential users to whom the
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite shall be specifically marketed as well as a list of any users to
whom the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite shall not be marketed. Appropriate records shall be
kept of meetings of the Steering Committee consistent with the North Carolina General Statutes.
8. Selection of the User or Users to Whom the Greensboro -Randolph, Megasite
Shall be Made Available: If and as expressions of interest in the Greensboro -Randolph
Megasite are received from potential users during the Joint Marketing Period, the Steering
Committee shall meet to discuss whether the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite or any portion
thereof should be offered to such user and if so, the terms and conditions upon which the
9
969789v.12
542
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite or portion thereof should be offered to such user. Subject to the
following paragraph, all decisions about the user or users to whom the Greensboro -Randolph
Megasite Foundation or portions thereof shall be made available shall be made by the unanimous
vote of the Owners' Representatives. Each owner shall be entitled to determine whether a
potential user is acceptable to it and if so, the terms upon which such owner will make such
owner's property or any portion thereof available to such potential user. Each of the County, the
Megasite Foundation and NCRR hereby agree that their intent is as follows with respect to the
approval and selection of a user of users to whom the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite shall be
made available and the terms upon which the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite shall be made
available: (a) the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite should be made available as a single megasite
for use by a single user which user shall be a transformational manufacturer (such as an
automobile manufacturer) or other high yield project and which user is willing to commit to
construct and operate upon the site a "high yield project" as currently defined in NCGS
Section 143B-437.51(6a) (hereinafter "a high yield project") and such user shall be an entity to
whom the North Carolina Economic Investment Committee has made or is prepared to make a
grant pursuant to NCGS Section 143B-437.52; (b) the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite should be
made available as a part of an economic incentives package offered by state and local
governmental units and economic development entities; and (c) if a potential user has selected
the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite as its preferred location in North Carolina and such user is a
transformational manufacturer or other high yield project who has committed to construct and
operate upon the site a high -yield project and the North Carolina Economic Investment
Committee has indicated a willingness to make a grant to such user pursuant to NCGS
Section 14313-437.52 to induce the user to locate within the State, then the Greensboro -Randolph
Megasite would, in the absence of compelling reasons not to do so, be made available to such
potential user. The Greensboro -Randolph Megasite may be available to a user for sale or
conveyance in fee simple or by ground lease. If the definition of "high yield project" is changed
by the General Assembly or other material changes are made to NCGS Section 143B-437.51(6a),
then the parties shall agree that the definition of `high yield project" in such statute in effect as of
the date of execution of this Agreement shall remain applicable rather than any amended
definition, unless the parties hereto unanimously agree otherwise.
In the event that either NCRR and County or NCRR and Megasite Foundation agree to
approve a user pursuant to the terms provided in this Section 8, but unanimous consent is not
obtained, then the two parties who agree to the user ("Acquiring Parties") shall have the option
to acquire from the objecting party any property which is necessary for conveyance or lease to
the Megasite user. In such event, the Acquiring Parties shall provide written notice to the
objecting party of their intention to acquire such property, which notice shall include that portion
of the objecting party's property that is necessary to convey the property to the Megasite user.
The objecting party shall then be obligated to convey such property to the Acquiring Parties or
their designee at a price not to exceed the cost of the property to the objecting party to purchase
such land, (including commissions and option fees), plus an increase of 1.5% per year (pro rata
for any portion of such year from the original purchasing closing date to the sale closing date).
The objecting party may, in addition, request reimbursement of its out-of-pocket costs associated
with its property, which the Acquiring Parties shall consider in good faith. Closing shall be held
at such time as designated by the Acquiring Parties, but in any event not later than thirty (30)
days prior to the date such property is to be conveyed to the Megasite user. Notwithstanding the
10
969789v.12
543
foregoing, in the event the objecting party is the County, then the option rights of Megasite
Foundation and NCRR shall be subject to any law which is applicable to the County which
requires submitting the sale of the property to advertisement, bidding and upset bid process. in
the event such process is required, the County shall promptly initiate the process and if the
County receives a bid greater than the purchase price referenced above, then, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, the Acquiring Parties shall have the right to increase their bid to become the
highest bidder, in which event, as applicable, the upset bid process would continue. Once the
upset bid process has completed and if the Acquiring Parties are determined to be the highest
bidder, then a binding contract of purchase and sale shall be deemed to be in effect and closing
shall take place as set forth above.
9. Terms On Which the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite Will be Made
Available to Potential Users: Each of the County, the Megasite Foundation and NCRR
acknowledge and agree that their purpose and 'intent in executing this Agreement and in owning,
marketing and developing their respective properties pursuant to this Agreement is to create a
megasite which will be made available to one or more transformational manufacturers or high
yield projects as a part of a package or packages of State and local incentives designed to attract
one or more transformational manufacturers or high yield projects to North Carolina and
specifically to the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite. To that end, if the parties agree upon a user
or users to whom the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite should be made available in whole or in
part, then each of the County, the Megasite Foundation and NCRR will, to the extent permitted
by the laws, regulations and legal requirements applicable to them (including without limitation
federal and state income tax laws and regulations applicable to non-profit entities), endeavor to
make the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite (or the applicable portion thereof and including the
County Properties, the Megasite Foundation Properties, and the NCRR Properties) available to
such user in such a manner and upon such terms so that: (a) the primary consideration and
benefits to be received from such user or users will be (i) the benefits (including without
limitation, any and all taxes and any and all other revenues of any sort as may be payable to the
State, the County or any other governmental unit) expected to accrue to the State of North
Carolina, the County, the City of Greensboro and other governmental units in the vicinity of the
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite, and (ii) creation of lobs for citizens in the region; and (b) the
user's or users' obligation to agree to pay monetary consideration will be minimized.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, each of the County, the Megasite Foundation and NCRR shall be
the sole determiner of the terms and conditions upon which it will agree to make its properties
available to any potential user or users.
In the event a potential Megasite user is selected and only a portion of the Greensboro -
Randolph Megasite is required for conveyance or lease to the Megasite user, then upon the
completion of the transfer of such property to the Megasite user, this Agreement shall be deemed
terminated and the provisions of Section 10 below shall apply and the owners of the remaining
portion of the properties described herein shall be entitled to use, develop, and market such
remaining property as each such owner determines, subject to the terms of Section 10, and any
restrictions or conditions included within the conveyance or lease to the Megasite user.
10. Agreements if a User or Users Are Not Recruited to the Greensboro -
Randolph Megasite Within the Joint Marketing Period: If the Joint Marketing Period
11
969789v. 12
expires or is earlier terminated and any portion of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite has not
been conveyed, leased, transferred or otherwise made available to one or more users, then all of
the following terms and provisions shall apply:
(a) The provisions of Sections 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of this Agreement shall
expire and terminate and shall be of no further force and effect;
(b) Subject only to the restrictions set forth in subsection (e) below, each party
shall be entitled to market, develop, sell, lease, transfer or make its properties available to
any party or parties in any manner and for any purposes as may be acceptable to such
party and as one or more independent properties and not as a part of the Greensboro -
Randolph Megasite;
(c) Each party shall cooperate with each other party in connection with the
marketing, development and conveyance, lease or transfer of such other party's
properties as independent properties and will upon request grant such easements for
access to various streets and highways, easements for utilities, easements for storm -water
drainage and easements for similar purposes as a party may reasonably request, provided
that any such easement shall be in a location and of a nature that will not unreasonably
interfere with the use or development of the tract across which the easement is to run.
Each party shall cooperate with each other party in providing a connection to the main
line of the railroad along Old Highway 421, currently operated by Norfolk Southern
railway (including creation of a rail spur line) and will upon request grant such easements
of such width and length that shall meet with such operator's and NCRR's requirements
to ensure usable rail access and rail service and the rail operating rights related thereto;
(d) NCRR shall have the right and option, exercisable by written notice to the
Megasite Foundation given no later than the one hundred twentieth (120"i) day following
the expiration or earlier termination of the Joint Marketing Period to purchase all, or any
portion of the Megasite Foundation Properties then owned by the Megasite Foundation.
If NCRR exercises its option to purchase: (i) the purchase price to be paid to the
Megasite Foundation for such Megasite Foundation Properties shall be an amount equal
to the total purchase prices paid by the Megasite Foundation for the applicable Megasite
Foundation Properties plus commissions and costs of acquisition plus interest to the date
of the consummation of NCRR's purchase of such properties at the per annum rate of
1.5 percent (lV2,%); (ii) the closing of the sale of the Megasite Foundation Properties to
NCRR shall be held within ninety (90) days of NCRR's notice to the Megasite
Foundation of its exercise of the option; and (iii) at such closing the Megasite Foundation
shall convey the applicable Megasite Foundation Properties to NCRR by general
warranty deed free and clear of all deeds of trust, liens and monetary encumbrances and
subject to only: (i) such matters of record as existed at the time said property was
acquired by Megasite Foundation, (ii) the restrictive covenants referenced in
subparagraph (e) below, and any other matters of record for which NCRR has provided
its written consent.
12
969789v.12
545
In addition, NCRR shall also have a right of first refusal to acquire any property
owned by Megasite Foundation, such right of first refusal to expire five (5) years after
expiration or earlier termination of the Joint Marketing Period. In the event Megasite
Foundation elects to sell and receives a bona fide letter of intent or purchase agreement,
then Megasite Foundation shall provide written notice of same to NCRR and NCRR shall
have a period of thirty (30) days thereafter to elect whether to acquire such property
pursuant to the terms of the letter of intent or purchase agreement. If NCRR elects to
acquire such property, then NCRR and Megasite Foundation shall enter into a purchase
agreement in a commercially reasonable form for the consummation of such sale. In the
event NCRR does not exercise its right of first refusal, then Megasite Foundation may
sell the property to the third party offeror, provided that if such sale is not consummated
within six (6) months after notice is given to NCRR, then the right of first refusal shall
continue and remain in full force and effect as to any future sale. NCRR and Megasite
Foundation shall record a memorandum of option and right of first refusal relating to the
rights conveyed in this subparagraph 10(d).
Notwithstanding the foregoing right of first refusal, Megasite Foundation may elect to
donate, at the end of the Joint Marketing Period, the Megasite Foundation Properties to County.
In the event Megasite Foundation elects to make such donation, the Megasite Foundation shall
provide written notice to NCRR and NCRR shall have a period of sixty (60) days thereafter to
provide a donee organization affiliated with NCRR, to which Megasite Foundation would be
authorized the donate the Megasite Foundation Properties. In the event NCRR provides an
acceptable donee entity, then Megasite Foundation shall make the donation of the Megasite
Foundation Properties to such entity. In the event that NCRR does not provide an acceptable
donee entity, the NCRR shall have the right to elect to purchase the Megasite Foundation
Properties upon the same terms and conditions as provided in the first paragraph of this Section
(d).
(e) NCRR shall have the right and option, exercisable by written notice to the
County given not later than the 180� day following the expiration or earlier termination
of the Joint Marketing Period to purchase all, or any portion of the County properties then
owned by the County. In the event NCRR exercises its option to purchase: (i) the
purchase price to be paid to the County for such County properties shall be an amount
equal to the total purchase price paid by the County for the applicable County properties
plus commissions and costs of acquisition plus interest to the date of the consummation
of NCRR's purchase of such properties at the per annum rate of 1.5 percent (1'/2%);
(ii) the closing of the sale of the County properties to NCRR shall be held within ninety
(90) days of NCRR's notice to the County of its exercise of the option; and (iii) at such
closing the County shall convey the applicable County properties to NCRR by general
warranty deed free and clear of all deeds of trust, liens and monetary encumbrances and
subject to only to: (A) such matters of record as existed at the time said property was
acquired by County, (B) the restrictive covenants referenced in Section 5, and (C) any
other matters of record for which NCRR has provided its written consent.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, NCRR shall be subject to any law which is applicable to
the County which requires submitting the sale of the property to advertisement, bidding
and upset bid process. In the event such process is required, the County shall promptly
13
9{9789v.12
initiate the process and if the County receives a bid greater than the purchase price
referenced above, then, unless otherwise prohibited by law, NCRR shall have the right to
increase its bid to become the highest bidder, in which event, as applicable, the upset bid
process would continue. Once the upset bid process has completed and if NCRR is
determined to be the highest bidder, then a binding contract of purchase and sale shall be
deemed to be in effect and closing shall take place as set forth above.
(t) The terms and provisions of this paragraph 10 shall survive the
termination or earlier expiration of the Joint Marketing Period for a period of three (3)
years (except for subparagraph 10(d) which shall survive for a period of five (5) years as
specifically set forth therein).
11. No Partnership or Joint Venture: The provisions of this Agreement are not
intended to create a partnership or joint venture among the County, the Megasite Foundation and
the NCRR for any purpose and no partnership or joint venture shall be implied from the
provisions of this Agreement or from the patties' pursuit of the activities contemplated herein.
No party shall be the agent of any other party for any purpose and no party shall have any
authority to bind or obligate any other party for any purpose or in any way or to bind, encumber
or otherwise commit any of the property belonging to any other party.
12. No Obligation to Expend Funds for Any Purpose: Notwithstanding any other
provision hereof, none of the County, the Megasite Foundation or NCRR shall be obligated by
the execution of this Agreement (whether expressly or by implication) to pay any costs or
expenses incurred in connection or associated with the marketing, development or enhancement
of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite or to reimburse any other party hereto for any portion of
any such costs or expenses as may be paid by such other party. Each party shall have the right to
determine whether it will expend any funds or pay any costs or expenses associated with the
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite and, if so, the amount it will expend or agree to pay.
13. County Conveyance of Easement to NCRR: County agrees to convey an
easement for construction and operation of an extension of the railroad line from the existing
railroad line to the NCRR Property. The form and description of the easement is attached hereto
as Schedule 5.
14. Default and Remedy: In the event of a default by any parry herein of its
obligations set forth in this Agreement, then any other party shall provide written notice of such
default and the defaulting party shall have a period of thirty (30) days to cure the default,
provided that if the default cannot be cured within thirty (30) days, the defaulting party shall
have such additional time as is required to cure the default provided the defaulting party
promptly commences and diligently pursues efforts to cure the default. In the event of a default,
any non -defaulting party shall have such remedies as allowed by law or in equity, including
without limitation the remedies of specific performance and injunctive relief.
15. Miscellaneous Provisions: The County, the Megasite Foundation and NCRR
agree to the following additional provisions and terms:
14
969789v.12
(a) None of the parties may assign its rights or obligations under this
Agreement without the prior written consent of the other two parties, and any such
prohibited assignment shall be void. Notwithstanding the foregoing, NCRR shall have
the right to assign its rights hereunder and the ownership of the NCRR Properties to a
wholly owned affiliate without the consent of any other parties. Subject to the foregoing,
this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors, assigns
and respective legal representatives of the parties.
(b) If any provision, term or portion of this Agreement is held invalid,
inoperative or unenforceable, then so far as is reasonable and possible the remainder of
this Agreement shall be deemed valid and enforceable, and, to the greatest extent legally
possible, effect shall be given to the intent manifested by the portion held invalid or
inoperative.
(c) This Agreement shall, in all respects, be governed, construed, applied and
enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of North Carolina.
(d) This Agreement is not intended to give or confer any benefits, rights,
privileges, claims, actions or remedies to any person or entity as a third party beneficiary
or otherwise.
(e) This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement among the parties and
supersedes all prior agreements and understandings among the parties relating to the
properties comprising the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite and to the development and
marketing of the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite. This Agreement may be amended or
supplemented only by an instrument in writing executed by the party against whom
enforcement is sought.
(f) The parties shall execute and record in the Office of the Register of Deeds
of Randolph County, North Carolina a memorandum of this agreement sufficient to
provide record notice of the contents hereof and otherwise in a form and content
acceptable to the parties.
(g) All notices required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be
delivered to the parties at the addresses set forth below. Any such notices shall be sent
by: (a) overnight delivery using a nationally recognized overnight courier, in which case
notice shall be deemed delivered one business day after deposit with such courier,
(b) sent by facsimile or e-mail, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon
transmission of such notice, or (c) sent by personal delivery, in which case notice shall be
deemed delivered upon receipt. A party's address may be changed by written notice to
the other party; provided, however, that no notice of a change of address shall be
effective until actual receipt of such notice. Copies of notices shall be for information
purposes only, and a failure to give or receive copies of any notice shall not be deemed a
failure to give notice. Notices given by counsel to the Megasite Foundation shall be
deemed given by the Megasite Foundation, notices given by counsel to NCRR shall be
15
969789v.12
t
deemed given by NCRR, and notices given by counsel to the County shall be deemed
given by the County.
Address for the Megasite Foundation -
Greensboro -Randolph Megasite Foundation, Inc.
324 W. Wendover Avenue, Suite 207
Greensboro, North Carolina 27408
Attention: E.S. Melvin
Address for NCRR:
North Carolina Railroad Company
2809 Highwoods Boulevard, Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Attention: Scott Saylor, President
Address for Randolph County:
Randolph County
Asheboro, North Carolina
Attention:
(h) This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of such counterparts shall constitute one
Agreement. To facilitate execution of this Agreement, the parties may execute and
exchange by facsimile or e-mail counterparts of the signature pages.
(i) Whenever the approval or consent of a party is required, such approval
shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned and shall be deemed approved
if no response is given within fifteen (15) days after receipt of written request for
approval.
N
969789v.12
549
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, RANDOLPH COUNTY, the GREENSBORO-
RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION, INC. and the NORTH CAROLINA
RAILROAD COMPANY have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth in the
introductory paragraph above.
RANDOLPH COUNTY
By:
Name:
Title:
GREENSBORO-RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION, INC.
By:
Name:
Title:
.. Melvin
President
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY
By: -
Name: Scott Saylor
Title: President
969789v, 12
17
+50
�
|
-
�
\�
� [
■
||!§
! ®■
\ §
, |
§
|
_
!2 |
§ §
~
§
�
,
|K|�
7
EXHIBIT A
e
MI IT B 551
RIGHT 3F ENTRY and INDEMNITY AGREEMENT (_ ACRES)
THIS RIi;iHT OF and INDEMNITY ENTRY AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is by and between
1 a [state] [entity type]
("Owner"), and a [state] [entity
type] ("Entrant"). Entrant and Owner may individually be referred to as a "Party" or collectively as the
"Parties." This Agreement commences on the later of the execution dates set forth below the signatures
(the "Commencement Date").
1. In consideration of the mutual benefits and obligations set forth herein, Owner grants to Entrant
and Entrant's employees, agents, and contractors a non-exclusive right of entry for ingress and egress to
the Property (as defined in Exhibit A attached hereto) for the limited purpose of inspection and testing.
The rights granted hereunder shall be deemed to include access to rights -of -way, private roads and other
areas on the Property as reasonably required for the purpose set forth above.
2. The term of this Agreement commences on the Commencement Date and shall remain in full
force and effect for a period of (—) days ("Term").
3. Prior to entry onto the Property, Entrant shall provide to Owner evidence of commercial general
liability insurance, with limits of not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) combined single limit per
occurrence for bodily injury, sickness or death, and property damage, reflecting Owner as an additional
insured.
4. Entrant and Entrant's employees, agents, and contractors shall not use, store, transfer or dispose
of any hazardous materials or hazardous substances on the Property.
5. Entrant hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Owner from any loss, cost, liability,
damage, or expense incurred by Owner due to the entry on the Property by Entrant, its agents and
contractors.
6. This Agreement may be freely assigned by either Party, provided that the assignee agrees to be
bound by all of the terms and conditions hereof. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the parties hereto, their successors, legal representatives and assigns.
7. Owner reserves the right to grant other licenses, easements on or rights of access to the
Property.
8. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original and such counterpart together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
9. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of North Carolina.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner and Entrant have executed this Agreement on the dates set
forth below.
OWNER: ENTRANT:
a
By:
Printed Name:
Title:
Date:
a
By:
Printed Name:
Title:
Date:
552
EXHIBIT A
ACRES: Randolph County Tax Parcel No.
553
EMI IT C
Prepared by.
Ellis & Winters LLP (MOW)
4131 Parklake Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
THIS DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS (this "Declaration") is
made and entered into as of _ , 2016 by and among RANDOLPH
COUNTY, a North Carolina county and governmental body (the "County"), the NORTH
CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY, a North Carolina corporation ("NCRR"); and
GREENSBORO-RA.NDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION, INC., a not for profit
corporation organized and existing under the laws of North Carolina (the "Foundation").
RECITALS:
Pursuant to the terms of that certain Greensboro -Randolph Megasite Project Agreement,
the County (the "Megasite Project Agreement"), NCRR and the Foundation subject the
hereinafter described properties to the terms, covenants, restrictions and conditions of this
Declaration.
975677
554
AGREEMENT:
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the mutual agreements
set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the County, NCRR and the Foundation agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
The following words, when used in this Declaration (unless the context shall prohibit),
shall have the following meanings (such meanings to be applicable to both the singular and plural
forms of the terms defined):
"Ancillary Use" shall mean a use that is customarily incidental and subordinate to the
principal use and conducted entirely on the same property utilized for the principal use.
"Building Improvements" shall mean and include the main portion of a structure built for
permanent use and intended for occupancy, and all projections or extensions thereof, including, but
not limited to, garages, outside platforms and docks, carports, canopies, enclosed malls, and porches.
"Common Boundary" shall mean any perimeter boundary of the County Tract, the
Foundation Tract or the NCRR Tract which is a common boundary of, or otherwise abuts
(disregarding existing street rights of way, and any strips or gores) a perimeter boundary of one
of the other two Tracts.
"County Tract" shall mean all of that certain real property located in Randolph County,
North Carolina and more particularly described on Exhibit A. attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference, together with any other real property within the Target Zone acquired by
the County prior to the expiration or earlier termination of the Joint Marketing Period.
"Declarant" shall mean and refer to any one of (i) the County or its Successor Declarant
for so long as the County or its Successor Declarant, as the case may, shall continue to own any
portion of the County Tract, (ii) NCRR or its Successor Declarant for so long as the NCRR or its
Successor Declarant, as the case may, shall continue to own any portion of the NCRR Tract, or
(iii) the Foundation or its Successor Declarant for so long as the Foundation or its Successor
Declarant, as the case may, shall continue to own any portion of the Foundation Tract, and
"Declarants" shall mean and refer to two or more of such entities.
"Declarant Approval Period" shall mean and refer to .the period of time extending from
the date this Declaration is initially recorded in the Registry, until such time as there are no
Declarants.
"Foundation Tract" shall mean all of that certain real property located in Randolph
County, North Carolina and more particularly described on Exhibit B, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, together with any other real property within the Target
2
975677
555
Zone acquired by the Foundation prior to the expiration or earlier termination of the Joint
Marketing Period.
"Improvement" means and includes every structure and all appurtenances thereto of
every kind and type, including, but not be limited to, the following facilities or activities,
whether of a permanent or temporary nature: any and all Building Improvements, out buildings,
streets, roads, access roads, driveways, sidewalks, walkways, pedestrian malls, bike paths,
running or jogging paths, ways or trails, traffic control devices and signs, parking structures and
garages, parking lots and other parking areas, loading areas, signs, canopies, awnings, trellises,
fences, plazas, patios, shelters, security and safety devices, bridges, construction trailers and
other temporary construction outbuildings, screening walls, retaining walls, stairs, decks,
benches and other exterior furniture, hedges, windbreaks, plantings, planted trees and shrubs,
poles, exterior air conditioning, heating or air -handling equipment, aerials, antennas, lighting
fixtures, drainage structures, communications equipment, satellite transmitting and/or receiving
ground stations, poles, pumps, wells, tanks, reservoirs, pipes, lines, meters, towers and other
facilities used in connection with water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone, regular or cable
television, internet service, or other utilities.
"Joint Marketing Period" shall have the meaning established in the Megasite Project
Agreement. As of the date this Declaration is recorded in the Registry, the Joint Marketing
Period is in effect. Upon the expiration or earlier termination of the Joint Marketing Period, the
Declarants shall record a supplement to this Declaration specifying the date of such expiration or
earlier termination.
"NCRRR. Tract" shall mean all of that certain real property located in Randolph County,
North Carolina and more particularly described on Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference, together with any other real property within the Target Zone acquired by
NCRR prior to the expiration or earlier termination of the Joint Marketing Period.
"Prohibited Uses" shall mean and refer to any of the following uses: residential uses;
day cares or preschools, except as an Ancillary Use; primary or secondary schools, whether
public or private; parks, gymnasiums or athletic fields, except as an Ancillary Use; churches,
community centers, clubs and lodges; boarding or rooming houses; hospitals, nursing homes,
convalescent homes, or continuing care communities; adult establishments (which shall include
any bar, massage parlor, nightclub, tavern or lounge featuring adult entertainment and any
establishment which sells or rents "adult" or pornographic books, videos or other materials);
tattoo or "skin art" parlors; automobile race track; funeral homes, cemeteries, mausoleums,
fimeral homes or crematoriums, or establishments for the purpose of performing autopsies,
embalming or cremation; landfills; outdoor amusements, such as carnivals, drive-in theaters,
fairgrounds or outdoor arcades; junk or salvage yards; wrecking yards; flea markets; quarry or
mining operations; sand, gravel, stone or petroleum extractions; swine farms; billboards and
other off -premises outdoor advertising (as distinguished from on or off -premises directional
signage).
"Properties" shall man and refer to all of the Tracts, collectively.
975677
556
"Registry" shall mean the Office of the Register of Deeds, Randolph County, North
Carolina.
"Successor Declarant" shall mean any entity that is wholly owned by a Declarant (but
only for so long as the entity continues to be wholly owned by such Declarant), succeeds to all of
the remaining interest of such Declarant in any portion of the Properties, and to which the rights
of Declarant hereunder have been transferred pursuant to an express assignment recorded in the
Registry.
"Target Zone" shall mean and refer to the property located in Randolph County, North
Carolina and depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit D, which property as shown is
bounded by Starmount Road, Troy Smith Road, Old US 421, Julian Airport Road and US
Highway 421.
"Tract" shall mean and refer to any one of the County Tract, the Foundation Tract or the
NCRR Tract and "Tracts" shall mean and refer to two or more of such tracts.
ARTICLE II
USE RESTRICTIONS
Section 2.1. General Use Restrictions. Except as otherwise provided in Section 2.2
below, use of the Properties shall be restricted to commercial, manufacturing, industrial, retail
and office uses, provided however, no portion of the Properties may be used for any of the
Prohibited Uses.
Section 2.2. Limited Permitted Residential Use. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Section 2.1 above, however, with respect to each portion of the Properties currently used for
residential purposes, such residential use may continue until the earlier to occur of any one of the
following events: (i) any cessation of the active use of such property for residential purposes for
a continuous period three (3) months; or (ii) the expiration or earlier termination of the Joint
Marketing Period.
ARTICLE III
BUILDING RESTRICTIONS
Section 3.1. Common Boundary Buffer Area. Upon the expiration or earlier
termination of the Joint Marketing Period, a "Common Boundary Buffer Area" extending thirty-
five (35) feet on either side of all Common Boundaries automatically shall come into effect. The
Declarants shall execute and cause to be recorded in the Registry a notice of expiration or
termination, as the case may be, of the Joint Marketing Period, but the failure of the Declarants
to record such a notice shall not affect the establishment of Common Boundary Buffer Areas as
herein provided. Except as otherwise provided in Section 3.3 below, the only uses permitted
within. a Common Boundary Buffer Area are the installation, repair and replacement of
underground utilities, and except for Improvements relating to such use or as permitted pursuant
to Section 3.3, no Improvements shall be erected, placed, maintained or permitted to remain
4
975677
557
within a Common Boundary Buffer Area; provided, however, that any use or Improvement
within a Common Boundary Buffer Area existing at the time such Common Boundary Buffer
Area is established shall be permitted to continue or remain, as the case may be, until such time
as construction of any new Building improvements is commenced on the property of which such
Common Boundary Buffer Area is a part.
Section 3.2. Disturbance of Common Boundary Buffer Area. Following any
disturbance of the existing state (whether vegetative or improved) of any portion of a Common
Boundary Buffer Area, the disturbed portions of the Common Boundary Buffer Area shall be
restored with the installation of at least one row of fast growing evergreen trees (a minimum of
four (4) feet in height at the time of planting) evenly spaced ten (10) feet apart.
Section 3.3. Use of Common Boundary Buffer Area. With the written consent of the
owner(s) of each portion or portions of the Properties that abut (disregarding street rights of way,
and any strips or gores) a Common Boundary Buffer Area C Abutting Owner' ), in the sole
discretion of such Abutting Owner, roadway improvements may be constructed within a
Common Boundary Buffer Area, but in such event the Common Boundary Buffer Area shall be
extended to include an additional area equal to the area of the Common Boundary Buffer Area
on which such roadway improvements are to be located, such extended area to be specifically
described in an instrument recorded in the Registry, executed by the owner of the Common
Boundary Buffer Area, as extended, and the Abutting Owner.
Section 3.4. Building Improvement Setbacks. No Building Improvement shall be
located on any portion of the Properties within fifty (50) feet of a Common Boundary Buffer
Area, as the same may be extended pursuant to Section 3.3 above.
5
975677
ARTICLE IV
GENERAL TERMS
Section 4.1. Binding Effect. This Declaration and all of the provisions hereof are and
shall be real covenants running with the Properties, however further subdivided or reconfigured,
and shall burden and bind the Properties for the duration hereof. This Declaration shall be
binding on all persons or entities having any right, title, or interest in all or any portion of the
property now or hereafter subject hereto, their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors,
successors -in -title, and assigns and shall inure to the benefit of each and every owner of all or
any portion thereof. To that end, this Declaration shall be deemed incorporated in all deeds and
conveyances of the Properties hereinafter made and every person or entity acquiring or holding
any interest or estate in any portion of the Properties shall take or hold such interest or estate
subject to the terms and provisions of this Declaration. Each purchaser or grantee of any interest
in any real property now or hereafter made subject to this Declaration, by acceptance of a deed or
other conveyance thereof, thereby agrees that the conditions, covenants, restrictions and
reservations of this Declaration may be extended, terminated, amended or withdrawn as provided
herein.
Section 4.2. Duration, Extension and Termination. The provisions of this Declaration
shall run with and bind title to the Properties, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
the parties hereto their respective heirs, executors, legal representatives, successors, and assigns.
The provisions of Article II of this Declaration shall be and remain in effect until the twentieth
(20th) anniversary of the first recording of the Declaration in the Registry, whereupon such
provisions shall automatically be extended for successive periods of ten (10) years each until
such time as the owners of at least seventy percent (70%) of the total acreage of the Properties,
and during the Declarant Approval Period, each Declarant, execute and cause to be recorded in
the Registry an instrument providing for the termination and abolishment of such provisions;
provided, however, that no such instrument providing for the termination and abolishment of the
provisions of Article Il of this Declaration shall be effective unless made and recorded at least
one (1) year in advance of the effective date of such termination and abolition. Any Common
Boundary Buffer Area and the restrictions applicable to each such area as established and
provided in Article III of this Declaration may at any time be terminated with the consent and
approval of the owners of both the property burdened and the property benefitted by such buffer
area and, during the Declarant Approval Period, the consent and approval of each Declarant,
Section 4.3. Amendment; Withdrawal of Property. The provisions of Article II of
this Declaration may be amended from time to time by an instrument placed of record in the
Registry and executed by the owners of at least seventy percent (70%) of the total acreage of the
Properties, and during the Declarant Approval Period, by each Declarant. Provided, however,
that if an amendment to the provisions of Article II hereof shall cause any than existing permitted
use of any portion of the Properties to be in violation of this Declaration as amended, as to that
portion of the Properties so used, such then existing permitted use shall be permitted and allowed
to continue for so long as that use of such property continues. The location of any Common
Boundary Buffer Area and the restrictions applicable thereto as provided in Article III hereof
may be modified or amended at any time with the consent and approval of the owner(s) of the
property on which the Common Boundary Buffer Area is located and the Abutting Owner,
6
975677
559
provided however that during the Declarant Approval Period, the consent and approval of each
Declarant also shall be required. in addition, during the Declarant Approval Period, the
Declarants, by recording in the Registry an instrument signed by all of the Declarants, shall have
the power and authority to reduce the width of any Common Boundary Buffer Area by up to
thirty percent (30%). Prior to the twentieth (20th) anniversary of the first recording of the
Declaration in the Registry, portions of the Properties may be removed from the encumbrance of
the provisions of this Declaration by an instrument placed of record in the Registry and executed
(i) by all Declarants, if any, and (ii) by the owner(s) of the property to be removed if not owned
by a Declarant; provided, however, that regardless of such removal, any existing Common
Boundary Buffer Area(s) located on the property to be removed shall remain in effect and shall
continue to be subject to the provisions of Section 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 hereof, as the same may be
modified, amended or terminated in accordance with the terms hereof. No such removal of
property shall give rise to the creation of any new Common Boundary Buffer Areas on the
remaining portions of the Properties.
Section 4.4. Extension of Agreement to After Acquired Prop. Each Tract, and by
extension, the Properties, is defined to include any additional property within the Target Zone
acquired by a Declarant prior to the expiration or earlier termination of the Joint Marketing
Period. The imposition of this Declaration on any such after -acquired property shall occur
automatically upon a Declarant's acquisition of title. In order to provide record notice of the
imposition of this Declaration within the chain of title of such after -acquired property,
contemporaneously with any acquisition of additional property within the Target Zone, the
acquiring Declarant shall execute (without the requirement that the other Declarants join in such
execution) and record in the Registry an instrument that expressly subjects such additional
property to the terms of this Declaration in a manner so as to bind subsequent owners of such
property.
Section 4.5. Miscellaneous.
(a) This Declaration concerns real property located in the State of North
Carolina and shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the
State of North Carolina. The venue for any action or suit brought relating to this
Declaration or the enforcement of any provisions hereof shall be Randolph County, North
Carolina.
(b) Invalidation of any one or more of the provisions of this Declaration by
judgment or court order shall in no way affect any of the other provisions which shall
remain in full force and effect.
(c) This Declaration may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of such counterparts shall constitute one
Agreement.
[Execution Pages Follows]
7
975677
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, RANDOLPH COUNTY, being one of the Declarants to this
DECLARATION RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, has caused this instrument to be executed as
of the date set forth in the introductory.
RANDOLPH COUNTY
By:
Name:
Title:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
I certify that the following person personally appeared before me this day,
acknowledging to me that he or she voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the purpose
stated therein and in the capacity indicated:
DATE:
as
2016
[NOTARY PUBLIC STAMP OR SEAL]
975677
of RANDOLPH COUNTY.
Signature of Notary Public
Printed Name:
My Commission expires:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GREENSBORO-RANDOLPH MEGASITE
FOUNDATION, INC., a North Carolina non-profit corporation, being one of the Declarants to
this DECLARATION RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, has caused this instrument to be executed
as of the date set forth in the introductory.
GREENSBORO-RANDOLPH MEGASITE FOUNDATION, INC.
By:
Name: E. S. Melvin
Title: President
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
I certify that the following person personally appeared before me this day,
acknowledging to me that he or she voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the purpose
stated therein and in the capacity indicated:
E. S. Melvin, as President of GREENSBORO-RANDOLPH MEGASITE
FOUNDATION, INC., a North Carolina non-profit corporation.
DATE: , 2016
[NOTARY PUBLIC STAMP OR SEAL]
9
975677
Signature of Notary Public
Printed Name:
My Commission expires:
562
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY, a North
Carolina corporation, being one of the Declarants to this DECLARATION RESTRICTIVE
COVENANTS, has caused this instrument to be executed as of the date set forth in the
introductory.
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY,
a North Carolina corporation
Scott M. Saylor, President
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
I certify that the following person personally appeared before me this day,
acknowledging to me that he or she voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the purpose
stated therein and in the capacity indicated:
Scott M. Saylor, as President of NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY, a North
Carolina corporation.
DATE:
I
[NOTARY PUBLIC STAMP OR SEAL]
10
975677
Signature of Notary Public
Printed Name:
My Commission expires:
563
Schedule 1
List of County Properties
Current
ProyerIX Owner
Attached
Mai) Lot
Reference
Acres
Property Address
PIN
Bk / Ps
1.
Randolph County
1
10.67
0 Kimra Lane
8718805301
2436 / 460
2.
Randolph Coun
2
2.2
8169 OId 421 Rd
8718534909
2436 / 463
3.
Randolph County
3
7.78
5I84 Orange Blossom Dr
8718337986
2436 / 465
4.
1 Randolph County
4
2.0
5463 Troy Smith Rd
8718900561
2436 / 469
5.
1 Randolph County
5
50.0
5777 Browns Meadow Rd
8718029180
2436 / 956
6•
Randolph County
6
22.54
0 Browns Meadow Rd
8718622185
2436 / 858
7,
Randolph County
7
100.00
0 Old 421 Rd
0 NR Old 421 Rd
8718629905
8718519048
2436 / 1042
8.
Randolph County
8
22.16
5585 Kimrcy Lane
8718703247
2438 / 1075
9.
Randolph County
9
15.2
5587 Kirarey Lane
8718706850
2438 / 1078
10.
Randolph County
10 1
6.87
5642 Kimrey Lane
8717895776
2438 / 1082
1 1.
Randolph County
11
7.95
8807 Old 421 Rd
8708937765
2439 / 1205
12.
Randolph County
12
7.76
5301 Orange Blossom Dr
0 Orange Blossom Dr
8718435778
8718333976
2439 / 1201
13.
Randolph ounty
13
77.09
8805 Old 42I Rd
8708929917
2451 / 327
14,
Randolph County
14
6.7
4683 Iron Horse Trail
8709836406
2452 / 1262
15.
Randolph County
i5
8.97
5990 Julian Airport Rd
8708832126
2452 / 1258
16.
Randolph County
16,17
34.6
5938 Julian Ai ort Rd
8708822458
2456 / 771
17.
Randolph Coup
18
33.46
5682 Macedonia Loop Rd
8718812478
24551632
18.
Randolph County
19,20
1.38
1.91
5515 Troy Smith Rd
0 Troy Smith Rd
8718900964
8718910164
2452 / 1260
19.
LRandolph County
21
5.72
5353 Troy Smith Rd
8717895590
2451 / 323
Total Acreage:
424,96
Page I of 1
GREENSBORO 1250097.1
Schedule 2
List of NCRR Properties
Current
Attached
Property Owner
Map Lot
Acres
Property Address
PIN
$k / Pg
Reference
L
Greensboro -Randolph
62
16.00
5303 Browns Meadow Rd
8717084I58
2472 / 379
Me asite Foundation, Inc.
former Wicker Property)
2,
Blakley Family, LLC
22
197.38
0 Browns Meadow Rd
8718326247
2149 / 591
3.
Blakley Family Trust &
23
8.03
5892 Browns Meadow Rd
8718237518
2264 / 824
Blakley survivor's Trust
4.
Blakley Family Trust &
24
4.87
5915 Browns Meadow Rd
8718232522
2264 / 816
Blakley Survivor's Trust
5.
Dexter & Sandra Blakley
25
24.67
0 Browns Meadow Rd
8718203615
2156 / 806
Survivor's Trust
6.
Blakley Family Trust &
26
47.90
0 Browns Meadow Rd
8717491558
2264 / 812
Blakley survivor's Trust
7,
Blakley Family Trust &
27
43.50
0 Browns Meadow Rd
8717498573
2264 / 820
Blakley Survivor's Trust
S.
Dexter & Sandra Blakley
28
1,70
5252 Three Lakes Dr
8717283760
2156 / 810
Survivor's Trust
9.
Blakley Family Trust &
29
36.74
0 Hoots Hollow Rd
8717475282
2264 / 832
Blakley survivor's Trust
10.
Dexter & Sandra Blakley
30
2.10
5248 Browns Meadow Rd
8717173435
2001 / 2823
Survivor's Trust
11.
Blakley Family Trust &
31
51.70
0 Hoots Hollow Rd
8717364737
2264 / 828
Blakley survivor's Trust
12.
Dodson Lake Inc
32
107.27
5990 Starmount Rd
8717257655
1442 / 1101
13.
Salamander Holdings LLC
33
11.78
0 Browns Meadow Rd
8717290473
1817 / 3168
14,
Three Lakes Club Inc.
34
77.00
5331 Three Lakes Dr
8717392106
1727 / 2144
15.
Michael Brown, Roger
38
92.90
5545 & 5569 Browns
8718006776
2323 / 674
Brown, Stephen Brown, &
Meadow Rd
Johnnie Greeson Brown
16.
Stephen Brown
39 1
8.00
5691 Browns Meadow Rd
8718019509
1239 / 260
17.
Michael P. DeMaria
40
97.79
5373 Browns Meadow Rd
8717097208
2000 / 1121
18.
Janet Norrell
98
20.10
5368 Browns Meadow Rd
8717280026
1136 / 536
19.
Janet Norrell
99
13.30 1
0 Browns Meadow Rd
8717164916
1070 / 611
Total Acrea e:
862.73
Page 1 of I
GREENSBORO 1250099.1
565
Schedule 3
Properties Owned k The Me asite Foundation
Current
Attached
Map Lot
Pro er Owner
Acres
Property Address
PIN
Bk / Pe
Reference
I.
Greensboro -Randolph
73
3.67
4653 Iron Horse Trail
8708836808
2463/920
Me asite Foundation, Inc.
2.
Greensboro -Randolph
69
1.10
4634 Iron Horse Trail
8708830438
2464 / 1060
Me asite Foundation, Inc.
3.
Greensboro -Randolph
35
4.18
0 Old 421 Road
8718540083
2436/836
Me asite Foundation, Inc.
4.
Greensboro -Randolph
53
1.35
4622 Iron Horse Trail
8708737571
2472 / 1001
Me asite Foundation, Inc.
5.
Greensboro -Randolph
59
1.02
5700 Julian Airport Rd
8708706808
1214 / 1968
Me asite Foundation, Inc.
6.
Greensboro -Randolph
64
2.41
5469 Troy Smith Rd
8718807740
2474 11657
Me asite Foundation, Inc.
7.
Greensboro -Randolph
65
3.30
0 Troy Smith Rd
8718809167
1921 / 224
Mep,asite Foundation, Inc.
8.
Greensboro -Randolph
76
22.27
5744 Julian airport Rd
8708812608
2474 / 1761
Megasite Foundation, Inc.
9.
Greensboro -Randolph
92
2.11
5487 Troy Smith Rd
8718809618
2480 / 1144
Me asite Foundation, Inc.
10.
Greensboro -Randolph
36
1.2
7060-7080 Old 421 Road
8718446157
7690 / 1891
Megasite Foundation, Inc.
(Guilford
County)
fiotal Acreage
42.61
*Guilford County
Page I of I
GREENSBORO 1250104.1
Schedule 4
List of Properties To Be Acquired By The McRasite Foundation
Current
Property Owner
Attached
Man Lot
Reference
Acres
Property Address
PIN
Bk / P2
1.
Phillip W. Neal and Martha
L. Neal
37
5.33
4635 Crutchfield Farm Rd
8708808779
1245 / 1169
2.
Terence N. Hildebrand and
Debra M. Hildebrand
55
10.66
4593 Crutchfield Farm Rd
8708800779
8708805737
2021 / 2460
1448 / 1057
3.
Alan B. Currin and Amber
C. Currin
58
5.50
4655 Crutchfield Farm Rd
8708901767
1813 / 3902
4.
Able Swordplay, LLC
63
6.19
5593 Troy Smith Rd
8718911708
2371 / 166
5.
Ellen O'Briant Burwell and
James H. Burwell
67
33.39
5680 Macedonia Loop Rd;
0 Macedonia Loop Rd;
0 Macedonia Loop Rd
8718821157
8718712763
8718820192
2349 / 489
2349 / 494
2407/23
6.
1 Gertrude J. Caviness
68
1.00
6054 Julian Airport Rd
8708738300
1037 /209
7.
Donna Smith Johnson
70
.53
4621 Iron Horse Trail
8708738605
1915 / 146
8.
Ale'andra Salinas Garcia
72
.45
0 Julian Ai ort Rd
8708739791
2405 / 849
9.
Jose Socorro Garcia
74
.50
4639 Iron Horse Trail
8708830791
2245 /1192
10.1
Allen L. Perkins
75
1 3.40
5950 Julian Airport Rd
8708727822
2474 /1510
11.
Nancy A. Pierce
77
1.00
5746 Julian Ai!port Rd
8708718522
1218 / 38
12.
Bobb Pierce
78
1.43
5722 Julian Airport Rd
8708716649
1568 / 550
13.
Buddy J. Mabe and Pamela
J. Mabe
71
.45
6142 Julian Airport Rd
8708738745
1975 / 557
Total Acreage:
69.83
Page 1 of I
GREENSBORO 1250108.1
567
SCHEDULE 5
PINS: 8718029180, 8708937765, 8708929917
Prepared by: Ellis & Winters LLP (MGW)
Return to: Grantee c/o Charles E. Burnell, Jr., Vice -President Real Estate,
North Carolina Railroad Company, 2809 Highwoods Boulevard, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27604
The hereinafter -described property does not include the primary residence of the GRANTOR.
NORTH CAROLINA
RANDOLPH COUNTY
THIS DEED OF EXCLUSIVE, PERMANENT and PERPETUAL EASEMENT (this
"Easement") made this day of , 2016, by the COUNTY OF
RANDOLPH, a North Carolina county and political subdivision of the State of North Carolina,
with a primary address of Randolph County Office Building, Second Floor, 725 McDowell
Road, Asheboro, North Carolina 27205 (hereinafter "COUNTY" or "GRANTOR") in favor of
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY, a North Carolina corporation with a primary
address of 2809 Highwoods Blvd., Suite 100, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604, and its successors
and assigns (hereinafter "NCRR" or "GRANTEE").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and NCRR have entered into agreements related to the
development of an industrial site commonly known as the Greensboro -Randolph Megasite
(hereinafter referred to as "Megasite Project") and necessary collateral railroad track and other
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY is the owner of certain tracts of land located in Randolph
County, North Carolina, as more particularly described on Exhibit A hereto (the "County
Property"), which are intended to make up a portion of the Megasite Project; and
WHEREAS, NCRR is the owner of certain tracts of land located in Randolph County,
North Carolina, as more particularly described on Exhibit B hereto (the "NCRR Property"),
which are intended to make up a portion of the Megasite Project and which, collectively, are
adjacent to the County Property; and
WHEREAS, County desires for a portion of the County Property to be used for the
location of a railroad track extension from the existing railroad line adjacent to the County
Property to the NCRR Property (the "Railroad Extension"); and
WHEREAS, NCRR has requested a permanent, perpetual and exclusive easement with
respect to that portion of the County Property to be used for construction and operation of the
Railroad Extension; and
WHEREAS, the Randolph County Board of Commissioners authorized and approved the
granting of this a permanent, perpetual and exclusive easement for the purpose herein set forth
per Resolution 2016-
adopted by the County of Randolph on
_, 2016, which resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit C; and
WHEREAS, said permanent, perpetual and exclusive easement shall burden the County
Property and benefit the NCRR Property irrespective of whether Megasite Project comes to
fruition.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and the sum of ONE
DOLLAR ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, GRANTOR, subject only to any reservations and conditions herein set forth has
bargained and sold, and by these presents " does bargain, sell, grant and convey unto the
GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, a permanent, perpetual, and exclusive right of way
easement, two hundred feet (200') in width, in the approximate location shown on Exhibit D to
this Easement (such 200' wide strip hereinafter referred to as the "Easement Area"). It is
understood and agreed that the general location of the Easement Area is shown on Exhibit D and
that the final and definitive location of the Easement Area shall become established by and upon
the final installation and erection of the Railroad Extension in substantial compliance with
Exhibit D. The centerline of the railroad track extension shall be the centerline of the Easement
Area. At such time as the final location is determined, Grantee shall cause a survey of the
Easement Area to be prepared, which survey will reflect the location of the Easement Area and
will be utilized to create a legal description of the Easement Area. The parties agree to execute
an amendment to this Easement, which amendment will contain the final and definitive
description of the Easement Area.
GRANTEE may use the Easement Area for railroad purposes, including but not limited
to all purposes allowed under the NCRR Charter, and for any other lawfal purpose, including but
not limited to those authorized by N.C. Gen. Stat. §124-12 and §124-13.
To have and to hold said right of way and easement rights unto GRANTEE, its affiliates,
successors, and assigns, continuously and subject to the reservations set forth herein.
And GRANTOR covenants with GRANTEE, that GRANTOR has the right, power and
authority to convey the easement described in this Easement, has done nothing to impair such
title as GRANTOR received, and GRANTOR will warrant and defend the title against the lawful
claims of all persons claiming by, under or through GRANTOR.
The parties agree that this Easement affects and burdens the County Property and is
appurtenant to and benefits the NCRR Property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has caused this instrument to be executed by the
duly authorized representative of GRANTOR, and with the attestation indicated, as of the day
and year first above written.
ATTEST:
IM
RANDOLPH COUNTY, a North Carolina county and
political subdivision
, Randolph County
Chairman to the Board of Commissioners
Clerk to the Board
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
RANDOLPH COUNTY
I, a Notary Public of the State and County
aforesaid, certify that acknowledged that she is Cleric to the Board of
Commissioners of Randolph County, and that by authority duly given and as the act of the
Board, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by , its
Chairman, sealed with its corporate seal, and attested by herself as its Clerk.
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of , 2016.
Notary Public
571
My commission expires:
572
EXHIBIT A
Identification of County Property
Megasite Lot 5 PIN 8718029180; 50.00 acres; DB 2436, p 856
Megasite Lot 11 PIN 8708937765; 7.95 acres; DB 2439, p 1205
Megasite Lot 13 PIN 8708929917; 77.09 acres; DB 2451, p 327
573
Megasite Lot 22
Megasite Lot 23
Megasite Lot 24
Megasite Lot 25
Megasite Lot 26
Megasite Lot 27
Megasite Lot 28
Megasite Lot 29
Megasite Lot 30
Megasite Lot 31
Megasite Lot 32
Megasite Lot 33
Megasite Lot 34
Megasite Lot 38
Megasite Lot 39
Megasite Lot 40
Megasite Lot 62
Megasite Lot 98
Megastie Lot 99
EXHIBIT B
Identification of NCRR Pro e
PIN 8718326247
PIN 8718237518
PIN 8718232522
PIN 7818203615
PIN 8717491558
PIN 8717498573
PIN 8717283760
PIN 8717475282
PIN 8717l73435
PIN 8717364737
PIN 8717257655
PIN 8717290473
PIN 8717392106
PIN 8718006776
PIN 8718019509
PIN 8717097208
PIN 8717084158
PIN 8717280026
PIN 8717164916
197.38 acres
8.03 acres
4.87 acres
24.67 acres
4790 acres
43.50 acres
1.70 acres
36.74 acres
2.10 acres
51.70 acres
107.27 acres
11.78 acres
77.00 acres
92.90 acres
8.00 acres
97.90 acres
16.00 acres
20.10 acres
13.30 acres
574
EXHIBIT C
County of Randolph Resolution
Location of Easement Area
ATTACHMENT B Section 1
V
MINUTES
RANDOLPH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
177% February 5, 2008
The Randolph County Planning Board met at 6:30 p.m., on Tuesday, February 5, 2008, in
the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Randolph County Office Building, 725 McDowell Road,
Asheboro, North Carolina.
I Chairman Lynden Craven called to order the Randolph County Planning Board
meeting at 6:30 p.m.
2. Hal Johnson, Planning Director called roll of the members: Lynden Craven, Chairman,
present; Jim Rains, Vice Chairman, present; Larry Brown, present; Phil Ridge, absent;
Chris McLeod, present; Reid Pell, present; Wayne Joyce, present; and Danny Shaw,
Alternate, present (substituting for regular member Ridge). County Attorney Alan
Pugh was present for this meeting.
3. Brown made the motion, seconded by Pell, to approve the Minutes of the January 8,
2008 Randolph County Planning Board meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
4. REQUESTS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
Swearing in of the Witnesses - "Do you swear or aff
irm that the information you are
about to give is the truth, the -whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God
One person took this oath,
A. DONALD ESTLER & MARLA HYATT, Franklinville, North Carolina, are
requesting a Special Use Permit for a Rural Family Occupation to obtain a
automotive dealer's license with a display of 6 cars (2 cars will be displayed at the
road and 4 cars kept at the residence as per site plan) at their residence located at
3678 Mack Lineberry Road, 35.98 acres, Rural Growth Area, Franklinville
Township, Zoning District RA, Tax ID #8710029674.
Estler was present and explained that he is retired and would like the license to be
able to operate a small business for supplemental income. Estler said that he
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes 1 February 5, 2008
won't have much drive -by sales and he plans to keep most of the vehicles back off
the road at his residence., Estler said that he doesn't plan any car repairs and there
will be no additional employees. Brown asked if Estler plans to have a sign.
Estler said that he doesn't plan to have a sign at the road.
There was no one present in opposition to this request.
Rains made the motion, seconded by McLeod, to approve this request for a
Special Use Permit. The motion passed unanimously.
5. REQUESTS FOR PROPERTY REZONING:
A. JEROME DAVIS, Archdale, North Carolina, is requesting that 20.5 acres out of
58,36 acres located on Elmer Beeson Road, New Market Township, be rezoned
from RA to RBO-CD. Rural Growth Area. Tax ID# 7737832650. The proposed.
Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow the operation of a sports
riding arena and facility as per site plan.
__1, Technical Review Committee Recommendation
The Technical Review Committee met and found that this proposal was in
compliance with the standards outlined in the Growth Management Plan
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on February 4, 2002. The
Technical Review Committee recommends to the Couno, Planning Board that
this request be approved.
The Technical Review Committee found the following Policies within the
Growth Management Plan that support determination of consistency with the
gdo
-plan with this recommendation are-
pled
Policyl.3 The continued growth of Randolph County's heritage tourism
industry will be encouraged.
Policy.10.4 The County, should recognize through land use decisions that
properly designed development can co -exist along conservation areas,
protecting our natural heritage and making Randolph County 's quality of life
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes 2 February 5, 2008
sustainable.
Johnson explained that this request was sent back to the Planning Board due to
the fact that there was no one present at the Commissioners' Meeting to represent
Davis. Johnson said there were some questions that came up during the
Commissioners' Meeting about possible expansion of the facility.
Davis was present and explained his operation and his intentions, Davis said that
they have one big event in August every year. Davis said they would like to try to
have more events throughout the year. Davis said they have updated their
concession stand and would like to be able to hold weekly events. Davis said the
new events would be kids rodeos, cattlemen association seminars, etc. Davis said
these events are smaller than the event that is held in August. Davis said the one
event they hold each August brings approximately 7,000 people to the area. Davis
said the first year they held the August event they did have some traffic problems
on Elmer Beeson Road. Davis said they have since made plans for overflow
traffic and the problem has not continued. Davis said he has employees up and
down the road to prevent cars from parking along the road. Davis explained that
he also has security employed for these events. Davis said no alcohol is allowed
on the premises. Davis said that he would agree to not allow parking along the
roadside as a condition of his rezoning.
Jack Swigart, 2912 Spencer Road, said that one of his big concerns is that Elmer
Beeson Road becomes quite crowded during these events. Swigart said that
Spencer Road will be cut-off by the new by-pass and their only access will be
from that end of Spencer Road. Swigart said he would like to see DOT improve
Elmer Beeson Road with a turn -lane to handle the added traffic. Swigart asked if
the County noise ordinance required that noise stop at 10:00 p.m. Pugh said that
noise ordinances were difficult to enforce out in rural areas. Swigart asked if
portable toilets would be allowed for these events. Swigart asked how many
events would be held each year. Davis answered that the weekly events would
probably be just a couple hundred people. Swigart said that he has lived at this
location for 28 years.
There were 3 peoPle-p—resent in opposition to this rearrest.
Johnson said that one of the issues is the concern for Elmer Beeson Road,
Johnson said the Board could ask DOT if they would consider upgrading the road.
McLeod said that he went to one of these events and the security was mainly off -
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes 3 February 5, 2008
duty Sheriff employees and they did a good job moving cars of the road. McLeod
said he didn't feel the Davis' should be required to improve the road, Rains said
that DOT would not require a turn -lane with this being an existing facility.
Rains asked inhere were any time limits (for the events) in the application,
Johnson answered no.
McLeod made the motion, seconded by Brown, to recommend to the
Comrnissioners that this request be approved, The motion passed unanimously,
B. BARRY MANESS, Asheboro, North Carolina, is requesting 30.00 acres out of
42.76 acres located on Joe Farlow Road., Richland Township, be rezoned from
HI-CD/RA to Hl-CD. Primary Growth Area. Tax 1D# 7666057269. The
proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow the operation of a
motorcycle course and training facility as per site plan,
Technical Review committee Recommendation
The Technical Review Committee met and found that this proposal was in
compliance with the standards outlined in the Growth Management Plan
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on February 4, 2002. The
Technical Review Committee recommends to the County Planning Board that
this request be approved as the request is a less intense use as the current
approved plan for a trucking terminal,
The Technical Review Committee found the following Policies within the
Growth Management Plan that support determination of consistenev with the
adopted Plan with this recommendation are:
Policy 3.2 Industrial development should be on land that is physically suitable
and has unique locational advantages for industry. Advanced planning for the
identification of such land should be encouraged.
Policy3.3 Heavy industrial sites should be separated from nonindustrial areas
by natural features, green belts and/or other suitable means.
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes 4 February 5, 2008
Policy 3.4 Light industrial sites should be located in urbanized areas to take
advantage of available services and to reduce home -to -work distances. Careful
design andlor buffering shall be required to insure compatibility with
surrounding areas.
Maness was present for this meeting. Maness presented a booklet to the Board
concerning his request. Maness said his children race trail bikes and the closest
track that his children can practice on is a I 1/2hour drive each way. Maness said
he . felt this site would be a good location for training. Maness said that the
operation would be open from 10 am to 10 pm each day and from 12 pin to 10 pm
on Sundays. Maness said that there may be as many as 12 students training with
them. Maness said the track will be dirt and showed the Board pictures of the a
track in Raeford, North Carolina that they currently use. Maness presented
pictures of riders and explained that the track will be used by members only.
Maness said that 90% of the riders are under 15 years of age. Maness explained
that the maximum number of riders could be 50-75 riders but normally 20-30
riders. Maness said there will be approximately a dozen part-time employees.
Maness said that these kids ride (race) all over the country. Maness said that they
are proposing lights for the track and are working with DOT with the lighting plan
due to the close proximity of the interstate. Maness said that the lighting would
be similar to football fields at the high school and the lighting would be projected
on the track and away from the neighboring residences.
David Peryear, Attorney representing Maness, reminded the Board that the
property is currently approved from a trucking terminal. Peryear said that this
proposed use is for families and tourist and the Maness' will be living on the
property. Peryear said that the request does meet several of the Policies within the
Growth Management Plan. Peryear said that this request would draw people from
across the state to use this facility. Peryear said that this would be a benefit to the
County's economy. Peryear said that this would be a tourist attraction and would
be good for the County. Peryear listed the following Growth Management
Policies he felt this request met:
Policy 1.1 The County will encourage new and expanding industries and
businesses which: (1) diversify the local economy, (2) utilize more highly skilled
labor force and (3) increase area residents' incomes.
Policy 1.3 The continued growth of Randolph County's heritage tourism industry
will be encouraged.
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes 5
February 5, 2008
rvlicvl.6 Planning and development decisions should be based on the principal
ofpromoting investment in Randolph County to expand employment opportunities
while preserving and improving the quality of life for all county residents.
Policy3.2 Industrial development should be on land that is physically suitable
and has unique locational advantages for industry. Advanced planning for the
identification of such land should be encouraged
Policy 3.6 New industrial development should be encouraged to locate in
existing and planned industrial parks.
Policy 4.2 Highway oriented commercial uses should be clustered along
segments of arterial streets and contain land uses that are mutually compatible
and reinforcing in use and design. They should be designed in away that
minimizes signage, access points and excessive lengths of commercial strip
development.
Policy 4.4 Commercial uses should be encouraged to develop by consolidation
and deepening of existing commercially zoned property, only when such
consolidation and deepening can be developed in a way that lessens the effect of
incompatibility with adjoining residential land uses.
Policy6.5 The protection of viable rural neighborhoods should be encouraged
by compatible residential development to insure the continued existence as a
major housing source and as a reflection of the long term quality of life in
Randolph County,
Policy 7.4 Protection of public water supply watersheds and the water quality
critical areas shall be considered in rezoning and development proposals.
Industrial and heavy commercial development shall not be promoted within the
water critical areas of Randolph County.
Policy 8 .4 The County should approach land use and economic development
decisions, not as isolated individual issues, but as part of larger interconnecting
framework of building sustainable growth within Randolph County.
Pugh asked if any considerations have been made to reduce noise such as berms,
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes 6 February 5, 2008
vegetative buffers, hours of operation, etc. Peryear said that Maness has spoken
with people in. the area and asked Maness to answer this question. Maness said
that there are steps to keep noise down. Maness said that he does plan for some
berms and vegetation. Maness said there is a 12 ft. rise from the parking lot to the
adjoining property. Maness said they do plan to build a berm that should protect
Bobby Moran Drive residents.
Rains questioned the grade changes on the track and Maness said there would be
grade changes as much as 15 to 20 ft in height. Rains asked about the trailer
parking and if they would be staying there over -night. Maness said that the
trailers would be stay overnight and are usually self contained. Pell asked if there
would be several campers and Maness said it would normally be only I or 2
trailers that stayed over night. Maness added the condition of daily hours of
operation" from 10 am to 10 pm and Sundays from 12 pm to 10 pm.
Tim Richardson, 390 Burney Road, told the Board that he owns the property
north of the proposed site. Richardson said that a comer of his property is zoned
for an asphalt plant. Richardson said it is his intention to build his residence on
his property. Richardson said that if the Maness' were doing this for their
personal use (his family and a few friends) this would be okay. Richardson said
that the number Maness is proposing is going to be a noise problem. Richardson
said that this would be like listening to lawnmowers running all day long 7 days a
week. Richardson said that the only access to this property and to his property is a
private road. Richardson said that this could cause traffic problems along this
small private road. Richardson said that he felt this growth would be at the
neighbors expense. Richardson said that the lighting will be a nuisance to the
neighbors. Richardson said that these bikers are going to cause a noise problem
for him and the neighbors. Richardson said that he has had the opportunity to sell
his property for another asphalt plant but he didn't want to burden his neighbors.
Pugh explained that this Board must have rational land use policies to consider
when making land development decisions. Pugh said that this area is considered a
Primary Growth Area. Pugh said that this type of growth area is required to take
those policies into consideration.
There were 2 people present in opposition to this request.
Rains said there are a lot of opportunities on the property to use existing
vegetative buffers to assist with noise abatement. Rains said that berms would
require a significant amount of grading work. McLeod said that he felt the
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes 7 February 5, 2008
1\
proposed berm and maintaining the existing vegetation along the driveway on the
east side would help with noise control. Pugh asked Maness if he would consider
a condition on his RA zoned area to maintain the existing tree growth. Maness
agreed to maintain all the vegetation existing east of the old drag strip. Maness
also agreed to a 30 ft, existing no -cut buffer along the northern property line.
Pell made the motion, seconded by Joyce, to recommend to the Commissioners
that this request be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
6. Election of Officers.
Brown said that he felt the current Chain-nan and Vice Chairman are doing a good job
and should continue if they would agree to do so.
McLeod agreed that the current officers have done a good job, but felt that Rains should
be given the opportunity to serve as Chairman this year and Craven should serve as Vice
Chairman.
Pell agreed with McLeod and made the motion to nominate Rains for Chairman and
Craven for Vice Chairman. Both Rains and Craven accepted their nomination.
McLeod seconded this motion and the motion passed unanimously.
7. Johnson told the Board that the Commissioners have moved their March meeting to
March 10'. Johnson asked the Board if they would like to move their meeting to March
11 '. It was the consensus of the Board to move their March meeting to the 11 th.
S. The meeting adjourned at 7:54 p.m. There were 25 people present for this meeting.
Planning Director
cl- //- 02'y-n
Date
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes
I MA a QQ N 9 40
Cler Se retary
CD
8 Febr
ATTACHMENT B / Section 2
• The site plan attached to this request shall be followed as part cif the Conditional zoning approval
• No parking shall be allowed along Flmer Beeson Road, 77?e applicant shall be resi.wnsible,lbr
providing security stuff
,f to insure that over;floiv parking is directed in a saft, and orderly manner,
• Adequate bathroom facilities, as approved by the Health Deparlinew, shall he maintained for
till events
and with thefillowing additional conditions.
]event per week with no snore than a total oj'24 in a year (all events to end by I I P. In)
The 24 events may consist of the following: 20 small weekly events (attended by 999 or hewer
participants), 4 large events lasting ul) to 3 days (attended by 1, 000 or more participants)
2, BARRM Y ANLMII. Asheboro, North Carolina, is requesting 30.00 acres out of 42,76 acres located on Joe
Fatl�owRoad,, Richland Towiiship, be rezoned from III-CD/RA to HI -CD. Primary Growth. Area, Tax II)#
7666057269. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow the operation of a motorcycle
cotirse and training facility as per site plan, The Planning '.Board reviewed this request at public meeting on
February 5, 2008, and unanimously recommended that this request be apt ved with the, following conditions:
0 The site plan as submitted shall be part of this Conditional zoning request.
The applicant shall maintain all existing vegetation cast of tine old drag strip and rellected on the site
plan,
There shall be a 30 ft, buff6, consisting of existing vegetation along the northern property line.
of consistene-Aith the "dotqO lanwrftthis rmendation:
- --p _ _ LX�Ok—
Policy 3.2 Industrial development should be on land that is physically suitable and has unique locational
advantages for industry, Advanced planning for the identification of such land should be encouraged.
Policy 3.3 Ileavy industrial sites should be separated from. nonindustrial areas by natural features, green belts
and/or other suitable means.
Policy 3A bight industrial sites should be located in urbanized areas to take advantage of available services and to
reduce home -to -work distances. Careful design and/or buffering shall be required to insure
compatibility with surrounding areas,
Barry Maness, applicant, spoke in support of his request. Flo said that he had ,just received wi
approval letter from WDOT for his lighting plane: lie also presented a packet of information to the Board
with a site plan, a lighting plain, pictures of racing events, information about the type of fencing lie plans
to use and a picture of the house lie plans to build for himself on tire property,
David Peryear, attorney representing Mr. Maness, said that the applicant does not own the property
yet; it's tinder contract pending approval of this request, He said that the property is currently zoned heavy
industrial due to the asphalt plant that was previously there and the current trucking company and the
proposed use would be no worse than what's already permitted; the neighbors can't expect a quiet,
genteel neighborhood. here. lie said the proposed use is consistent with the Current zoning, Also, the
training facility will promote tourism for the County as there areWt very many of these training facilities
around; it should bring people from all over, possibly even from overseas. Since the people who will
come to use the facility are motorsports enthusiasts, they will probably visit the motorsports attractions in
the area as well. He reemphasized that the request is entirely consistent with the Growth Management
Plan as was indicated by the Planning Board's recommendation.. Also, since Mr. Maness plans, to build his
own home there, this should be sonic assurance to the neighbors that the facility will not be a nuisance to
the neighborhood,
%
Scott Cole, 312 Copple's Rd., Asheboro, said that he is opposed to this request because his family
will be adversely affected by this facility. He's also concerned that the site plan does not show rest room
facilities; where will these people use the bathroom? Since many of the visitors to the facility will
probably be in motor homes, where will they dispose of their sewage.? Mr. Cole explained that the asphalt
plant that was previously here was just a temporary one for the construction of 173-74.
Mary Brewer, adjoining property owner, said that she has been a resident here for 30 years. It's a
quiet neighborhood, and she would like to keep it that way. She said that Mr. Maness came to her house
and said he would build a house there and didn't mention anything about a race track. She's also
concerned that this facility will attract the wrong type of people. Other concerns involved the hours of
operation. She asked Board members to consider the request as if it was in their moni neighborhood,
Alan Copple, 6356 US Hwy. 220 S., Asheboro, said that he lives 1/8-mile as the crow flies from the
track and has lived there his whole life. He enjoys lying in his hammock by the pond and watching his
grandkids play in the quiet neighborhood. He said that when the asphalt plant was operating, he couldn't
hear it and can't hear the trucking company now. The noise from 1-73 is not bad, but the noise from a
racing facility would be very loud and continuous and impossible to get used to.
Elizabeth Carnwale, 146 Scott Farm Rd,, Asheboro, said that she goes to bed early and doesn't want
to listen to the noise seven days a week; there should be a time. limit on its operation because it's
continuous noise. Her son rides bikes, but she tries to keep her son from bothering folks,
Kay Copple, 6356 US Hwy. 220 S., said she came to a meeting several years ago opposing a
proposed drag strip but the property wasn't zoned heavy industrial then. The bypass noise isn't annoying
like the constant noise from a bike track would be. She said that after the meeting several years ago, they
were threatening that worse things would come; the asphalt plant Came, but it was temporary. She said
that the proposed track is awfully close to neighbors. She also has concerns about the hours of operation
and the tact that it could later be a spectator facility in addition to a training facility.
Sue Snipes, 354 Scott Farm Rd., said that they love the peace and quiet from her husband's family
farm and frequently watch deer mid beavers in the neighborhood. However, the constant noise of
motorcycles will end this tranquility. She added that the bypass noise isn't bad at all. She also has
concerns about the dust that a dirt track will create. A training facility might be good for the kids, but this
isn't the right place to have it,
Mark Bouldin, 225 Bobby Moran Dr., said that he works swing shifts and sleeps during the day; the
noise from the bikes will keep him awake. If this is approved he'll be forced to move, which is a shame
since lie's lived there since 1985.
April Locke, 132 Scott Farm Rd., said that they have horse pastures and the noise will rile her horses.
She said this is farmland and they don't want this much noise seven days a week and at night.
Tim Richardson, 390 Burney Rd,, Asheboro, said that he lives north of the proposed track and a
comer of his property is zoned for an asphalt plant. He said that them are other neighbors who oppose the
request, but they couldn't attend this meeting. He's concerned labout the days and hours of operation. He
rides four -wheelers but tries to respect other people when he rides. This proposed facility will be very
loud and lie said there needs to be a limit on the, hours of operation. Also the, dust and lights will be a
problem. 0
Paul Bauer, 425 Scott Farm Rd., said that fie's lived here for 17 years and his mother-in-law was
raised here. He would like clarification on the hours of operation. He has noise concerns as well,
The Board discussed with the applicant plans for hours of operation and bathroom facility needs. Mr.
Maness said that the Health Department said that PortaJohns would be sufficient He said that he
understands that he has to keep the dust under control because of 1-73 being in close proximity of the
track.
Commissioner Kemp made a motion to approve the request of Barry Maness with the recommended
conditions of the Planning Board and with the added condition: hours of operation will. be 10 am, to 10
p= m. Monday through Saturday and 12: 00 ('Amon) to 10 p. in. on Sunday. Commissioner Frye seconded the
motion far the sake of discussion. Due to confusion during the vote, Chairman Holmes asked the Board to
revote via individual poll of each Commissioner: Kemp Aye, Haywood -Aye, Lanier -Aye, bye -No,
Holmes Aye; therefore, the request was approved by a vote of 44, with Fiye opposing, to approve the
request of Barry Maness, as determined consistent with the adopted policies oj*the Growth Management
Plan and with the recommendations of the Planning Board and the added condition concerning hours of
operation,
Adjournment
At 9:20 p.m,, there being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
J. Harold Holmes, Chairman Darrell L. Frye
•
Phil Kemp Stan Haywood
Arnold Lanier Cheryl A. Ivey, Clerk to the Board
9
ATTACHMENT B/ Section 3
Minutes
February 16,2016
The Randolph County Planning Board met at 6:30 p.m., on Tuesday, February 16, 2016,
in the 2' Floor Meeting Room, Randolph County Historic Courthouse, 145 Worth Street,
Asheboro, North Carolina.
I Chairman Reid Pell called to order the Randolph County Planning Board meeting at
6:30 p.m.
2. Jay Dale, Planning Director, called roll of the members: Reid Pell, Chairman, present;
Wayne Joyce, Vice Chairman, present; Chris McLeod, present; Phu Ridge, absent; Jim
Rains, present; Kemp Davis, absent; Larry Brown, present, and Ralph Modlin,
Alternate, present (substituting for Phil Ridge). County Attorney Ben Morgan was also
present.
3. REQUEST FOR PROPERTY REZONING:
A. CLIMAX SOLAR PROJECT, LLC., Carrboro, North Carolina, is requesting
that 48.07 acres located on NC Hwy 22 North (approximately 500 ft. north of Old
Red Cross Road), Providence Township, be rezoned from RA to RIO-CD. Tax
ID# 7797590264. Secondary/Rural Growth Area. Sandy Creek Watershed. The
proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow the development
of a 5 mega -watt PV solar farm as per site plan. Property Owner - David R.
Hinshaw.
Technical Review Committee Recommendation.
The Technical Review Committee met and found that this proposal was in
compliance with the standards outlined in the 2009 Growth Management Plan
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. The Technical Review
Committee recommends to the County Planning Board that this request be
ap-r-O
Examples of Growth Management Policies that the Technical Review
Committee hound sypporting this recommendation are:
Policy 2.11 The County should continue to encourage& promote "clean"
industry within Randolph County.
Policy3.6 The County should encourage the use of performance -based rural
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes 1 February 16,2016
industrial overlay zoning when the use of large acreage, natural buffers, and
extensive landscaping would not have substantial adverse impact upon the
general area growth characteristics, and the location of such a site would
substantially increase economic activity, job creation, and the tax base of
Randolph County.
April Montgomery, 151 Chatham Street, Sanford, North Carolina, represented
Solar and reviewed the setbacks, and explained that the property will be fenced.
Rains asked if they would be disturbing the wetlands on -site. She said they will
be working with Army Corp of Engineers concerning the wetlands located on the
property. Brown asked how much power the site would produce, and
Montgomery answered the facility would be a 5 mega -watt site.
Kim Gunter, 8267 NC Hwy 22 North, Climax, told the Board that she lives
directly across the street from this site. She asked how far the facility would be
setback from the highway, and she was answered it that it would at least 100 ft.
from the street. Gunter said that she was concerned of how this would look and
asked if there would be any type of buffer. She said these things are not very
attractive and asked the Board to deny the request.
Montgomery said that the application and site plan were prepared in accordance
with the County Zoning requirements. She said they were would be landscaping
within the setback area, and the foliage would be fence height. She said that the
property owner plans to clear-cut the property in the near future. When asked, she
could not answer how much road frontage the property had. She said that the
panels would face due south and they would be installed in rows with some
seperation between each row. Dale asked what type of buffering would be be
proposed. He discussed a level 3 buffer and she was agreeable to that buffer.
Dale advised that if the Board chose to recommend that this request be approved
the Planning Staff could work with the applicant to determine appropriate buffers
for the Commissioners to consider at their hearing.
Kevin Gunter said that his concern is if the solar panels are damaged there could
be some damage to the environment. He questioned if silicon or other types of
chemicals could possibly leak into the environment if the panels were damaged.
He said this things cause a lot of dead birds and bow the contamination could
effect the water table and local wildlife. He said is research has also said that
these solar farms create heat in the area they are located and how would this effect
the temperature in the air. He said he thought one had been denied and Dale said
he could not recall any that had been denied. He said he may have gotten some
bad information.
Montgomery said that they don't use hazardous material that would run out of
their panels. She said all materials are baked into the panels and are not in liquid
form. She said they have some inverters that use oil, but no more than any other
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes 2 February 16, 2016
normal residential usage. Montgomery said that the issue of birds are normally at
those solar farms built out west. They are much larger farms and appear to be a
pond to birds from high altitudes. She said they have not had any of these
problems on solar farms installed in the Southeast.
McLeod said he thought there should be buffers at the entrance of the property.
Dale said we could work on the buffers with the applicants prior to the
Commissioners meeting.
Joyce made the motion, seconded by McLeod, to recommend approval to the
Board of Commissioners with the condition of buffers, to be worked out with the
Planning Staff, along Hwy 22 North. The motion passed unanimously.
B. JULIAN BUTLER, Greensboro, North Carolina, is requesting that 5.00 acres
(out of 24.18 acres) located at 3079 Pike Farm Road, Liberty Township, be
rezoned from RA to RBO-CD. Primary Growth Area. Rock River Watershed.
Tax [D#873567280. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would
specifically allow an event center in a proposed 69 ft. x 49 ft, structure as per site
plan.
Technical Review Committee Recommendation:
The Technical Review Committee met and found that this proposal was in
compliance with the standards outlined in the 2009 Growth Management Plan
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. The Technical Review
Committee recommends to the County Planning Board that this request be
anrvved.
Examples of Growth Management Policies that the Technical Review
Committee found supporting this recommendation are:
Policy 4.1 Provide for sites in Randolph County jurisdiction where rural
commercial activity can locate; with the goal of increasing economic activity;
job creation, and the provision of services to the rural community.
Policy 7.1 Development activities in the 100year floodplain shall be
discouraged. If development must occur, low -intensity uses such as open space,
recreation, and agricultural activities shall be preferred,
Resolution Adopting the 2009 Randolph County Management Plan, Resolution
#3. Ensure the opportunity for landowners to achieve the highest and best uses
of their land that are consistent with growth management policies in order to
protect the economic viability of the County's citizens and tax base.
Julian Butler was present and explained that the property is a tobacco farm that
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes 3 February 16, 2016
he grew up. He is asking the Board to allow him to use this as a multi -purpose
building for things such as weddings. He said it would be primarily used for a
wedding venue on the weekends. He said there would be no outdoor concerts.
I
There was no one vresent in oiDDosition to this EM—uest.
McLeod made the motion, seconded by Joyce, to recommend to the
Commissioners that this request be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
C. BKM RANDOLPH, LLC., Asheboro, North Carolina, is requesting to amend
the Conditional Zoning District located at 279 Joe Marlow Road, on 25.02 acres,
Richland Township, Primary Growth Area, Zoning District HI -CD. Tax ID#
7666058421. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow
the property to be used as a motor sports facility and outdoor physical fitness
events as per site plan.
Technical Review Committee Recommendation:
The Technical Review Committee met and found that this proposal was in
compliance with the standards outlined in the 2009 Growth Management Plan
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. The Technical Review
Committee recommends to the County Planning Board that this request be
up—ro
ExaMples o f Growth Management Policies that the Technical Review
Committee found supporting this recommendation are:
Policy.1.3 The benefits of economic development should be balanced against
the possible detrimental effest such development may have on the quality of life
enjoyed by area residents.
Policyl.4 The continued growth of Randolph County's tourism industry will
be encouraged.
Dale reviewed the request and explained the type of events such as racing track
and trails for ATVs, motorcycles, UTVs, go-carts, etc.; tractor pulls, truck pulls,
and demolition derbies; foot races and other physical events; bmx bicycle races;
and special events (such as haunted trails, July 4' fireworks, Christmas and
Thanksgiving events).
David Puryear, Attorney, 5 5 0 1 -Unit E Adams Farm Lane, Greensboro,
represented Barry Maness. He said that this matter was before this Board in
February 2008 and this Board recommended approval for this property that would
specifically allow a motorcycle course and training facility as per site plan. He
said that the primary issue of concern at that time was noise. He said concerned
J
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes 4 February 16, 2016
neighbors spoke at that time to the Commissioners and the Commissioners
approved Maness' request despite those objections. He said this property is
currently in a primary growth area and a HI zoning district. He described this
facility as an important nexus to bring in tourists to the County. He said if the
issue is noise, all the new uses being requested are less intensive or no more
intensive than what is all ready permitted under the current zoning. He said
Maness is now asking to be allowed for things such as tractor pulls, demolition
derby events, physical fitness events, etc. He said that the fact is these type events
would not create any additional noise. He said they are asking for events that
could bring in income to allow the property to support itself financially. He said
if this request is not approved Zoo City will probably have to close.
Modlin asked if they would be increasing the size of facility or just the uses.
Puryear answered that they aren't increasing that size of the property but they are
asking for additional buildings on the property. He said these new buildings
would be to add permanent toilets and use in operation with the other uses.
said there may be events with temporary food vendors. This is ment to be an off-,,,
road type vehicle facility, not car racing or oval track racing.
Barry Maness, Zoo City Sports Park, said he would answer any questions the
Board may have. Rains asked if there are any existing buildings. Dale said there
is a mobile office unit, but any other existing buildings would be replaced.
Maness said that 5 years ago a man asked him to sponsor a Rugged Maniac Race.
Maness said that the event has grown to 15,000 people that participate/attend and
it is the largest Rugged Maniac in the US. Dale said that Maness has been
approached by the Army to have a physical fitness competition (no firearms are
used). Maness said that the UTVs are becoming popular and bicycle events also.
Maness said they've also hosted a yearly truck and tractor pull for the last 5 years.
He said all the proceeds from that event is donated Fayetteville Street Christian
School.
There were 13 citizens present in favor of this request.
There were 45 citizens present in opposition to this request.
Ruben Blakely, P.O. Box 543, Randleman, North Carolina, said that his son is 8
years old and he has raced at Zoo City for 2 years, He said at first they went to
watch and they've been racing ever since. He described the facility as family -
friendly and all the participants are very supportive of each other. He said the
Maness' make you feel apart of the motorcross family. He said they have raced at
other tracks, but none display the sportsmanship that you find at this track. lie
said this activity has helped him to teach his son many life lessons including that
if you help others and treat them with respect, you'll get help and respect back.
He said he would really hate if there was no Zoo City for families to enjoy.
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes 5 February 16, 2016
Brent Troffer, 753 Moore Road, Asheboro, said that he works at the Cycle
Center, and the big issue in their business is answering where people can go to
ride off -road vehicles. He said Zoo City has provided a place that is safe with a
friendly environment. He said his family has enjoyed the Saturday night events.
He said many of their friends drive more than 2 hours to come to this facility. He
said there is a need for this type of event and now the County is trying to close
them. Trotter said if the kids are riding at Zoo City we know where they are and
what they are doing.
Tammy O'Kelley, Director of Randolph Tourism Development Authority, 145
Worth Street, Asheboro, said that she was asked by the TDA Board to represent
them in support for Zoo City. She said Zoo City is one of their best tourism
partners. She said the TDA has provided some matching funds for the Rugged
Maniac Events. She said that during that event all the hotel rooms in Randolph
County were sold out. She said Zoo City is ranked 8' in the County's Tourist
Venues. She said the tourist industry brings 1.28 million dollars in local revenues
and 1056 jobs to Randolph County. She said for the County to lose one of its top -
ten tourist attractions would be a big deal.
Jacob Trotter said that he is 12 years old and he loves to go to zoo city and ride
with his friends. He said everyone there is great. He said if you close this track,
we will not be able to race as much because of how far the other tracks are
located.
Lisa Pulliman, 121 Bollings Lane, (next to Joe Farlow Drive), said that she
hardly ever hears anything from this track. She said she didn't think tractor pulls
would create any more noise than the motorcycles. She said 90% of her time is
spent outside from Spring until December, and she hardly hears anything from
this tract, no noise, fighting, etc.
The Board took a 5 minute break.
Mark Myers, Pastor of Grace Temple Church, said that they have been there for
38 years and they don't have a problem with the current activities. He said that he
did feel the tractor pulls and demolition derbies would be a lot louder though. He
asked if they plan to expand their parking. Myers said during the Rugged Maniac
Events they've used the church parking lot. He said he was concerned with
operating hours and how far these new events could go. He said they are
concerned with the possible disruption these new events could have on the
Church's worship activities.
Michael Poindexter, Pastor of Lighthouse Baptist Church, said he didn't think
the purpose of the meeting was to shut down the track. He said they have offered
their church parking lot for the Rugged Maniac Events. He said they are not
opposed to Zoo City and it's current events. He said but if you upgrade to the size
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes 6 February 16, 2016
motors of mudbog vehicles and tractors used for tractor pulls, they would be loud
enough to disrupt the Church. He said they can hear the bikes for their parking lot
now and he was sure that they would be able to hear the tractor pulls and mudbog
events inside their sanctuary. He said they are very concerned how these changes
would effect the Church on Sundays.
Scott Etheridge, 176 East Salisbury Street, Asheboro, said that he has his bike
worked on by Dave and Brent at Cycle Center and he is concerned that after this
meeting they may not be his friends. He said that he concurs with the pastors. He
said he would not be here on his 15'hwedding anniversary if everything was
copacetic. He said he solutes anyone that works hard to make a living, but his
issue is they have invested their lives, family and homes here. He said now on
some evenings their quality of life is being challenged. He said no one is trying to
shut them down, but there is a big difference in a motorcycle engine and a track
engine. He said it was originally zoned for a motorcycle training facility, but there
are races being held now, sometimes until 11 at night. He said they hear them
because of the PA system Zoo City uses. He told the Board that teaching kids
lessons or good times is not what they should consider. Etheridge said Darrell
Frye once said Randolph County is so different because Randolph County
families make up the backbone of this County. He said but when you have to go
inside because you can't hear each other talk, you've lost something. He said
what do I do with my home if this gets bigger. He said he knows that these racers
say that they will have to drive 2 hours (if Zoo City closes), but where do the
neighbors go to enjoy their peaceful life. He said his neighbors have been here for
more than 100 years and now we have to trade our way of life for a mudbog.
Etheridge told the Board that when you do the balancing test, the way to know
what is right is to use the Hood Test. He said that is when you can read your
verdict and it doesn't matter whose there (under the hood) when you remove the
hood from their head. He asked the Board to please look out for them so they
don't have to sell their homes, and leave this peaceful community.
Anthony Copple, 6524 US Hwy 220 South, said that he lives northeast of this
track and he can hear it. He said its bearable but sometimes it gets loud. He said
he realize that these motorcycle events are going to happen, but if they are allowed
to have tractor pulls the noise could become unbearable. He said some of these
tractors are very loud. He said now they are a nuisance, but it is not unbearable,
but if these things are allowed it will be unbearable. He said he wanted the Board
to consider some possible conditions. He said he was afraid that this would turn
into a monster down the road.
Tom Wright, 301 N Elm, Greensboro, said that he is a lawyer representing Scott
Etheridge. He said the issue has always been noise. He said no one opposes the
seasonal events at the 4' of July or the Rugged Maniac events. The noise
ordinance doesn't adequately control the noise in the County. He said the noise
issue was not adequately addressed at the time the Board approved Maness' first
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes 7 February 16, 2016
request, He said that this HI -CD site is surrounded by residential properties. He
said the neighbors and churches are bothered by the noise. He advised that the
property was originally zoned IR for asphalt plant with the condition that the
property revert back to RA once the highway project was completed. Then a truck
terminal was permitted on the site, and now the Maness' were approved a
motorcycle trail course and training facility. He said the races were not requested
when the Board approved the training facility. There was a 30 ft. buffer added at
this Board's meeting (when his request was originally considered) and at the
Commissioners meeting, they placed a 10:00 p.m. time limit. He said we've
already heard testimony that races are now the primary use and now a PA system
is needed (for racing) and the operation hours exceed the deadline. Now the
applicant is asking for permission for what they have already done to grow beyond
what was approved in 98. He said no one denies that it is a good tourist attraction,
but the community was told that Maness was going to build his home here and
that should be of some assurance to the neighborhood. He said the Maness'
haven't built there home here but they have increased the facility. He said they
were told by Hal Johnson that in 2010 they would be permitted 2 races a year and
now it has grow well beyond that. He said it was his understanding that there
have been several incidents with the applicant not complying. He said people in
the community are having a hard time with the noise and this is an issue that
needs to be addressed. He said if you add a tractor pull with no restrictions there
is no guarantee that the level of noise will be acceptable. This would also be the
case with demolition derbies and mudbog events. He said some reasonable
accommodations should be made between this facility and the people who live in
the community. He asked the Board to consider the following conditions:
I Change the hours for operations to cease - weekdays 7:30 pm, Saturday 9
pm, and Sunday only operate from 12 prn to 7:30 pm (these hours would
be setfor only those events that create excessive ve noise - not to include the
physical fitness events)
2. The PA system should be restricted (especially no concerts)
3. There should not be simultaneous motor events on different tracks or areas
(only one race at a time)
4. Maintain existing vegetation in place as required under existing conditions
and the Board should require a Level 2 or 3 buffer to be put back in place
along the highway
S. The Board should consider hard -noise abatement devices along the
highway
Wright said they are not asking for the track to be closed down, but they are
asking for this Board to address the noise. He said they are not opposed to other
events, but they are concerned with the racing and noise events that are already
taking place on the site.
Rains asked Wright what he thought a would be a reasonable noise level, Wright
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes 8 February 16,2016
said he's not proposing a decibel level be measured but more the time the noise is
being created. Wright said they didn't have a problem with the asphalt plant or
trucking terminal, but operating hours were different. He said they felt the noise
problems should be addressed in time restrictions.
Jerry Gillispie, 4302 New Hope Road, said that he would like them to consider
his family on Sunday afternoons and the warm evenings during the week. He said
he doesn't need any more noise to go with what they've got. I've been here all my
life.
Johnny Dorsett, adjoining property owner, said not only can he not sit outside, he
has to turn his tv up inside. He said you can forget about sleeping.
Barry Cole, Copple Road Extension, said he is the 4' generation that has lived on
their property on Copple Road Extension. He said he's not trying to shut the track
down, but if you are from Liberty Randleman, or Adams Farm, you won't hear it.
He said he didn't have a problem with what they are doing now, but he don't want
anymore. He said he would like the Board to considered all this and determine if
they would like it in their neighborhood.
Bo Redmon, Lighthouse Baptist Church member, said that mud -drags are part of
mudbogging. He said that the type of noise that this creates is a nuisance. He said
he is thrilled that these children are learning life lessons out at the track, but if his
children are trying to sit in church and learn values, they can't get those values
with all that noise. He said he was glad these children learn lessons about
sportsmanship, but what about his child. He said he loves these types of events,
but we ask that you limit it.
James Langley, member of Lighthouse Baptist Church, said he builds these type
of motors for a living. He said they are more horsepower and they make a lot
more noise than dirt bikes. He said they love the track and its good for the
community, but they are concerned about the noise these massive machines make.
Puryear thanked the people for coming out tonight. He said that his clients didn't
know the issues in the community. He said it has been suggested that there have
been several citations issued. There was a letter of notice in 2013 of violation.
Ile said they have not been able to find out who complained. He said the proposal
for restrictions and changes are fundamentally difficult, because it is the first time
hearing them. He said one thing is we don't want to stop what is going on there.
Puryear said that training is racing and racing is training in motor sports. He said
the tractor pull was an old timey tractor pull and not these large machines being
described. He said the Maness' are planning to build a home here in the long
term. He said there have not been enforcement issues, only a single notice of
violation. He said so far as they know there has never been a noise complaint
from the Sheriff s Department or the neighbors. He said they feel the restrictions
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes 9 February 16,2016
they included on the original application are reasonable and we would ask for it to
be approved.
Morgan asked if the applicant was clear in what was approved in 2008. Puryear
said it was to allow a motorcycle course and training facility as per site plan,
which included maintaining vegetation east of the old drag strip and 30 ft. buffer
along the north property line. Puryear said it's not like a racing hasn't ever been
done on this property,
Etheridge said that the drag strip operated illegally back then and someone was
Bled and it was shut down. He said he felt his remark is disingenuous.
McLeod said that there was an hour of operation that the facility be closed by 10
pm.
Rains asked if the new application opened the original approval up for possible
additional conditions. Morgan answered yes. Morgan advised Puryear that the
Board has heard lots of information and concerns tonight and the applicant could
withdraw this request, consider the issues, and resubmit a more detailed plan.
Ralph Modlin asked the location of the churches.
Rains asked where the Maness' plan to construct their residence. Dale answered
on adjoining property owned by the Maness' (to the east of this property). Rains
asked if the applicant would have any response to withdraw the applicant.
Puryear said they would not withdraw at this time. Morgan said he would point
out that this type of rezoning is a two-step process and advise the applicant that if
the Board votes on this request, he has 5-days after this vote to withdraw this
request. If it is not withdrawn in 5-days, this request will be heard and voted on
by the Commissioners. If the Commissioners deny this request, the applicant
would have to wait one year prior to resubmitting the request. Puryear said they
are not withdrawing at this time.
Rains made the motion to recommend approval with the conditions:
I operation hours Monday through Friday from 9 am to 7:30 pm, Saturday 9
am to 10 pm , and Sunday from 12 to 7.30 pm,
2. 1 single event per day - motorcycle, bicycle or physical event
3. disallow tractor pulls, truck pulls, mudbogs, demolition derby or any
activity that is not a 2-wheel or 4-wheel motorcycle or bicycle event
4. authorize Rugged Maniac, foot races, or physical events (with no firearms
allowed of any kind)
5. 4 special events per hear to include July 4' fireworks, haunted trails,
Christmas, and one other event
6. Accept on -site food preparation concession and sales, and on -site toilet
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes 10 February 16,2016
facilities
7. all parking would be on -site for all events or a pre -arranged satellite
facility with bus services
8. a level 3 buffer to be installed in areas that appear to have lost its original
natural foliage (re -install buffers where they have been removed)
ultimately at the discretion of the Planning Staff
Rains asked for the Commissioners to address some sound limitation to be
determined He said he personally believe this should be a decibel level.
Morgan said it is difficult to create a decibel level or a horsepower level. He told
Rains to either restrict it or not, but provide the Board with something to respond
to. Rains asked for this condition to be stricken from the motion.
Morgan reviewed the motion for the Board. McLeod seconded the motion.
Morgan asked the applicant if these conditions were acceptable. The applicant
would not agree to these conditions. The motion died.
Rains made the motion to recommend to the Commissioners that this request be
denied. Modlin asked Dale to review the application again. Jay Dale reviewed
the request. Modlin seconded the motion and the motion passed by a vote of 4 to
2. Pell and McLeod voted against the motion.
ExaMples of Growth Manggement Policies that sWort this recommendation:
Policy 1.1 Sustainable economic development, environmental protection, and
quality of life, shall be pursued together as mutually supporting public policy
goals.
Policy 3.2 Heavy industrial sites should be separated from nonindustrial areas
by natural features, green belts and/or other suitable means.
4. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. There were 78 citizens present for this meeting.
NORTH CAROLINA
RANDOLPH COUNTY
Cf
Plannir�bireftor
Date
the
Randolph County Planning Board Minutes 11 February
ATTACHMENT B Section 4
%Xj V No
9ryCOUNTY OF RANDOLPH
Department of Building Inspections
204 E Academy St - PO Box 771 - Asheboro NC 27204-0771
RESIDENTIAL GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
Applicant: GLASS, JEFF
Address: 4092 GOLDEN MEADOW RD
City, St. Zip: ASHEBORO, NC 27205
Owner: MANESS, BARRY JAMES
Address: 1413 RICHARD'S CIR
City, St. Zip: ASHEBORO, NC 27204
Date: 04/2012012
Parcel #: 7666153291
Application #: 0802879
Contact Name: MANESS,BARRY JAMES &
KRISTA LEIGH
Contact Phone Number: 964-6699
�LOCATION INFORMATION:
Address* 213 JOE FARLOW RD ASHEBORO, NC 27205
Township: 17 - RICHLAND
Subdivision:
Acreage: 18.9700
Lot number.
ICONTRACTOR INFORMATION:
Contractor: GLASS, JEFF
Phone #: 336-241-2662
License
IRELATED PROFESSIONAL:
Professional:
Phone
�BUILDING INFORMATION:
Class Of Work:
NEW CONSTRUCTION
Type Of Residential Building:
SINGLE FAMILY
Soil Erosion Plan Required:
NO
Number Of Fireplaces:
0
Number Of Dwelling Units:
I
Number Of Flues:
0
Width Of Structure:
69
Heated Area:
2320 sq.ft.
Depth Of Structure:
40
Unheated Area:
1400 sq.ft,
Foundation Material:
BRICK/BLOCK
Finished Basement Area (Sf):
0 sq.ft,
Exterior Wall Material:
VINYL SIDING
Unfinished Basement Area (Sf):
0 sq.ft.
Number Of Stories:
2.0000
Construction Value-
$269,893
Number Of Bedrooms:
3
Total Permit Fee: $819.68
Comments: CONVERTED DATA
If your development disturbs more than one (1,00) acre of soil during construction you must file a Sol[ Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Plan with the State of North Carolina. It is also possible that you must obtain a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for stormwater discharges from construction
activities. This requirement is pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes 135A-357 and 160A-417. If
additional information is required about soil erosion and sedimentation control plan requirements, you should
contact the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission or the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources or the Land Quality Section office in our area. If additional information is
needed about NPIDES permits, you should contact the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
- LOCAL TELEPHONE NUMBER -
Asheboro: (336) 318-6565 - Greensboro/Liberty: (336) 218-4565 - Archdale/Trinity: (336) 819-3565
hftp://www.co,randolph.nc.us
RESIDENTIAL GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Page: 1 of 2
J
*** CONSTRUCTION SHALL MEET ALL APPLICABLE STATE BUILDING CODES. ***
The undersigned contractor does hereby affirm under penalties of perjury that the person(s), firm(s) or
corporation(s) performing the work set forth in the permit:
N/A while working on the project for which the permit is sought. It is understood that the Inspection Department
issuing the permit may require certificates of coverage of Workers' Compensation insurance prior to issuance
of the permit and at any time during the permitted work from any person, firm or corporation carrying out the
work.
The undersigned hereby makes application as designated above, and agrees to all applicable laws of
Randolph County and the State of North Carolina. The undersigned further states that all statements made
hereon are true.
Authorized County Officlaf-.--"EfINI HEINZER Signature of Contractor or Owner
- LOCAL TELEPHONE NUMBER -
Asheboro: (336) 318-6565 - Greensboro/Liberty: (336) 218-4565 - Archdale/Trinity: (336) 819-3565
hftp://www.co.randolph.nc.us
RESIDENTIAL GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Page: 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT B / Section 5
-0h 3 D 0 4t 0 K 0 =r 3 5 PM7 4� 3f 8 >
b (D 5 5 6 0
(D (D (D a'0- 0 0
0 N 0, :r 0
ca.
9 0 0 CD 0) t7 0 t'i
<
(D C :1 0 0 M :3 0% (D ;9 (D 0
0. M 0 0 0
(D :) a M 0
M 0 0 (D 0 P 0 �+ �'< W C
* ;4: — 0 < 0 CL 0)
O
00(a 0 0 z 0 :3 N
(D (D 0
0 (D
0 0 C w to > 0 :3 (a 0
CL :3
a- 0 CD CF)
(D 0 (D 0 OL
(D " M 0 0 § -0 =r (D C 0 0
0
(D
c (D N o 0 0
0 3
0 0 > (a -- +
(D OL
C) C C "D 0 — --" Cr < (D D0 0 Cr (D D !Z 0 M M (D *"�, (D (D (D
< (D =r a) 0 (A
.< x
0 0. 2, * < Cr 0. rrl a CL 0 Z 0 -0
(D a > (D W 0 CD 0 0- D (D
l< (D 0 0
< " 0
:3 w W M 0 (D (D W0 0 =0 (D (D
su 0 0
0 0
0 0" <D a 0 Z (D 0 OR C C (D
(n (D (D (n :7 -0 (D 0- 0 u) (D -0 (0 Er
U) = U) w M 0 0,
a* U (D W —
N
CL C (a 0 0
5 0 0 (f) 0 0
(0 m D
(D 0
0
N
0
0
0
:r
0
B
3
2/2212016 Blank Template ATTACHMENT B / Section 6
Home (index.ht ... Kevin's Update— Contact (conta... Gallery (gallery... Race Results (r
Kevin's Update.. .
Southeast MX Series - 201100" Schedule
Mar 26 Apr 16 & 23 May 7, 14 & 21 Jun 11, 18 & 25 Jul 9, 16 & 23 Aug 6, 13 & 27 Sept 10 & 17
Gates Open 3pm, Practice 4pm, Race to Follow
General Admission $10, Under 12 $5 Race Fee Am & Youth $25 Pro $40
Tuesday A Thursday Practice April 5 - September Z9
$25.00 per Rider
Zoo City Motor Sports Park Membership Rejuird($10.00 per Year / $5.00 per Day)
zoocitymxprooyahoo.com
Zoo City Motor Sports Park, LLC
279 Joe Farlow Road
Asheboro, North Carolina 27205
http://www.zoocitymx.com/
Zoo City MX - North Carolina Motorcycle and A,rv'l'rail.s
Home > North Carolina > Zoo City MX > Print
Page I of 4
& Use your browser to print this page
1 7 1111111111111111111 1111111111l mill 11111��! 11 "�' �i� '; T'
RiderPlanet USA
41011"I'MA"I'll, W111111 1,111" a,
Want this on your phone?
Download our FREE Android app!
101, iff]
Download Moto2Go from the
Android App Store
Last Known Open
Status
This motocross nark features a long 1.25 mile main track and a separate peewee
track for the little guys. The track is 25 feet wide and features the standard
obstacles including doubles, tables, rockers, step up and step downs, along with an
extra large 85 foot triple and a few natural hills and sweepers.
Amenities include water, bike wash, restrooms, concessions, a playground, group
picnic area and wireless internet. There is also a mountain bike course and a trail
loop for both ATVs and dirtbikes. Primitive camping is permitted. Call before you
haul.
Nearest City Asheboro, NC
Address 279 Joe Farlow Road, Asheboro, NC 27205
5treet Mai!
Tr"j, M'pu
From: Charlotte, NC
1) 1-85 N to exit 96
2) Take ramp right for US-64 toward Asheboro, continue 0.3 miles
3) Turn right on US-64, continue 21.7 miles
4) Take 1-73 South / 1-74 East, continue 6.7 miles
5) Take exit 49 New Hope Church Road, continue 0.3 miles
6) Turn left on New Hope Church Road, continue 0.5 miles
7) Turn right on US-220 Alt, continue 1.5 miles
8) Turn right on Joe Farlow Road, continue 0.1 miles.
RiderPlanet USA
@ RiderPlanet LLC
Search Our Online
Database Of
Motorcycle & ATV
Trails!
RiderPlanet USA
@ RiderPlanet LLC
The Ultimate Database
Of Motorcycle & ATV
Trails
RiderPlanet USA
@ RiderPlanet LLC
Search Our Online
Database Of
Motorcycle & ATV
Trails!
RiderPlanet USA
@ RiderPlanet LLC
The Ultimate Database
Of Motorcycle & ATV
Trails
RiderPlanet USA
@ RiderPlanet LLC
Search Our Online
Database Of
Motorcycle & ATV
Trails!
RiderPlanet USA
@ RiderPlanet LLC
The Ultimate Database
Of Motorcycle & ATV
Trails
RiderPlanet USA
RiderPlanet LLC
Area Trail, Track . I I
http://www.riderplaiiet-usa.com/atv/trails/info/north—carolina-14321/print—ef76.htm 3/2/2016
Zoo City MX - North Carolina Motorcycle and ATV '!'rails
Page 2 of 4
Land Privately Owned / Commercial
QUALITY
Rating
6110 Good
Recommended Stay Full
Day
MX TRACK IS
Features Public, Watered, Groomed, Starting Gate
Max Engine No Maximum
Size
tMin Engine No Minimum
Size
MX TRACK
Features Public
Max Engine No Maximum
Size
Min Engine No Minimum
Size
REGULATIONS
Permit Required
No
Dates
Dates Open
vary. Call
before
you haul.
Spark Arrestor
No A spark arresting silencer or ends is not
required but is always recommended.
Noise Limit
No Quiet hours are 10pm-10am.
Whip Flags
Not
Required
Maximum Vehicle
Width
Motorcycles
Permitted
Four Wheelers
Some
Areas
UTVs SXS
Prohibited
SUVs Jeeps
Prohibited
(registered)
Prohibited
RiderPlanet USA
@ RiderPlanet LLC
Search Our Online
Database Of
Motorcycle & ATV
Trails!
RiderPlanet USA
@ RiderPlanet LLC
The Ultimate Database
Of Motorcycle & ATV
Trails
RiderPlanet USA
@ RiderPlanet LLC
Search Our Online
Database Of
Motorcycle & ATV
Trails!
RiderPlanet USA
@ RiderPlanet LLC
The Ultimate Database
Of Motorcycle & ATV
Trails
RiderPlanet USA
@ RiderPlanet LLC
Search Our Online
Database Of
Motorcycle & ATV
Trails!
RiderPlanet USA
@ RiderPlanet LLC
The Ultimate Database
Of Motorcycle & ATV
Trails
RiderPlanet USA
@ RiderPlanet LLC
http://www.riderplanet-usa.com/atv/trails/in,f.'o/north—carolina—I 432l/print—ef76.htrn 3/2/2016
Zoo City MX - North Carolina Motorcycle and ATV Trails
Page 3 of 4
Dune Buggy/Sand Rail
4x4 (unregistered)
Two Strokes /
2 Cycle Engines
Helmets Required
Bicycles
Hiking
Horseback
A* Camping
�a Campfires
Night Riding
Cross Country
Alcohol
Fireworks
Firearms
Emergency / Law
Enforcement
Insurance
Parking ($0.00)
No
Restriction
Yes
Some This park has a mountain bike course.
Areas
No This park has a playground area.
Restriction
Prohibited
Some Overnight stays are permitted for race events.
Areas
Unknown
Prohibited riders must stay on trail
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
*Disclaimer: RiderPlanet strongly recommends that all
visitors get insurance for their AN, UTV or motorcycle
before visiting any of the locations shown on this website,
Entry Certain Times ($0.00)
fees vary, call track for details
Riding ($0.00)
Camping Tent: $0.00
RV; $0.00
Addtl. Vehicle: $0.00
KEY SERVICES
First Aid
5-20 Miles (N)
Randolph Hospital (336) 625-5151
Gasoline
5-20 Miles (N)
Exxon (336) 629-0191
Diesel
5-20 Miles (N)
Exxon (336) 629-0191
a Water
On Site
L-4
5-20 Miles (NE)
Deep River Campground and RV Park (336) 629-
RV Hookup
4069
@ Copyright RiderPlanet LL
or images may be copied, s
without express written per
website is intended only to
have been operated during
warranted to be current or
use this information to knot
manner, and wear all neces
motorcycle boots, long prot
RiderPlanet, LLC and it's sp,
or fines that may be lmpos6
depicted areas. RiderPlanet
insurance and obtain medic
described on this website sl
applicable land managemer
that may have been inadve,
endorsement by, or affillath
http://www.riderplanet-usa.comlatvltrailslinfolnorth—carolina-143211print—ef76.htm 3/2/2016
Zoo City MX - North Carolina Motorcycle and ATV Trails
Page 4 of 4
5-20 Miles (NE)
RV Disposal
JL1
5-20 Miles (NE)
Campground
Ta
5-20 Miles (NE)
Conte Store
D
Swim Area
30+ Miles (NW,'
A
Water Body
On Site
4�
30+ Miles (NW,'
Boat Ramp
Deep River Campground and RV Park (336) 629-
4069
Trails End Family Campground (336) 629-5353
Walmart Supercenter (336) 626-0004
High Rock Lake Marina (336) 798-1196
Kings Creek
High Rock Lake Marina (336) 798-1196
Zoo City Motor Sports Park
279 Joe Farlow Road
Asheboro, NC 27205
Contact Info (336) 964-6699
(336) 302-7030
zoocitymxmom@yahoo.com
ride@zoocitymx.com
www.zoocitvmx.com
littp://www.riderplanet-usa.comlatvltrailslinfolnorth—carolina-143211print—ef76.htm 3/2/2016
314/2016 The Top 10 Things to Do! n Asheboro -TripAdvisor -Asheboro, NC Attractions- Find What to Do Today, This Weekend, or in March
W tripadvisor- T hings to Do in Ashabofo. PJC -Asheboro j(DIN LOGIN S
- --------- --- ----- -
Asheboro, North Carolina, United States What are you looking for?
oiEjted States > North Carolina (NC) ) Asheboro ) Things to Do in Asheboro
Things to Do in Asheboro
Outdoor Activities (3)
Nature & Parks (4)
Zoos & Aquariums (1)
Museums (2)
Shopping (9)
Food & Drink (1)
Fun &Games (2)
Sights & Landmarks (1)
Classes & Workshops ti)
Asheboro Hotel Deals
SAVE UP To 6011%
ON HOT RATEO HOTELS
Eased on national rates,
North Carolina Zoo
#1 of 20 things to do in Asheboro
853 reviews
"Stillagood amount to see dutqng_'03/01/2016
"Gorgeous!"0310112016
Zoos
Richland Creek Canopy Tours
#2 of 20 things to do in Asheboro
73 reviews
'SuPerP'annrne!!!`02121120',6
"Grout Pun" 0110512010
Hiking Trails
Tot Hill Farm Golf Club
43 of 20 things to do in Asheboro
39 reviews
"Tough But Beautiful- 0211412016
'Best course in this orea!"011142016
N.C. Aviation Museum
#4 of 20 things to do in Asheboro
30 reviews
`nying High!'0210812016
"History ofthe planes and choppers" 11122;2015
Militarymuseums ! Specialty museums
-,
American Classic Motorcycle Museum
#5 of 20 things to do in Asheboro
Asheboro weather essentials 19 reviews
Month "tvow'02/26t2016
High Pascinating for motorcycle enthusi.,,"09YOI!2015
Low
Precip,
http;//www.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g29874-Activities-Ashoboro North Carolina.html
1/4
3/4/2016 1 he iopiu linings to Lic, in Asnelooro- I ripAclivisor -ASneDori), NU Attractions - i-irlawriatiouri r way, lillb vvmAjllu, ul 11, vial iAl
Mar Specialty Museums
54°F
34'F
3 in
Apr
64'F
42'F
4 in
May
711F
50'F
3 in
Jun
78°F
58°F
31n
Jul
BVIF
62'F
3 in
Aug
80*F
62'F
4 in
More weather for Asheboro
C' I F
Powered by
Weather Underground
Know a great
restaurant in
Chapel Hill?
Add your review >
Explore other Asheboro resources:
Asheboro Bed and Breakfast
Asheboro Maps
Recently Reviewed Hotels around
Asheboro
BTOOWown Inn
4,5 out of 5, 373 Reviews
Last reviewed Mac 3, 2016
Hampton Inn High Point
4.5 out of 5, 292 Reviews
Last reviewed Mar 2, 2016
H=92 Suites by Hilton Greensboro AJrPDh
4.5 out of 5, 173 Reviews
Last reviewed Mar 3, 2016
Suburban Extended Stay Hotel of Greensboro - W. Wendover
15 out of 5. 71 Reviews
Lost reviewed Mar 2, 2016 1131irkhead Mtn Wilderness
Hampton Inn Asheboro 413 of 20 things to do in Asheboro
4.5 out of 5, 427 Reviews
Last reviewed Mar 2 2016 9
BEST WESTERN PLUS Burlington
http:/twww,tripactvisor.com/Attractons-g29874-Activifles-Ashaboro North Carolina.himl
Four Saints Brewing Company
#F> of 20 things to oo in Asheboro
13 reviews
"Great brewery!" 0310312018
"Cozy Taproom" 0 1/0912016
Breweries
"W"
Collectors Antique Mail
#7 of 20 things to do in Asheboro
12 reviews
'Collector's Antique Mull' 11!2212016
'GOOD VAR11;7j1() CLEAN MF-RCHAND1SE'0910112015
Antique Shopping Malls
- - ---------------
Clinemark Asheboro
#8 of 20 things to do in Asheboro
9 reviews
"Great theater with great value and...' 121,1112015
"Good Theater with Typical Pr ic:es.,."06125f20i5
Movie Theaters
Flea Marketeers;
#9 of 20 things to do in Asheboro
............
7 reviews
y.
"Always the some stur 02111120 16
Great Store, Good Stuff, Low Py-ice..."01,12112016
Flea Street Markets 1.
. ... . . . .. . .......
Sunny Slopes Form
#10 of 20 things to do in Asheboro
5 reviews
1wonder-fid petting zoo!!!1'0811712015
place kids love"0311712015
N Farms
Super Jumps
#11 of 20 things to do in Asheboro
3 reviews
"Love this place,"08111/2014
'Grffatj'ar birthday parties " 03/0612014
Playgrounds
Vintage Cottage
#12 of 20 things to do in Asheboro
2 reviews
"Great place to find browse for fur..."011105120W
"love the back entrunce"081281201 5
Specialty Gift, Shops
214
3A/2016 The Top 10 Things to Do in Asheboro - TripAdvisor -Asheboro, INCAttrachons -Find What to Do Today, This Weekend, or in March
4,5 out o' E, b32 1,
Last rcvow m.r L,
Courtyard by tAl arriott Bur fington
4,11� oui o' ;i ' 0 i ReViPWS
Last rew4ewvoa Feb 27. 2016
C.ornforl Inn
out o'' 5, '0(,,' R(i3O,,,ws
,wiewycd Feb 27, 201FS
" Id Inn & Suites High Point Archdale
Wl of 5, .11 Reviews
Lhst reyiewod Feb 27, 2G16
Comfort Inn Near High Pont University
4 out ctfj 4' Revlcws
Least reviewed Feb 13. 2016
Holiday Inn Express Asheboro
4 out 0, 5, 1':1 Rew,is
LwA Jan 28, 2016
Comfort Inv, Thomairville
3,5 oul of 5, 29 Reviews
Last ro0ewoo Jan 23 2016
Fairfield inn & Suftes Asheboro
4.5 out of 1, 185 Reviews
Last reviewed Jan 20, 2016
Holiday Inn Express Burlington
4 ow of 5 '26 RevI9kV:r
L.a.1 reviewed Jan 21, 2016
C oftbotete Suites of Burfingtofi
3 OL4 0' ' 5, 25 R L V OWS
L5sl romhwoci Dec 29, 2015
Recent reviews in Asheboro
North Carolina Zoo
"NC zoo clay trip"
'Great day trip. Not crowded in the winter season.
Unique setting.... Not the typical'zoo'appearance.
Inexpensive. Consider the yearly membership if you
plan on going more than once.
North Carolina Zvo
"Still a good amount to see during winter!'
"We traveled to see this zoo in February when h was
40-50 degrees. We were worried most of the animals
would be away because of the colder temps, but there
was still plenty to see. There were an impressive
amount of animals and they all appeared to be well
If you have kids, there's lots of sid..." More >
Carolina Zoo
ra- e, C) u S!,
"Okay. so going to a 200 you might ask, gorgeous? Yes
it was!!] Being from Ohio we don't see a lot of the wild
life they had in NC. The way they split the experience
was a new take for us, and the pictures we took!!!! Many
many memories for us!"
'Vehh'011;1 212016
'Yery Rugged" 421 5f2016
Nature & Widlife Areas
The Preppy Possum
414 of 20 things to do in Asheborc;
1 review
Lesson,, & Workshops
Acme -McCrary Hosiery & Apparel Outlet
# 1 15,,120 thh9s to do in Asheboro
I review
Made In Afiner ica"021`1012016
Factory Outlets
William Ivey Southern Antiques
#16 of K tilling
s to do in Aqhe,1Liorcj
1 review
Antique Shops
K&A Consignments and Collectibles
417 of2.0 things to do In Ashcboro
2 reviews
"Multil)10 vendors andigiriety qfme_."04,'2V20'r,
Antique Shops
Latham's Pottery
#118 of 210 things to do in Asheboro
I review
1(ithOM'S Pottery ... agrrut Pot t u_ " 03125!2() 15
v -
Specialty &_ Gift Shops
Randolph Mail
#19 of 20 things to do in Asheboro
5 reviews
`.Mali needs i•eitovationdisqts.5tinyr..."06rZl!2015
'Sad moil slotoly dyiny'05/07/201 5
Shopping Malls
New Moon Art& Treasures
#20 of 20 things to do in Asheboro
Be the first to review this attraction
Specialty & Gift Shops
hftp://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractiom-g29874-Aotivities-Asheboro North Carolina.html 3/4
'-V IV
Asheboro Hotel Deals
SUE UP TO Of ON HOT RATED HOTELS
Based on national rates.
9fl)tripadyisor
Reviews and advice on hotels, resorts, flights, vacation rentals, travet packages, and more so you can plan and book your perfect tdpl
About us j Site Map I Help Center CQ
(02016 Tr pAdvlsatt-[-C All rights ress Ned, TdpAdvisar Terms of Use and Privacy Policy,
' TdpAdyisor LLC is not a booking agent and does not charge any service fees to users of our site . (more)
TripAdvisor LLC is not responsible for content on external web sites. Taxes, fees not included for deals convent.
hftp:/Mww.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g29874-Activities-Astebaro North Carodna.html 414
ATTACHMENT B/ Section 7
&THEAD COUNTY PLXNING AND ZONING OFFICE
'H
CONDITIONAL I 'RMIT REPORT #FCU-10-13
7DY MARVIN
JULY 20,2010
A report to Iee
Flathead County Board of Adjustment regarding a request by Cindy Marvin for a
condition, permit to allow for a motocross track as a Low -impact Recreation Facility in the
AG-80 West Valley Overlay of the Westside Zoning District,
The Flathead County Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on the proposed
conditional use on August 3, 2010 beginning at 6:00 P.M. in the 2 nd floor conference room of the
Earl Bennett Building, 1035 First Avenue West, Kalispell. Documents pertaining to this file are
available for public inspection in the Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office, also located
on the second floor of the Earl Bennett Building.
I. APPLICATION REVIEW UPDATES
A. Land Use Advisory Committee/Council
The proposed land use is within the advisory jurisdiction of the West Valley Land
Use Advisory Committee. At a public meeting to be held on July 27, 2010 at 7:00 PM
at the Stillwater Grange Hall, 1810 West Reserve Drive Kalispell the Committee will
review the proposal and forward a recommendation to the Flathead County Board of
Adjustment.
B. Board of Adjustment
The Flathead County Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing regarding the
proposed land use on August 3, 2010 at 6:00 P.M. in the 2 nd floor conference room of
the Earl Bennett Building. This space is reserved for a summary of the Flathead
County Board of Adjustment's discussion and decision at that hearing.
11. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Application Personnel
i. Applicant
Tanner Marvin
1775 West Valley Drive
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 257-4161
ii. Landowner(s)
Grosswiler Dairy Inc.
c/o Cindy Marvin
290 West Valley Drive
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 752-3708
iii. Technical Assistance
(none provided)
B. Property Location and Size
The subject property is approximately 40 acres in size and is located in the West
Valley area along the east side of West Valley Drive between West Reserve Drive
and Clark Drive (see Figure I below). The property can be legally described as
Assessor Tracts 4 and 4A located in Section 27, Township 29 North, Range 22 West,
P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana.
Figure 2: Subject property and related topography
\\J
7�..... ....... ..
2
t—j
f x... k......... S
r— "N' Ao5.
2 J Kgne' AvW R-oq-
N.AP kell phmios'v
2 vi
�yl'Mia
E ' IUSG>
Mm &II-'I'El--
Ng
IX
J
N
C. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning
The property was used as a dairy in the past, and is currently developed with various
residential and farm structures as well as the motocross track which is the subject of
this review.
The motocross track and subject property are located within the Westside zoning
district and is zoned "AG-80 West Valley Overlay (WVO)".
9 AG-80 Agricultural is a district intended "to protect and preserve agricultural
land for the performance oJ'a wide range of agricultural functions. It is intended
to control the scattered intrusion of uses not compatible with an agricultural
environment, including, but not limited to, residential development."
e West Valley Overlay (WVO) is "a district to extend the provisions relating to the
Land Use Advisory Committee and Residential Clustering of the WY West Valley
Zoning District to other properties outside that district but within the jurisdiction
oJ'the West Valley Neighborhood Plan, County Resolution #1226-A. "
D. Adjacent Land Use(s) and Zoning
All directly adjacent properties and the general area surrounding the subject property
are used for agricultural purposes with limited residential development. The nearest
instances of residential development occur approximately .5 miles from the site,
including residences within 'West Valley Acres to the west, residences along West
Springcreek Drive, and Valley Pines, a 48 lot residential subdivision situated
approximately .5 miles southwest of the motocross track (track) on the subject
property (see Figure 3 below).
Adjacent tracts located to the east and south of the subject property are zoned "AG-80
WVO" and area to the immediate west and north of the subject property are zoned
"West Valley" within the West Valley zoning district (see Iigure 4 below).
M%ure 4: Zoning surrounding the subject property,
E. Summary of Request
Background
• The prior use of the property for dairy purposes has been discontinued, and the
applicant has been developing and operating a motocross track (track) on -site
with the intent of providing a practice and racing facility for local and non -local
motocross enthusiasts.
On April 8, 2010, a zoning complaint (FZT- 10-04) was submitted to the Flathead
County Planning and Zoning Office (FCPZ) due mainly to noise disturbance
experienced by residents of the West Valley Pines Subdivision, which is located
within the West Valley zoning district approximately 0.5 miles southwest of the
actual track location. The alleged zoning violation is based on the premise that the
operation was a commercial endeavor for which the operators engaged in broad
promotion and race event planning via an intemet social networking site, onsite
posting of track rules, and collection of fees.
In investigating the zoning complaint per FCPZ policies and procedures,
communication was established between FCPZ staff, the property owner, and the
current applicant.
4
In addressing the zoning complaint the applicant met with FCPZ staff on May 19,
2010 when it was clarified that the track was established on portions of property
lying partially within the West Valley zoning district and AG-80 WVO zoning
district. It was made clear to the applicant that operation of a commercial
motocross track on property within the West Valley Zoning District would not be
allowable due to the applicable provisions of that district. It was further identified
that operation of such a facility !nay be allowable as a 'recreation facility' on
property located within the AG-80 WVO zoning district only if recreational
facility threshold criteria could be met and upon issuance of a conditional use
permit by the Board of Adjustment. Regarding an application for a conditional
use permit, it was clearly communicated that the applicants would have to prove
that all applicable criteria can be met.
The May 19, 2010 discussion between FCPZ staff and the applicant concluded
with of a 'plan of action' signed by those present which outlines specific terms
agreed upon by the applicants in order to reach a resolution regarding the alleged
zoning violation. The signed 'plan of action' (attached for reference) calls for a
finite timeframe to attain zoning compliance through either ceasing all
commercial track activity or taking appropriate action toward obtaining a valid
conditional use permit for the facility, removing the portion of commercial track
Occurring within the boundary of the West Valley zoning district, voluntarily
reducing and limiting hours of track riding with friends/acquaintances, voluntarily
abstaining from use of amplified music and loudspeakers on the track, and
communicating with neighbors, if willing, to understand and address their
concerns.
Request
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit for a `low -impact recreational
facility' in order to 1) comply with requirements pertaining to the alleged non-
compliance with the applicable zoning, and 2) allow the further development and
operation of the motocross facility on the subject property. Proposed limited
operation hours of the track facility include three practice times per week and five
race events annually, details of which are further discussed below in Section IV.D.v
of this report.
Pursuant to Section 3.04.030(17) of the Flathead County Zoning Regulations (FCZR),
low -impact recreation facilities are listed as a conditional use the AG-80 zoning
district.
According to the definition, a 'recreational facility' is "A structure or use of property
not otherwise listed in these regulations to accommodate the enjoyment, healthful
activities, and leisure of the facility's users. Such a use may be enclosed by walls and
roof (indoor) or an open-air (outdoor) arrangement. Recreational facilities are also
defined as being either "high impact" or "low impact", based on the following
criteria:
1. Land Intensity — the amount of land necessary to operate the facility,
Examples: High impact — golf course, ski area
Low impact — archery range, video game arcade
Threshold: P"acility requires more than twice the "minimum lot size" determined
by district classcation.
2. Traffic Generation - the amount of motor vehicle traffic created by use.
Examples: High impact - water slide, fairgrounds
Low impact - golf driving range, dude ranch
Threshold: Traffic greater than or equal to 20 trips per hour at peak hours or 75
trips per day.
3. Visibility - the visual impact of the facility how obvious its presence is.
Examples: High impact - water slide, ski area
Low impact - dude ranch, day camp
Threshold: Structures unusual compared to surrounding uses are visible from
adjacent roadways.
4. Risk - - the possibility of danger to adjacent landowners or property.
Examples: High impact zoos, rifle ranges
Low impact bike rental, fishing
7"hr•eshold: Reasonable chance of danger or damage to nearby property or people.
If a facility is determined to have a "high " rating in any of these categories, it shall
be considered a "high -impact " recreational facility.
Whether the proposal conforms to all applicable criteria for granting of a Conditional
Use Permit and whether or not the motocross facility actually meets the definition of
a low -impact recreational facility may be determined through adequate review and
evaluation of the proposal relative to all applicable criteria by the Board of
Adjustment.
F. Compliance With Public Notice Requirements
Notification was mailed to property owners within 150 feet of the subject property on
July 7, 2010, pursuant to Section 2.06.040 (3) of the Zoning Regulations. Legal
notice of the public hearing on this application was published in the July 18, 2010
edition of the Daily Interlake.
(31, Agency Referrals
Referrals were sent to the following agencies on May 21, 2010:
• Flathead County Public Works Department
o Reason: The proposal has the potential to impact County facilities.
• Flathead County Solid Waste
o Reason: The proposal has the potential to impact County facilities.
• Flathead City -County Health Department
o Reason: Approval and implementation of the proposal would
necessitate availability of proper sanitation facilities for track users
and spectators, and review and permitting of such facilities is
administered by the department.
• Flathead County Sheriff
Z
o Reason: Tile proposal has the potential to impact public health and
safety.
West Valley Fire District
o Reason: The property is located within the department's jurisdiction.
111. COMMENTS RECEIVED
A. Public Comments
Eleven written public comments have been received as July 20, 2010 opposing the
proposed motocross track facility. No written public comments have been received to
date supporting the proposed motocross track facility. Any written comments
received following the completion of this report will be provided to the Board and
summarized during the public hearing.
The following is a sunnnarized list of public comment and concerns received as of the
date of the completion of this staff report:
Eight written letters from area residents opposed to the motocross track.
• Concerns regarding impacts from noise which limit the peaceful
enjoyment of their home -life during non -working hours and weekends.
• Concerns regarding impacts from noise which may affect their
property values.
• Concerns regarding impacts from noise which may affect the ability to
re -sell their homes and properties.
• Concerns regarding impacts from dust.
• Concerns regarding impacts to health due to exposure of sound
frequencies caused by motorcycles operating together in a group.
• Concerns regarding increased traffic and signage associated with the
proposed operation.
• Concerns regarding incompatibility of the proposed operation with the
applicable West Valley Neighborhood Plan.
• Concerns regarding future enforcement of conditions, if the proposal is
approved.
Letter from Henning, Keedy & Lee P.L.L.C. Attorneys at Law - retained by
the West Valley Pines Homeowner's Association, LLC.
• Concerns echo and reinforce the comments and concerns voiced in the
written letters from landowners.
• The letter is accompanied by a report from a 'noise expert' on the
effects of noise exposure on the physical and psychological health of
people and its impact on the quality of life. Also attached to the letter
is a DVD of movie clips documenting typical crowd, dust, and sound
impacts from a motocross racing event.
• Regarding the established conditional use permit criteria, the letter
cites Section 2.06.090 FCZR stating "the burden of proof for satisfying
the aforementioned criteria shall rest with the applicant and not the
Board of Adjustment."
• The letter suggests the applicant cannot meet the required burden of
proof that there would be no negative impact to surrounding
7
neighborhoods, and that stopping the proposed use at this time would
negate the likelihood of expensive and protracted future litigation.
B. Agency Comments
The following is a summarized list of agency comment received as of the date of the
completion of this staff report:
David Prunty and Guy Foy, Flathead County Road and Bridge Department
• The primary access from West Valley Drive should be utilized because
it is paved, alleviating the need for the applicant to provide dust
abatement on the county road (West Springcreek Drive).
• West Springcreek Drive is a gravel county road and the access onto
this road appears to be an unimproved dirt/gravel road and actions
,should be taken to control dust both on the access and the county road
if utilized for ingress/egress.
Glen Gray, Environmental Health Services
• Tile applicant is proposing "four stationary outhouses throughout the
property". If this refers to permanent outhouses they must be vaulted
privies that meet applicable construction standards- a site evaluation
and permit is required prior to installation.
• If porta-potties are proposed, a permit is not needed, but they are only
acceptable for temporary activities which have an end point.
• Dust control is proposed by the applicant - dust control is not optional
due to Flathead County Air Quality Regulations.
• For food service, any vendor must be licensed as a mobile food service
by the Department of Public Human Services, subject to inspection at
any time.
James Chilton, Flathead County Solid Waste District
• After reviewing the application the Solid Waste District views no
negative impact with solid waste issues at this time.
• The district requires that all solid waste generated at the proposed
location be hauled by private hauler; Evergreen Disposal is the
licensed Public Service Commission licensed hauler in the area.
IV. CRITERIA REQUIRED FOR CONSIDERATION
Sections 2.06.080 and 2.06.100 of the Flathead County Zoning Regulations (FCZR)
establish the general criteria required for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit. Per
Sections 2.06.080(1) other applicable criteria for the review of a low -impact recreational
facility include the Conditional Use Standards for Recreational Facilities found in Section
4.15.010 FCZR and the threshold criteria for low and high impact recreational facilities
found in Section 7.17.040 FCZR. What follows are the applicable criteria required for
consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a low -impact recreational facility and
suggested findings of fact based on review of each criterion.
A. Site Suitability
i. Adequate usable space
The submitted application includes a site plan indicating the 'area of operation',
`track area', and 'parking area'. As proposed, the current track is situated on
Tract 4 of the subject property, while the area of operation would include
portions of Tract 4A of the subject property to accommodate parking and
potential 'future track re -configuration.
The subject property (Tracts 4 and 4A combined) is approximately 80 acres in
size. The submitted text portion of the application states the track would use two
acres of land area, however staff analysis using ARC GIS mapping technology
indicates the proposed 'area of operation' of the track facility would cover
approximately 28 acres and the current track configuration actually covers
approximately 8 acres of land (refer to Figure 5 above).
While there is a discrepancy regarding the amount of land involved with the
proposed use, the total land area of the subject property is still considered to be
large relative to either estimate and the property area is adequate to
accommodate the proposed track, parking and circulation required of the use.
Finding #1 — The subject property is suitable for the proposed use because
there is adequate useable space to accommodate the proposed 'area of
operation' of the motocross track facility and the proposal complies with the
applicable bulk and dimensional requirements of the zoning in place.
ii. Adequate access
The subject property has an existing gravel approach onto West Valley Drive
proposed as primary ingress/egress for the facility. Additionally, the site plan
and submitted text indicates the ability to use an unimproved dirt road across
the owners property for additional egress onto West Springcreek Road, located
east of the subject property. Comment received frorn the Flathead County Road
and Bridge Department indicates the existing approach is preferable for all
facility use because West Valley Drive is paved and West Springcreek Road is
not. Airborne dust is a concern of two departments who submitted comment,
and the applicant would be required to implement dust mitigation on the access
road and West Springereek Road if that route would be used for facility
purposes. It is not clear whether or not an existing approach pennit exists for the
existing approach onto West Valley Drive. The applicant would be required to
either obtain an approach permit specifically applicable for the proposed use
from Flathead County Road and Bridge Department if one does not already
exist, or amend the existing permit, as applicable, to accommodate the proposed
use if one does already exist.
Finding #2 - The site is suitable for the proposed use because the property has
direct access onto paved West Valley Drive via an existing gravel approach
which may be adequately permitted and improved to accommodate the vehicle
traffic created as a result of the proposed use.
Finding #3 - A proposed additional egress for facility use via West Springcreek
Road does not presently appear to be appropriate for facility use because it is
relatively unimproved in terms of width and construction and would cause the
generation of airborne dust from increased vehicular use of both the access road
across the owner's land and West Springcreek Road.
iii. Absence of environmental constraints
The Subject property and 'area of operation' has been used for extensive dairy
purposes in the past. There are no streams, rivers, wetlands or riparian areas in
the 'area of operation', and the site does not appear to be subject to shallow
ground water as it occurs near the top of a topographic rise. The site doesn't
appear conducive to substantial wildlife use and has no apparent critical wildlife
habitat.
10
Finding #4 — The property is suitable for the proposed use because the property
is absent of environmental constraints including steep topography, critical
wildlife habitat, riparian areas and high groundwater.
B. Appropriateness of design
i. Parking scheme
The applicant has proposed parking in specific dirt lot areas on both tracts of the
subject property, as indicated on the submitted site plan. Generally, the majority
of parking would occur on a portion of Tract 4A in an area approximately
500'X600' in size covering 300,000 ft2. Chapter VI FUR addresses parking,
and indicates the standard vehicle space is 9X20' feet in size. It is assumed a
large number of track users may use large vehicles and trailers for hauling
motorcycles, and dimensions required for trailers and large vehicles are not
specified in the regulations. Assuming a vehicle with a trailer would need twice
the space for parking required of a standard vehicle (9X 40' - 360 ft'), the
proposed parking appears adequate to accommodate participants and spectators
of the proposed use assuming the operators establish adequate demarcation of
all parking surfaces and associated traffic circulation aisles as required per
Section 6.14.010 FCZR.
Finding #5 —The proposed parking appears acceptable because adequate space
is available for participant and spectator parking onsite, on -street pal -king oil the
public road is unnecessary, and the proposed parking areas may be adequately
demarcated to define parking spaces and associated traffic circulation aisles in
compliance with applicable parking standards outlined in Chapter VI FCZR.
ii. 'Traffic circulation
Vehicle traffic would enter and exit the site using the existing gravel approach
onto West Valley Drive. The applicant has proposed a conceptual and non-
specific internal traffic circulation scheme as indicated oil the submitted site
plan. Generally, internal traffic circulation would involve vehicles accessing the
site through the established gated entrance, proceeding eastward through the
farm infrastructure to gain access to the proposed parking areas, as depicted on
Figure 6 below (created by staff for reference).
As proposed, access to the parking areas would entail two-way traffic
circulation which requires a 20 foot wide roadway pursuant to Section
6.1.6.020(3) FCZR. Based upon observations from the staff site visit and from
measurements derived from available imagery, the internal access route is less
than 20 feet wide in several locations, and would be required to be improved to
at least a 20 foot width in its entirety. Per Section 6.14.010 1,CZR, the entire
internal access route should be required to be adequately demarcated prior to
operation of the facility involving use by the general public,
Finding #6 — The proposed site plan does not meet the design guidelines set
forth in the Flathead County Zoning Regulations requiring minimum width for
two-way traffic circulation because portions of the proposed internal access
route are between 10-15 feet in width and roadways for two-way traffic are
required to be 20 feet in width.
Finding #7 - The proposal for traffic circulation would present a hazard to
public health and safety because the proposed internal access route follows an
irregular and confusing path, is not adequately demarcated, and is not of
sufficient width to allow for safe passing of oncoming two-way traffic.
iii. Open space
As previously stated, the proposed 'area of operation' of the track facility would
cover approximately 30 acres with the current track configuration covering
approximately 7 acres of land, and the site is developed with numerous existing
farm -related and residential structures. A substantial portion of the 80 acre
subject property remains open as undeveloped and farmed land. The proposal
12
complies with the applicable threshold criteria regarding land intensity (0) for
recreational facilities which infers a low -impact recreational facility should not
require twice the minimum lot size determined by district classification (80 acre
minimum lot size in the AG-80 WVO district).
Finding #8 — There is adequate open space associated with the proposed low -
impact recreational facility because the proposed 'area of operation' is able to
be developed with the proposed motocross track in compliance with applicable
land intensity threshold criteria for recreational facilities and in such a way that
the subject property has remaining open space in excess of 50 acres.
iv. Fencing/screening
The site is located on a topographic rise causing the location to be very visible
from West Valley drive and surrounding area properties. The site plan indicates
fencing along West Valley Drive and along the southwest periphery of the 'area
of operation'. The application does not include any text description of proposed
fencing/screening, and it is unclear whether the applicant is simply
acknowledging existing farm fencing or if the applicant intends to construct
new fencing to serve as a visual and/or sound barrier between the proposed
motocross track and affected area residents.
The proposed motocross track is not anticipated to be highly visible unto itself,
as it is generally low level in relation to the surrounding terrain and existing
structures which may act as a visual screen. While it is not anticipated that
regular practice times would create a visual nuisance, participant and spectator
vehicles, spectator crowds, and potential sponsor advertising banners typical of
motorized racing events would be highly visible during race events and may
become a potential visual nuisance.
Public comments have indicated great concern regarding noise from the existing
and proposed motocross activities. Limited staff research (references attached
with this report) leads the reviewer to doubt the effectiveness of non -specialized
fencing on reducing the impacts Of Sound on surrounding properties, and limited
research indicates vegetation does not serve as a particularly effective
mitigation to the disturbing sound frequencies typical of standard motocross
vehicles which appear to typically range from 86 to 120+ decibels (dbA),
generally depending upon variable factors including engine size and type,
muffler set-up, and rpm's at time of monitoring.
Finding #9 — Proposed fencing/screening that would minimize noise and visual
impacts to area residents appears inadequate because the application provides
no description of intended purpose, materials, or height, nor does the applicant
provide proof of effectiveness of proposed fencing as a mitigation technique for
the anticipated impacts.
v. Landscaping
No landscaping is specifically required of the conditional use permit request.
Regarding this criterion, the application states 'see attached map', and the snap
indicates nothing pertaining to landscaping.
IN
Finding 910 —The ability for existing and/or proposed landscaping to mitigate
potential visual and noise impacts to adjacent properties and area residents is
not able to be reasonably evaluated because the submitted application does not
address landscaping.
vi. Signage
Regarding this criterion, the application states 'see attached map', and the map
indicates nothing pertaining to signage. To date, the track has used limited
directional signage located across the street and signage on the gate indicating
track rules. Any future signage would be required to meet applicable standards
and guidelines pursuant to FCZR Section 5.11.
Finding 1411 — There would be limited visual impacts resulting from signage on
the proposed facility because it is presurned future signage would be compliant
with applicable requirements set forth in the Flathead County Zoning
Regulations.
vii. Lighting
The application indicates the motocross facility will not be lighted, stating "the
track will never operate in the dark hours therefor we have no lighting". Any
exterior lighting shall comply with performance standards set forth in FCZR
Section 5.12.
Finding #12 — There will be limited visual impacts resulting from lighting of
the proposed facility because the track is proposed to not operate in the dark and
any future exterior lighting Would be required to comply with applicable
provisions set forth in the Flathead County Zoning Regulations.
C. Availability of Public Services and Facilities
i. Sewer
The subject property is currently served by individual septic system(s) for the
uses already established. The proposal indicates participants and spectators of
the motocross facility would be served by a "minimurn of four stationary
outhouses throughout the property." It is unclear as to whether the 'stationary
outhouses' would be permanently constructed vaulted privies or portable
outhouses provided by a service provider, and it is unclear whether four
outhouses would adequately serve the needs of the potential number of
participants and spectators that would be present on practice days and race days.
As indicated by Glen Gray of Flathead County Environmental Health Services,
if permanent outhouses are established they must be vaulted privies that meet
applicable construction standards and a site evaluation and permit is required
prior to installation. If portable outhouses are proposed, a pen -nit is not needed,
but they are only acceptable for temporary activities which have an end point.
14
ii. Water
There are no public water services available and the Subject property is
currently served by existing well(s). Regarding this criterion, the application
only states "numerous hydrants throughout the property". It appears the
applicant is referring to water for dust control, and it is not clear whether or not
the 'hydrants' provide potable water. In order to provide a commercial race
event to the general public it is presumed that potable water should be made
available to participants and spectators in order to not create a hazard to public
health and safety. If food and beverages are to be provided by mobile food
vendors, any vendor must be licensed as a mobile food service by the
Department of Public Human Services, subject to inspection at any time.
Finding #13 — The proposed use would have minimal impact on public services
and facilities because the facility would be served by private means for water,
sewer, and food vending services, all of which would be required to be
permitted, as applicable, prior to beginning operations.
iii. Storm Water Drainage
According to submitted statements all stormwater runoff from the subject
property currently drains into the existing drainage ditches surrounding the
property. Current zoning regulations do not require that stormwater
management techniques be implemented, however, in the event development of
the facility will cause more than I acre of land to be "disturbed", the applicant is
required to obtain permit coverage under the General Permit for %rnl Water
Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, issued by the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality (A.R.M. 17.30.1102(28)).
Finding #14 — Stormwater drainage has been adequately addressed for the
conditional use process because the proposed use will result in no increase in
impervious surface, and runoff resulting from the motocross track could be
retained onsite and directed toward existing drainage ditches that appear able to
accommodate additional run-off created.
Finding #15 — It appears development of the motocross facility is subject to
compliance with stormwater provisions administered by the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality because track development is non-
agricultural and has resulted in the disturbance of more than one acre of land.
iv. Fire Protection
The subject property is located within in the West Valley Fire District, with a
fire station located approximately four miles east at the comer of Reserve Loop
and U.S. Highway 93.
v. Police Protection
The subject property is served by the Flathead County Sheriffs Department.
Relatively quick response times would be anticipated given the property's
location near to a major highway and between the urbanized areas of Kalispell
and Whitefish.
IN
vi. Streets
As previously discussed, the subject property has direct access onto West
Valley Drive via an existing gravel approach The application proposes an
additional access point which would approach onto West Springcreek Road, but
comment from the Flathead County Road and Bridge Department indicates its
preference for the facility to only use West Valley Drive for ingress/egress due
to poor conditions on West Springcreek Road, indicating use of that route
would require extensive dust control by the applicant.
Pursuant to Section 6.16.020(4) FUR all accesses onto County roads shall
have been approved by the County Road Department with the issuance of all
encroachment permit. Such permits shall be obtained prior to the construction
and/or use of such access. It is not clear whether the existing approach onto
West Valley Drive has previously undergone review and approval from the
Flathead County Road and Bridge Department.
Finding #16 - Pursuant to Section 6.16.020(4) FUR the applicant should
obtain either a new or amended encroachment permit for the existing approach
onto West Valley Drive because the proposed use would introduce significant
changes in the number of ingress/egress trips which may impact functionality of
the approach or introduce impacts to the paved road.
Finding #17 - Impacts to public services and facilities are accessible because
the subject property is in an area of the county served by the West Valley Fire
District and the Flathead County Sheriff, and has direct access onto West Valley
Drive, a paved county road adequate to serve the sporadic traffic generated by
the proposed use, subject to the approval and issuance of an encroachment
pennit.
D. Immediate Neighborhood Impact
i. Excessive traffic generation
Regarding this criterion the application states that that for practice times the
facility will not exceed 75 vehicle trips per day and indicate race events will
generate traffic exceeding 75 vehicle trips per day. West Valley Drive is paved
24 feet wide and the area is sparsely populated with few residential driveways
directly accessing the road in the vicinity of the proposal site. It is not
anticipated the estimated traffic generation would be problematic on typical
`practice times' because usage is not concentrated at a particular time of day.
Traffic generation may be problematic on race event days because usage would
appear to be more concentrated at particular times of day depending on race
times of scheduled races of different size category, and 'bottleneck' congestion
could occur with participant and spectator vehicles and trailers at the relatively
narrow entrance to the facility. The application speaks very little to this matter
and provides no clarifying information to the contrary of staff's assumptions.
Finding #18 — Increased amounts of additional vehicle traffic on race event
days may result in congestion causing traffic to 'jam' on West Valley Drive at
the facility entrance because multitudes of participants and spectators will likely
U
arrive in vehicles with or without trailers at key times relative to scheduled races
of different size category.
ii. Noise or vibration
The application states "dirt bikes and ATV's are required to have silencers
which average the sound level to be at, 93 dB which is below the State
regulations...'.. Flathead County does not have an adopted noise ordinance, nor
are there any adopted standards regarding maximum allowable decibel levels in
the Flathead County Zoning Regulations.
Numerous complaints regarding noise from motocross activity and a recent
zoning violation regarding purported 'commercial use' of the motocross track
and its associated noise have been submitted to the Flathead County Planning
and Zoning Department. Noise impact to area residents in the West Valle),
Pines Subdivision, located approximately .5 miles from the track, is the primary
concern regarding the proposal. Numerous voiced concerns regarding noise
generally include impacts to enjoyment of home -life during non -working hours
and weekends, perceived adverse impacts to property values, and impacts to
health. Figure 2 (above) indicates the topography of the subject property relative
to the surrounding immediate neighborhood. As seen in Figure 2 the terrain
directly southwest of the proposal site descends in a bowl -like depression which
appears to direct noise from the motocross track toward the West Valley Pines
Subdivision much like a funnel.
It appears from general research on the topic that motocross facilities are often
designed and planned with the assistance of professional consultants who plan
and design track locations and configuration with built-in sound mitigation
measures such as 'bert-ning' and 'digging -in' to attenuate the intensity of sound
traveling off -site. In attempting to mitigate noise impacts the applicant:
• has situated the starting line against a north facing wall of a building to
prevent the loudest concentration of sound, caused by cumulative high
rpm's with simultaneous acceleration, to be blocked from direct exposure to
the southwest direction where affected residences are located; and
• proposes no noise after 8:00 pm on practice times and strictly enforced
"quiet time" from I 0:00pm - 6:00 am on race events,
Aside from these considerations it doesn't appear there have been any other
substantial design elements implemented to mitigate noise impacts to the
immediate neighborhood. The proposed limited hours of operation (see section
v. of the report below) happen to coincide with times that residents are typically
at home, namely evenings and weekends. It appears no compelling proof has
been presented by the applicant that there will be no detrimental noise impacts
to the surrounding neighborhood.
Finding #19 — Numerous comments and concerns regarding noise impacts to
residents living within the West Valley Pines Subdivision have been submitted
alleging the peaceful enjoyment of their homes, their property values, and their
general health and well being are being adversely impacting by the motocross
a
activities occurring on the proposal site because the noise travels, unimpeded by
topography or other barriers, from the source to the location of their homes.
Finding #20- Applicant attempts to mitigate motocross related noise impacts to
area residents are relatively ineffective because the track is located on a hill
above the subdivision, no professional consultation has been used to
deliberately design the track to minimize noise impacts, and proposed limited
hours of operation coincide with times when residents are typically home in the
evenings and on weekends.
iii. Dust, glare or heat.
The proposed use is not anticipated to generate glare or heat, but it is anticipated
to generate substantial dust unless active dust mitigation is implemented. For
this purpose, the track has been developed with a system of water valves and
sprinkling devices to minimize generation of airborne dust from track use. The
application indicates a watering, truck will frequently water the track to
minimize dust, but does not address the need for dust mitigation on the
approach, internal traffic circulation areas, and parking areas.
Finding #21 — The proposed use has the potential to create substantial
environmental impact due to generation of airborne dust because motocross
activity agitates exposed soils and the approach and all internal access, pal -king
areas, and traffic circulation areas are comprised of dirt and gravel.
iv. Smoke, fumes, gas, or odors
The application indicates motorcycles pass emission tests before being sold, and
due to the fact that current trends in motocross racing involve mainly
motorcycles with 4-cycle engines, the facility won't create unreasonable
impacts due to smoke, fumes, gas, or odors. There is no requirement to use
motorcycles with 4-cycle engines, and it is assumed there would be 2-cycle
engines riding on -site which use gas mixed with oil, producing hones, smoke,
and odors. However direct impacts to area residents are not anticipated as the
nearest off -site residences are located at least .5 miles from the proposal site.
Finding #22 — Immediate neighborhood impacts resulting from smoke, fumes,
and odors are not anticipated to be significant due to the approximate half mile
distance between the track and area residents, and the likelihood that fumes,
smoke, and odors would dissipate in the air within that distance.
v. Inappropriate hours of operation
Proposed operation hours of the track facility include:
Open Practice Time (pending CUP approval)
- Tuesdays and Thursdays from 3:30 PM to 8:00 PM during the school year
- Tuesdays and Thursdays from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM during the summer
- Saturdays from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM
Race Events (pending CUP approval)
- Two in summer 2010 - June 19 (cancelled), August 21-22
- Five annually (pending CUP approval)
18
As discussed above, the proposed hours of operation generally coincide with
times when residents and their families are home, which may be considered a
burden to the resident who is subjected to constant disturbing noise during the
hours of operation, weekly throughout the spring, Summer, and fall months of
the year.
Finding #23 - While the proposed hours of operation may appear a compromise
from full time motocross activity, they would have an impact on the
surrounding neighborhood because the hours of operation coincide with evening
and weekend hours residents are typically at home.
E. Conditional Use Standards For Recreational Facilities (per 4.15.010 FCZR)
Section 4.15.010 FCZR states: Due to the diverse nature of the potential recreational
facilities that may be proposed or developed in the planning jurisdiction, no specific
standards are established. However, proposed uses that must obtain a Conditional
Use Permit may be reviewed subject to a number of'criteria. These criteria may
include, but are not limited to, traffic generation, parking availability, impact on
surrounding uses, landscaping, noise generation, and accessibility. Mitigation
strategies for the possible impacts of' recreational facilities that must obtain a
Conditional Use Permit may be .submitted with the permit application materials.
The submitted application includes a text element that is an expanded discussion of
the applicant's perspective on the criteria listed above, which has been addressed in
this report under sub -headings A-D above. The applicant discussion includes
perspective on the benefits that providing a motocross facility would provide to the
Flathead Valley and its residents including:
* economic benefit by attracting racers and spectators to the area from distant
places;
* providing family -oriented recreation and fun;
* providing a drug and alcohol free riding opportunity;
e providing riding opportunity for people of all ages;
e providing a place to legally ride dirt bikes and ATVs; and
e providing a riding opportunity that's close to town and affordable,
Finding #24- The proposed use would offer some important benefits to Flathead
County because it would potentially be a draw for tourists, spectators, and racers to
visit the county and contribute to the local economy and it would provide a form of
recreation not readily available within the Flathead Valley.
F. Recreational Facilities Threshold Criteria (per 7.17.040 FCZR)
A 'recreational facility' is "A structure or use of property not otherwise listed in these
regulations to accommodate the enjoyment, healthful activities, and leisure of the
facility's users. Such a use may be enclosed by walls and roof (indoor) or an open-air
(outdoor) arrangement. Recreational facilities are also defined as being either "high
impact" or "low impact", based on the fallowing criteria:
1. Land Intensity — the amount of land necessary to operate the facility.
Fxamples: High impact — golf course, ski area
19
Low impact — archery range, video game arcade
Threshold: Facility requires more than twice the "minimum lot size" determined
by district classcation.
2. Traff
ic Generation —the amount of motor vehicle traffic created by use.
Examples: High impact — water slide, fairgrounds
Low impact — golf driving range, dude ranch
Threshold,- Traffic greater than or equal to 20 trips per hour at peak hours or 75
trips per day.
3. Visibility — the visual impact of the facility; how obvious its presence is.
Examples.- High impact — water slide, ski area
Low impact — dude ranch, day camp
Threshold: Structures unusual compared to surrounding uses are visible from
adjacent roadways.
4. Risk — the possibility of danger to adjacent landowners or property.
Examples: High impact — zoos, rifle ranges
Low impact --- bike rental, fishing
Threshold: Reasonable chance of danger or damage to nearby property) or people.
If a fbeility is determined to have a "high " rating in any of these categories, it shall
be considered a "high -impact" recreational facility.
Following is a description of how the proposed facility does or does not meet the
recreation facility threshold criteria based on evaluation of the submitted application:
1) Land Intensity: The facility does not require more than twice the "minimum lot
size" of the AG-80 district, as that would require 160 acres of land. This criterion is
met.
2) Traffic Generation: During practice time traffic would most likely be less than 20
trips per hour at peak hours and less than 75 trips per day. For typical motocross race
events traffic would likely be greater than or equal to 20 trips per hour at peak hours
or 75 trips per day, as stated by the applicant, This criterion is not met.
3) Visibility: No structures are proposed; therefore structures visible from adjacent
roadways are not unusual compared to surrounding uses. If the intent of this provision
is simply structures, the criterion is met, however, if visibility is interpreted to mean
prominence, such as the degree to which something is easily noticed by and catches
the attention of the public or a group of people, the criterion would not be met due to
the degree of disturbing noise generated by the proposed use. This criterion may be
met or not met, depending on interpretation - while the motocross track's presence is
not necessarily visually. obvious, the track is audibly obvious during hours of
operation due to unmitigated noise impacts.
4) Risk: If reasonable chance of danger or damage to nearby property or people
includes damage to property values or impact on neighboring residents' physical and
emotional well being this criterion appears not inet, based on public comments
submitted and evaluated.
Of,
Finding #25- Subject to compliance with the threshold criteria for low and high
impact recreational facilities outlined in 7.17.040 FCZR, the proposed motocross
track meets the definition of a high -impact recreational facility because the low
impact recreational facility threshold criteria for traffic generation has a high rating
and is not met as race event traffic would be greater than or equal to 20 trips per hour
at peak hours or 75 trips per day, as stated by the applicant.
Finding #26- Subject to compliance with the threshold criteria for low and high
impact recreational facilities outlined in 7.17.040 FCZR, the criteria for visibility
appears to not be met as the motocross track's presence is audibly obvious during
hours of operation due to unmitigated noise impacts
Finding #27- Based on submitted cornments, there is reasonable cause to believe
property values would be negatively impacted by continued operation of the
motocross track in its current location on the subject property. Subject to Compliance
with the threshold criteria for low and high impact recreational facilities outlined in
7.17.040 FCZR, the criteria for risk appears to not be met as operation of the facility
would damage neighboring residents' property values and impact their physical and
emotional well being due to frequent and persistent noise impacts ftorn the motocross
activities.
V. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
I. The subject property is suitable for the proposed use because there is adequate
useable space to accommodate the proposed 'area of operation' of the niotocross,
track facility and the proposal complies with the applicable bulk and dimensional
requirements of the zoning in place.
2. The site is suitable for the proposed use because the property has direct access onto
paved West Valley Drive via an existing gravel approach which may be adequately
permitted and improved to accommodate the vehicle traffic created as a result of the
proposed use.
3. A proposed additional egress for facility use via West Springcreek Road does not
presently appear to be appropriate for facility use because it is relatively unimproved
in terms of width and construction and would cause the generation of airborne dust
from increased vehicular use of both the access road across the owner's land and
West Springcreek Road.
4. The property is suitable for the proposed use because the property is absent of
environmental constraints including steep topography, critical wildlife habitat,
riparian areas and high groundwater.
5. The proposed parking appears acceptable because adequate space is available for
participant and spectator parking onsite, on -street parking on the public road is
unnecessary, and the proposed parking areas may be adequately demarcated to define
parking spaces and associated traffic circulation aisles in compliance with applicable
parking standards outlined in Chapter VI FCZR.
a
6. The proposed site plan does not meet the design guidelines set forth in the Flathead
County Zoning Regulations requiring minimum width for two-way traffic circulation
because portions of the proposed internal access route are between 10-15 feet in
width and roadways for two-way traffic are required to be 20 feet in width.
7. The proposal for traffic circulation would present a hazard to public health and safety
because the proposed internal access route follows an irregular and confusing path, is
not adequately demarcated, and is not of sufficient width to allow for safe passing of
oncoming two-way traffic.
8. There is adequate open space associated with the proposed low -impact recreational
facility because the proposed 'area of operation' is able to be developed with tile
proposed motocross track in compliance with applicable land intensity threshold
criteria for recreational facilities and in such a way that the subject property has
remaining open space in excess of 50 acres.
9. Proposed fencing/screening that would minimize noise and visual impacts to area
residents appears inadequate because the application provides no description of
intended purpose, materials, or height.
10. The ability for existing and/or proposed landscaping to mitigate potential visual and
noise impacts to adjacent properties and area residents is not able to be reasonably
evaluated because the submitted application does not address landscaping.
11. There Would be limited visual impacts resulting from signage on the proposed facility
because it is presumed future signage would be compliant with applicable
requirements set forth in the Flathead County Zoning Regulations.
12. There will be limited visual impacts resulting from lighting of the proposed facility
because the track is proposed to not operate in the dark and any future exterior
lighting would be required to comply with applicable provisions set forth in the
Flathead County Zoning Regulations.
13. The proposed use would have minimal impact on public services and facilities
because the facility would be served by private means for water, sewer, and food
vending services, all of which would be required to be permitted, as applicable, prior
to beginning operations.
14. Stormwater drainage has been adequately addressed for the conditional use process
because the proposed use will result in no increase in impervious surface, and runoff
resulting from the motocross track could be retained onsite and directed toward
existing drainage ditches that appear able to accommodate additional run-off created.
15. It appears development of the motocross facility is subject to compliance with
storniwater provisions administered by the Montana Department of Environmental
Quality because track development is non-agricultural and has resulted in the
disturbance of more than one acre of land.
16. Pursuant to Section 6.16.020(4) FCZR. the applicant should obtain either a new or
amended encroachment permit for the existing approach onto West Valley Drive
because the proposed use would introduce significant changes in the number of
NN
ingress/egress trips which may impact functionality of the approach or introduce
impacts to the paved road.
17. Impacts to public services and facilities are accessible because the subject property is
in an area of the county served by the West Valley Fire District and the Flathead
County Sheriff, and has direct access onto West Valley Drive, a paved county road
adequate to serve the sporadic traffic generated by the proposed use, subject to the
approval and issuance of an encroachment permit.
18. Increased amounts of additional vehicle traffic on race event days may result in
congestion causing traffic to 'jam' on West Valley Drive at the facility entrance
because multitudes of participants and spectators will likely arrive in vehicles with or
without trailers at key times relative to scheduled races of different size category.
19. Numerous comments and concerns regarding noise impacts to residents living within
the West Valley Pines Subdivision have been submitted alleging the peaceful
enjoyment of their homes, their property values, and their general health and well
being are being adversely impacting by the motocross activities occurring on the
proposal site because the noise travels, unimpeded by topography or other barriers,
from the source to the location of their homes.
20. Applicant attempts to mitigate motocross related noise impacts to area residents are
relatively ineffective because the track is located on a hill above the subdivision, no
professional consultation has been used to deliberately design the track to minimize
noise impacts, and proposed limited hours of operation coincide with times when
residents are typically home in the evenings and on weekends.
21. 'fhe proposed use has the potential to create substantial environmental impact due to
generation of airborne dust because motocross activity agitates exposed soils and the
approach and all internal access, parking areas, and traffic circulation areas are
comprised of dirt and gravel.
22. Immediate neighborhood impacts resulting from smoke, fumes, and odors are not
anticipated to be significant due to the approximate half mile distance between the
track and area residents, and the likelihood that fumes, smoke, and odors would
dissipate in the air within that distance.
23. While the proposed hours of operation may appear a compromise from full time
motocross activity, they would have an impact on the surrounding neighborhood
because the hours of operation coincide with evening and weekend hours residents
are typically at home.
24. The proposed use would offer some important benefits to Flathead County because it
would potentially be a draw for tourists, spectators, and racers to visit the county and
contribute to the local economy and it would provide a form of recreation not readily
available within the Flathead Valley.
25. Subject to compliance with the threshold criteria for low and high impact recreational
facilities outlined in 7.17.040 FCZR, the proposed motocross track meets the
definition of a high -impact recreational facility because the low impact recreational
facility threshold criteria for traf ,fie generation has a high rating and is not met as race
M
event traffic would be greater than or equal to 20 trips per hour at peak hours or 75
trips per day, as stated by the applicant.
26. Subject to compliance with the threshold criteria for low and high impact recreational
facilities outlined in 7.17.040 FCZR, the criteria for visibility appears to not be met as
the motocross track's presence is audibly obvious during hours of operation due to
uninitigated noise impacts.
27. Based on submitted comments, there is reasonable cause to believe property values
would be negatively impacted by continued operation of the motocross track in its
current location on the subject property. Subject to compliance with the threshold
criteria for low and high impact recreational facilities outlined in 7.17.040 FCZR, the
criteria for risk appears to not be net as operation of the facility would damage
neighboring residents' property values and impact their physical and emotional well
being due to frequent and persistent noise impacts from the motocross activities.
V1. RECOMMENDATION
Upon review and evaluation of this application, the request for a rnotocross track as a
Low -impact Recreation Facility oil the subject property in the AG-80 West Valley
Overlay of the Westside Zoning District does not adequately conform to all applicable
review criteria as required per 2.06,080(1) FCZR. Based upon the 27 Findings of Fact
listed above, Staff recommends that the Flathead County Board of Adjustment adopt staff`
report FCU- 10- 13 as findings of fact and deny the conditional use permit.
Understanding the Board of Adjustment adopts Findings of Fact and approves or denies
an application only after review and evaluation of all applicable criteria and information
presented at a public hearing, there is a potential the Board of Adjustment may adopt
Findings of Fact which differ from those proposed by staff. In the event the Board of
Adjustment adopts Findings of Fact which support approval of the Conditional Use
Permit the following set of draft conditions are proposed as a starting point for mitigating
some impacts of the proposed use which staff has identified as being able to be
adequately mitigated through conditions. Draft Findings of Fact proposed by Staff
addressing criteria which appear to be inadequately mitigated or incapable of adequate
mitigation would need to be changed, if adequately justified, and specific associated
conditions to adequately mitigate impacts would need to be crafted by the Board of
Adjustment at the time of their decision.
V11. CONDITIONS
1. The operation of the motocross facility on the subject property shall be in substantial
conformance with the original application and site plan submitted and approved by the
Board of Adjustment,
2. Changes or modifications to the approved use(s) or the site plan shall not be affected
unless specifically approved in writing by the Flathead County Board of Adjustment.
3. The approved use shall conform to the applicable development standards of the AG-80
WVO zoning district [FCZR Section 3.40.040].
24
The Effects of Noise Pollution 1OYour ffealth
ATTACHMENT B/Section 8
Health I Health Articles Health Videos Health Guides
About Dr, Mercola | Shog for Healt,h Products
/
Take Control of Your Health
Call Toll Free: 877-5O5'2696
Quieting Down
Could Save Billions in Heart
Story at -a -glance
By Dr. Mercola
Noise pollution is an source of
environmental stress that can raise your risk of
serious health conditions, including heart
disease. |nthe USit's estimated that 1O0million
people are exposed hounhealthy levels ofnoise,
typically from automobile and aircraft traffic
(although everything from leaf blowers and
|mwnmowermtnloud music can also contribute).!
|nthe 1Q7Oathe UGEnvironmental Protection
Agency (EPA)set arecommended noise
exposure limit of 55decibels ina24-hour
period, with nighttime noise weighted more
heavily because itcan interfere with sleep, For
comparison, aquiet suburb has adecibel level
ofabout 5O.while freeway traffic imcloser tu7O
and mchain saw im12Odecibels.
Pets I Fitness
�One in 15 American Homes Is Affected
"by Ma*or Lung Cancer Hazard
Propaganda Machine Takes Aim at Zika
�
Virus
How to Prevent and Treat Kidney
�
Problems With Food
� New Discoveries May Unlock the Link
�
Autism
Between Vitamin D Deficiency and
�
�
the Food Industry Curtain
You Might Also Like
Page 1. of 5
Both Air And Noise Pollution Increase
Cardiovascular Risk
I ra"Ic, Personal Care and Plastic Products
Unoluo! Too Murh Lightnf Night May Lead to
Depression
These exposure levels haven't been assessed
since 1A81.however, asnoise issues were deemed best handled atthe state and local government levm.2
Just how much noise a person can reasonably handle without health consequences is still relatively
unknown... but what is clear is that excess noise is a serious risk factor for your health.
The Effects ofNoise Pollution bJYmoHealth
Page 2 of 5
Noise pollution may increase your risk of hearing loss, stress, sleep disturbances, and heart disease. A new
analysis conducted an environmental assessment of US noise pollution as a cardiovascular health hazard,
and revealed small decreases innoise could add uphomajor economic savings.
The analyses suggested that a 5-decibel noise reduction would reduce the prevalence of high blood
presUsulby 1.4 percent and coronary heart disease by 1.8 percent. The annual economic benefit was
estimated at $3.9 billion.2
The researchers assumed that noise exposure levels in2013were the same methose assessed in18Q1.
However, as urbanization has increased it's likely these are underestimates and reductions in noise may
impact even more people than the study suggested.A Senior author Richard L. Neitzel of the University of
Michigan School cfPublic Health inAnn Arbor told Rautem*:»
"Most of Western Europe bfar ahead of the U�in understanding people's noise exposure,"
hthe �S. the most recent noise exposure data we have is almost 40 years old, 'whereas inEurope
they have requirements to map out and understand who's exposed &nnoise and have requirements to
dosomething about it. In the U. S. we just view it as a necessary byproduct ofthe technology we
According horesearch published inEnvironmental Health Perspectives, long-term exposure hotraffic noise
may account for approximately 3 percent of coronary heart disease deaths (or about 210,000 deaths) in
Europe each yno/,§But, how, exactly, does noise harm your heart?
One of the key ways is by elevating stress hormones such as cortisol, adrenaline, and noradrenaline, which,
over time, can lead to high blood pressure, stroke and heart failure. One review of research showed that
~umusa|a000dmtedwidhnightUmonoimeaxpoouroinmeueedb|oodondma|ivacnnoen(mhwnoofdhose
hormones even during o|eep.z
Deepak Prasher, a professor of audiology at University College in London and a member of the WHO Noise
Environmental Burden on Disease working group, states:§
"Many people become habituated bonoise overtino'. The biological effects are imperceptible, au
that even eayou become accustomed hrthe noise, adverse physiological changes are nevertheless
taking place, with potentially serious consequences to human health.
—Taken together, recent epidemiologic data show us that noise isamajor stressor that can influence
health through the endocrine, immune, and cardiovascular systems, "
The impact can be significant. Among women who judge themselves tobesensitive to noise, chronic noise
exposure increased the risk of cardiovascular mortality by 80 percent!2 Chronic noise exposure also leads to
ham|Uh risks beyond your heart, such as hearing loss, diminished productivity, sleep disruption, impaired
learning, and more.
Those who live near busy roadways, airports, and industrial areas are those most likely to be exposed to
both noise pollution and air pollution, Interestingly, both fine particle matter air pollution and noise pollution
are believed toincrease your cardiovascular diemanehokthmughmimi|mrb|o|ogiopathwmya.includinQby
causing an imbalance in your autonomic nervous system (ANS).
Your ANS is intricately involved in regulating biological functions such as blood pressure, blood sugar levels,
clotting, and viscosity. |na German study ofmore than 4.200people, researchers used mmeasure oYarterial
hardening known as "thoracic aortic oa|oification^(TAC)toestimate heart risks.
|ittp:llai-ticles.mercola.comlsivel2Ol5lO6l20lnoise-po}lution.nspx 2/18/2016
The Effects of Noise Pollution to Your Health
Page 3 of 5
Exposure to fine particle air pollution increased TAC scores by nearly 20 percent while exposure to noise
pollution increased TAC by about 8 percent.Ll This was after controlling for other variables that may influence
heart health, such as age, gender, smoking, physical activity, alcohol use, and more.
What this means is that people living in high -risk areas need to account for both types of pollution to protect
their heart health. As researchers noted:"
". - both exposures seem to be important and both must be considered on a population level, rather
than focusing on just one hazard."
Noise Pollution Can Lead to Noise -induced Hearing Loss
Noise -induced hearing loss (NIHL), which can occur from one very loud noise exposure (such as an
explosion) or continuous exposure to loud noise over time (such as working in a factory), affects about 15
percent of Americans. According to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
(NIDCD):Ll
"Recreational activities that can put you at risk for NIHL include target shooting and hunting,
snowmobile riding, listening to MP3 players at high volume through earbuds or headphones, playing
in a band, and attending loud concerts, Harmful noises at home may come from sources including
lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and woodworking tools.
Sound is measured in units called decibels. Sounds of less than 75 decibels, even after long
exposure, are unlikely to cause hearing loss.
However, long or repeated exposure to sounds at or above 85 decibels can cause hearing loss. The
louder the sound, the shorter the amount of time it takes for NIHL to happen, Here are the average
decibel ratings of some familiar sounds:
. The humming of a refrigerator- 45 decibels
- Normal conversation: 60 decibels
- Noise from heavy city traffic: 85 decibels
- Motorcycles: 95 decibels
- An MP3 player at maximum volume: 105 decibels
Sirens: 120 decibels
Firecrackers and firearms: 150 decibels
Your distance from the source of the sound and the length of time you are exposed to the sound are
also important factors it) protecting your hearing. A good rule of thumb is to avoid noises that are too
loud, too close, or last too long, "
The best way to prevent NIHL is to reduce the noise if possible, and if not wear earplugs or other protective
devices to protect your hearing. If you can't do either of these, move away from the noise.
Noise pollution can harm your health in many ways, aside from harming your heart health and leading to
hearing loss. Many of these are just beginning to be explored. For instance, a study on pregnant women
found exposure to noise pollution may lead to lower birth weight.?
httl):Ilarticles.meroola.com/sites/articles/archive/2Ol5/O6/2O/noise-pollution.aspx 2/18/2016
The Effects Of Noise Pollution k}Your Health
Page 4 of 5
Research also suggests long-term exposure to noise pollution may have an effectoncognitive development
inchildren and cognitive and psychological functions inadults, although more research isneeded inthis
area." One study of traffic wardens in Pakistan, who are exposed to noise levels between 85-106 decibels
houndaignifioontphymio'pmychu|ogica|mMectedueVmbafficnoimupoUu8vn.|nduding:" '
Aggravated depression: 5894
Irritation and annoyance: 54%
Hypertension: 87%
Low performance levels: 96%
Headache: 74%
Strmna:85%
�
Concentration loss: S3%
Cardiovascular issue: 71%
Public conflict: 71%
Speech interference: 56%.
Exhaustion: 4896
Hearing impairment: 69%
There is also the issue of sleep disturbances, which is why nighttime noise pollution is thought to be worse
than daytime exposures. /fyou can't sleep because ofnoise, dcan cause ocascade ofnegative health
repercussions, Research has even shown that chronic noise exposure of about 100 decibels leads to a
significant reduction intestosterone levels inmale rodents, According tothe neaeamhem:16-
"Chmnicpsychological distress can cause suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitaty-testicular axis
and thus lead to male hypogonadism [a condition in which the body doesn't produce enough
testosterone], which is associated with psycho -social dysfunction, chronic diseases, and as a result,
considerable economic costs,
Conversely, noise is aprototypal environmental utrexsorofgrowing importance, already linked to
birth outcomes and diabetes. However, its effects onmale testosterone levels have been paid little
attention .. . Research on humans is highly warranted, especially given the steady trend in Western
societies for increasing the burden of both male hypogonadism and noise pollution, "
How to Minimize
the Risks of Noise Pollution
What can you do about noise pollution in your home to protect your heart and overall health? Kyou live in
very noisy area, such mmnear ahighway cvairport, you may want to consider moving. |fthat ienot anophon
consider adding acoustical Ukatmyour m�wal
ls '
insulation can also help, At the very least, you can sound -treat your home by adding heavy curtains to your
windows, rugs to your floors and sealing air leaks. If noise is only an issue occasionally, sound -blocking
headphones can eliminate such disturbances.
If noise is an issue during the night, you may want to consider adding pink noise to your bedroom, Pink noise
iosteady with aconsistent frequency, like the sound ufwind orconstant rain. Research shows that steady
pink noise can help slow down and regulate your brainwaves for more stable sleep and improved sleep
quality." While pink noise CDs are available, you can also simply turn on a fan in your bedroom to block out
noise disturbances and instead take advantage of this beneficial type of pink noise.
If you work inenoisy environment. be sure you are wearing ear protection at all times, and leave the site mm
often as possible, such as during breaks and lunch. Also be cognizant of noise exposures during your leisure
time, such as that from motorcycles, lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and even loud music and television. Try to
make less noise when you can, not only for your own sake but for the sake of those around you.
lttp://articies.mercola-conilsiteslarticloslarcliivel2O!5lO6l2Alnoiseon.aspx 2/18/2016
Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague
Page I of 20
Noise Pollution: A Modem Plague
Lisa Goines, RN and Louis Hagler, MID
Used with permission from the Southern Medical Journal and the authors
Southern Medical Journal, Volume 100: March 2007, pages 287-294.
Former U, S. Surgeon General William H. Stewart said in 1978, "Calling noise a nuisance is like calling smog an
inconvenience. Noise must be considered a hazard to the health of people everywhere."
Abstract
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Environmental noise consists of all the unwanted
sounds in our communities except that which originates in the workplace. Environmental
noise pollution, a form of air pollution, is a threat to health and well-being. It is more severe
and widespread than ever before, and it will continue to increase in magnitude and severity
because of population growth, urbanization, and the associated growth in the use of
increasingly powerful, varied, and highly mobile sources of noise. It will also continue to grow
because of sustained growth in highway, rail, and air traffic, which remain major sources of
environmental noise. The potential health effects of noise pollution are numerous, pervasive,
persistent, and medically and socially significant. Noise produces direct and cumulative
adverse effects that impair health and that degrade residential, social, working, and learning
environments with corresponding real (economic) and intangible (well-being) losses, It
interferes with sleep, concentration, communication, and recreation. The aim of enlightened
governmental controls should be to protect citizens from the adverse effects of airborne
pollution, including those produced by noise. People have the right to choose the nature of
their acoustical environment; it should not be imposed by others.
Favor me with silence. Horace (65BCE-8BCE)
httl)://www.nODOise.org/l.ibrary/sm.j/sm.i.htm ? / I R/?()l ()
Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague
Page 2 of 20
Throughout recorded history, mankind has been plagued by a variety of both natural
and manmade ills. In the 21't Century we are experiencing the man-made plague of
environmental noise from which there is virtually no escape, no matter where we are — in our
homes and yards, on our streets, in our cars, at theaters, restaurants, parks, arenas, and in
other public places. Despite attempts to regulate it, noise pollution has become an unfortunate
fact of life worldwide. In a way that is analogous to second-hand smoke, second-hand noise is
an unwanted airborne pollutant produced by others; it is imposed on us without our consent,
often against our wills, and �at times, places, and volumes over which we have no control.
There is growing evidence that noise pollution is not merely an annoyance; like other
forms of pollution, it has wide-ranging adverse health, social, and economic effects."' A
recent search (September, 2006) of the National Library of Medicine data base for adverse
health effects of noise revealed over 5000 citations, many of recent vintage. As the population
grows and as sources of noise become more numerous and more powerful, there is increasing
exposure to noise pollution, which has profound public health implications. Noise, even at
levels that are not harmful to hearing, is perceived subconsciously as a danger signal, even
during sleep.2 The body reacts to noise with a "fight or flight" response, with resultant nervous,
hormonal, and vascular changes that have far reaching consequences."' D e*spite the fact
that much has been written about the health effects of noise, it seems that much of the
following information is not appreciated by the medical community and even less so by the
general public.? In 1990, an NIH panel concluded that "high visibility media campaigns are
needed to develop public awareness of the effects of noise on hearing and the means of self
protection. In addition to informing the public, these programs should target primary health
care physicians and educators who deal with young people." (Cited in reference 7.) To these
recommendations, we would add the need to inform about all the other adverse effects of
noise.
http://www,nonoise.org/library/siiij/smj.htm 2/18/2016
Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague Page 3 of 20
Thus, the purpose of this review is to summarize what is known of these adverse
health effects and to encourage physicians, nurses, and other health professionals to join with
groups around the country that are trying to restore the Constitutionally guaranteed right of
domestic tranquility. Noise Free America and the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse are two such
organizations. There are numerous Internet sites that contain relevant information about noise
and the ongoing efforts to restore quiet in communities across the United States. The
interested reader should consult Noise Off (www.NoiseOFF.org), The Noise Pollution
Clearinghouse (www.nonoise.org), Noise Free America (www.noisefree.org), or the League for
the Hard of Hearing (www.lhh.org/noise) for additional information about this subject.
Background
Because their wheels clattered on paving stones, chariots in ancient Rome were
banned from the streets at night to prevent the noise that disrupted sleep and caused
annoyance to the citizens. Centuries later, some cities in Medieval Europe either banned
horse drawn carriages and horses from the streets at night or covered the stone streets with
straw to reduce noise and to ensure peaceful sleep for the residents. 1 In more recent times in
Philadelphia, the framers of our Constitution covered nearby cobblestone streets with earth to
prevent noise -induced interruptions in their important work. These examples pinpoint two
major effects of noise from which men in all ages have sought relief: interruption of sleep and
interference with work that requires concentration. It is interesting that noises emanating from
the various types of roadways of today are still among the most important sources of
environmental noise, even though the types of noise are not those that existed in Rome,
Medieval Europe, or 18th century Philadelphia. Our modern roadways (including road, rail, and
air) and the products of modern technology produce increasing levels of unwanted noise of
varying types and intensities throughout the day and night that disturb sleep, concentration,
and other functions. 4,6.11, " This noise affects us without our being consciously aware of it.
Unlike our eyes, which we can shut to exclude unwanted visual input, we cannot voluntarily
shut our ears to exclude unwanted auditory input. Our hearing mechanisms are always "on"
even when we are asleep.2
httl)://www.nonoise.org/librat-y/smj/smj.htm 2/18/2016
Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague Page 4 of 20
The noise problems of the past pale in significance when compared with those
experienced by modern city dwellers; noise pollution continues to grow in extent, frequency,
and severity as a result of population growth, urbanization, and technological developments.
4 For example, within the European Common Market, 65% of the population is exposed to
unhealthy levels of transportation noise. 13 In New York City, maximum noise levels
measured 106 dB on subway platforms and 112 dB inside subway cars. These levels have
the potential of exceeding recommended exposure limits given sufficient duration of exposure.
14 In 1991, it was estimated that environmental noise increased by 10% in the decade of the
1980's. 3 The 2000 United States Census found that 30% of Americans complained of noise
and 11 % found it to be bothersome. Among those who complained, noise was sufficiently
bothersome to make nearly 40% want to change their place of residence. 15 That noise
pollution continues to grow in scope, variety, and magnitude is unquestioned; it is only the
extent of the growth that remains unknown. 1
In comparison to other pollutants, the control of environmental noise has been
hampered by insufficient knowledge about its effects on humans and about dose -response
relationships, but this seems to be changing as more research is carried out. However, it is
clear that noise pollution is widespread and imposes long-term consequences on health. 1-11
In 1971, a World Health Organization (WHO) working group concluded that noise is a major
threat to human well-being. 3 That assessment has not changed in the intervening 30-plus
years; if anything, the threat has intensified.
The various sounds in our environment (excluding all those sounds that arise in the
workplace) to which we are exposed can be viewed as being either necessary (desirable) or
unnecessary (undesirable). One might consider the sounds produced in and around our
homes by garbage disposals, dishwashers, clothes washers and dryers, refrigerators,
furnaces, air -conditioners, yard maintenance equipment, and the many other mechanized time
- and labor - saving devices, which we all use and enjoy, as being necessary. We are
exposed to the noise of radio, television, and related technologies; children are exposed to a
http://www.nonoise.org/librai-y/smj/smj.htm 2/18/2016
Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague
Page 5 of 20
wide variety of noisy toys. 5. 16 The noise of internal combustion engines (modulated by legally
required mufflers), jet engines (modulated by improved design and by altered flight paths), and
train horns at grade crossings (modulated by new Federal Quiet Zone rules), might all be
considered necessary. There are numerous other such examples of machines or activities
that produce sounds that are tolerated because they accompany a desired activity or they
serve an important societal purpose, such as the sirens of emergency vehicles.
But what about sounds that accompany an undesired activity, that have no societal
importance, or that we consider unnecessary? What about the sounds produced by the so-
called boom -cars that are roving, pulsating noise factories? What about the uncomfortable
sound levels at concerts, in theaters, and public sporting events? What about the noise of
slow moving train horns in urbanized areas or the early morning sounds accompanying
garbage collection? What about all the noise on our streets to which buses, trolley cars, car
horns, car alarms, motorcycles, and un-muff led exhaust systems contribute? What about the
risks to children from noisy toys and from personal sound systems? What about the noise of
barking dogs, leaf blowers, and recreational vehicles? What about the noise of low flying
aircraft? In general, sounds that we deem unwanted or unnecessary are considered to be
noise. Our society is beset by noise, which is intrusive, pervasive, and ubiquitous; most
important of all, it is unhealthy. Most reasonable people would agree that much of the
environmental noise to which we are subjected serves no useful purpose and is therefore
undesirable. The variety of noise polluting devices and activities is large and seems to be
growing on a daily basis, although there is no consensus about what items are useful and
desirable or noise polluting and unnecessary.
Domestic tranquility is one of the six guarantees in the United States Constitution, a
guarantee that is echoed in some form or other in every state Constitution. In 1972, the Noise
Control Act was passed by Congress, declaring, "...it is the policy of the United States to
promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes health and
welfare." In 1974, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that nearly 100
million Americans lived in areas where the daily average noise levels exceeded those
http://www.nonoise.org/librat-y/sinj/sMi.htm 2/18/2016
Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague Page 6 of 20
identified as being safe, 17 However, in 1982, the government abruptly terminated federal
funding for the Office of Noise Abatement and Control, the vehicle by which the public was to
be protected from the adverse effects of noise. The lack of funds threw total responsibility for
noise control to the states, which have had a spotty and generally poor record with respect to
noise abatement. 7, 18 Since the Act itself was not repealed, local and state governments may
have been deterred from trying to regulate noise. Furthermore, failure to repeal the Act sent
the message that noise was not an important environmental concern. 7 As a result, in the
United States, most police departments seem to be unwilling or unable to respond to noise -
related problems in a way that provides any measure of genuine or timely control. Yet, in most
cities, as noise pollution continues to grow - some say as much as 6-fold in the past 15 years -
so do complaints about noise. Complaints to police and other officials about noise are among
the most frequent complaints by residents in urban environments; in 1998, noise was the
number one complaint to the Quality of Life Hotline in New York City. In 1996, the Federal
Environmental Agency in Germany reported two out of three of its citizens had complained
about excessive noise. 18 The number of people exposed to unhealthy levels of noise in the
United States is unquestionably greater than it was in 1974; the degree of oversight and
control is unquestionably less,
Adverse Health Effects of Noise
The WHO has documented seven categories of adverse health effects of noise
pollution on humans. Much of the following comes from the WHO Guideline on Community
Noise and follows its format. 1 The guideline provides an excellent, reasonably up-to-date,
and comprehensive overview of noise -related issues, as do the other recent reviews on this
subject.
1. Hearing Impairment: Hearing is essential for well-being and safety. Hearing impairment is
typically defined as an increase in the threshold of hearing as clinically assessed by
audiometry. Impaired hearing may come from the workplace, from the community, and from a
htil)://www.nonoise.org/library/sinj/sm.i.htm 2/18/2016
Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague
Page 7 of 20
variety of other causes (e.g., trauma, ototoxic drugs, infection, and heredity). There is general
agreement that exposure to sound levels less than 70 dB does not produce hearing damage,
regardless of the duration of exposure. 1, 17 There is also general agreement that exposure for
more than 8 hours to sound levels in excess of 85 dB is potentially hazardous; to place this in
context, 85 dB is roughly equivalent to the noise of heavy truck traffic on a busy road. 1 With
sound levels above 85 dB, damage is related to sound pressure (measured in dB) and to time
of exposure. The major cause of hearing loss is occupational exposure, although other
sources of noise, particularly recreational noise, may produce significant deficits. Studies
suggest that children seem to be more vulnerable than adults to noise induced hearing
impairment. 1
Noise induced hearing impairment may be accompanied by abnormal loudness
perception (loudness recruitment), distortion (paracusis), and tinnitus. Tinnitus may be
temporary or may become permanent after prolonged exposure, 1 The eventual results of
hearing losses are loneliness, depression, impaired speech discrimination, impaired school
3,
and job performance, limited job opportunities, and a sense of isolation. 19,20
In 2001, it was estimated that 12.5% of American children between the ages of 6 to 19
years had impaired hearing in one or both ears. 21 As many as 80% of elementary school
children use personal music players, many for extended periods of time and at potentially
dangerous volume settings. 19 There is little doubt that the use of consumer products, which
produce increasingly high levels of noise and which are used with headsets or earphones, is
growing and may well be responsible for the impaired hearing that is being seen with growing
frequency in younger people. 19,22-24 This form of noise is largely unregulated, despite
warnings by the manufacturers.
In the young, hearing loss affects communication, cognition, behavior, social -emotional
development, academic outcomes, and later vocational opportunities. 25 These effects have
been well documented in a number of large scale investigations in children. 23
http://www.noiioise.oi-g/library/srnj/snij.htin 2/18/2016
Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague
Page 8 of 20
Leisure -time exposure, which is generally unregulated, is increasing in other ways as
well with resultant adverse effects. In a recent survey, a majority of young adults reported
having experienced tinnitus or impaired hearing after exposure to loud music at concerts or in
clubs. Very few (8%) considered loss of hearing a significant problem. Many of the
respondents said they would be motivated to use ear protection if they were aware of the
potential of permanent hearing loss (66%) or if such protection were advised by a medical
professional (59%).22
Those working in clubs, bars, and other places of entertainment are also at risk. It is
well known that rock musicians frequently have noise -induced hearing loss. Apart from the
musicians themselves, employees of music clubs, where noise frequently exceeds safe levels,
are at risk. 26 Thus, nearly a third of students who worked part time (bar staff or security staff)
in a university entertainment venue were found to have permanent hearing loss of more than
30 dB. 21
The WHO recommends that unprotected exposure to sound levels greater than 100 dB
(for example, the sound of a jackhammer or a snowmobile) should be limited in duration (4
hours) and frequency (four times/year). The threshold for pain is usually given as 140 dB; a
level readily achieved in today's boom -cars. Impulse noise exposure (gunfire and similar
sources of intense noise of brief duration) should never exceed 140 dB in adults and 120 dB in
children. Firecrackers, cap pistols, and other toys can generate sufficient sound levels to
cause sudden and permanent hearing loss, 19 Levels greater than 165 dB, even for a few
milliseconds, are likely to cause acute cochlear damage. 1 It is important to remember to
counsel patients that ears do not "get used" to loud noise. As the League for the Hard of
Hearing notes - - they "get deaf."
2. Interference with Spoken Communication: In 1974, in an attempt to protect public health
and welfare against the adverse effects of noise, the EPA published so-called safe levels of
environmental noise that would permit normal communication both in and out of doors. 17
Noise pollution interferes with the ability to comprehend normal speech and may lead to a
htlp://www.nonoise,org/librai.-y/smj/sinj.htni 2/18/2016
Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague
Page 9 of 2()
number of personal disabilities, handicaps, and behavioral changes. These include problems
with concentration, fatigue, uncertainty, lack of self confidence, irritation, misunderstandings,
decreased working capacity, disturbed interpersonal relationships, and stress reactions.
Some of these effects may lead to increased accidents, disruption of communication in the
classroom, and impaired academic performance. 1, 5, 10, 11 Particularly vulnerable groups
include children, the elderly, and those not familiar with the spoken language.'
3. Sleep Disturbances: Uninterrupted sleep is known to be a prerequisite for good
physiologic and mental functioning in healthy individuals. 28 Environmental noise is one of the
major causes of disturbed sleep. 1, 10 When sleep disruption becomes chronic, the results are
mood changes, decrements in performance, and other long-term effects on health and well-
being. 3 Much recent research has focused on noise from aircraft, roadways, and trains. It is
known, for example, that continuous noise in excess of 30 dB disturbs sleep. For intermittent
noise, the probability of being awakened increases with the number of noise events per
night.'
The primary sleep disturbances are difficulty falling asleep, frequent awakenings,
waking too early, and alterations in sleep stages and depth, especially a reduction in REM
sleep. Apart from various effects on sleep itself, noise during sleep causes increased blood
pressure, increased heart rate, increased pulse amplitude, vasoconstriction, changes in
respiration, cardiac arrhythmias, and increased body movement, 28 For each of these, the
threshold and response relationships may be different. Some of these effects (waking, for
example) diminish with repeated exposure; others, particularly cardiovascular responses, do
not. 29 Secondary effects (so-called after effects) measured the following day include fatigue,
depressed mood and well-being, and decreased performance. 30 Decreased alertness and
disrupted circadian rhythms, which lead to accidents, injuries, and death, have also been
attributed to lack of sleep. 31
Long-term psychosocial effects have been related to nocturnal noise. Noise
annoyance during the night increases total noise annoyance for the following 24 hours.
http://www.nonoise.org/library/smj/smj.hti,n 2/18/2016
Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague
Page tO of 20
Particularly sensitive groups include the elderly, shift workers, persons vulnerable to physical
or mental disorders, and those with sleep disorders.'
Other factors that influence the problem of night-time noise include its occurrence in
residential areas with low background noise levels and combinations of noise and vibration
such as produced by trains or heavy trucks. Low frequency sound is more disturbing, even at
very low sound pressure levels; these low frequency components appear to have a significant
detrimental effect on health. 32
4. Cardiovascular Disturbances: A growing body of evidence confirms that noise pollution
has both temporary and permanent effects on humans (and other mammals) by way of the
endocrine and autonomic nervous systems. It has been postulated that noise acts as a
nonspecific biologic stressor eliciting reactions that prepare the body for a "fight or flight"
response. 1.2,6 For this reason, noise can trigger both endocrine and autonomic nervous
system responses that affect the cardiovascular system and thus may be a risk factor for
cardiovascular disease. 1,2,6, 11, 33- 36 These effects begin to be seen with long-term daily
exposure to noise levels above 65 dB or with acute exposure to noise levels above 80 to 85
dB. 1,3 Acute exposure to noise activates nervous and hormonal responses, leading to
temporary increases in blood pressure, heart rate, and vasoconstriction. Studies of individuals
exposed to occupational or environmental noise show that exposure of sufficient intensity and
duration increases heart rate and peripheral resistance, increases blood pressure, increases
blood viscosity and levels of blood lipids, causes shifts in electrolytes, and increases levels of
epinephrine, norepinephrine, and cortisol. 3 Sudden unexpected noise evokes reflex
responses as well. Cardiovascular disturbances are independent of sleep disturbances; noise
that does not interfere with the sleep of subjects may still provoke autonomic responses and
secretion of epinephrine, norepinephrine, and cortisol .29 These responses suggest that one
can never completely "get used to" nighttime noise.
Temporary noise exposure produces readily reversible physiologic changes. However,
noise exposure of sufficient intensity, duration, and unpredictability provokes changes that
littp://www.nonoise.org/librai-y/smj/smj.htm 2/18/2016
Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague Page 11 of 20
may not be so readily reversible. The studies that have been done on the effects of
environmental noise have shown an association between noise exposure and subsequent
cardiovascular disease.' '- ', 33-36 Even though the increased risk for noise -induced
cardiovascular disease may be small, it assumes public health importance because both the
number of people at risk and the noise to which they are exposed continue to increase, ' I
Children are at risk as well. Children who live in noisy environments have been shown
to have elevated blood pressures and elevated levels of stress -induced hormones. 2, 11,18
S. Disturbances in Mental Health: Noise pollution is not believed to be a cause of mental
illness, but it is assumed to accelerate and intensify the development of latent mental
disorders. Noise pollution may cause or contribute to the following adverse effects: anxiety,
stress, nervousness, nausea, headache, emotional instability, argumentativeness, sexual
impotence, changes in mood, increase in social conflicts, neurosis, hysteria, and psychosis.
Population studies have suggested associations between noise and mental -health indicators,
such as rating of well-being, symptom profiles, the use of psychoactive drugs and sleeping
pills, and mental -hospital admission rates. Children, the elderly, and those with underlying
depression may be particularly vulnerable to these effects, because they may lack adequate
coping mechanisms.' Children in noisy environments find the noise annoying and report a
diminished quality of life. 10- "
Noise levels above 80 dB are associated with both an increase in aggressive behavior
and a decrease in behavior helpful to others. 38-40 The news media regularly report violent
behavior arising out of disputes over noise; in many cases these disputes ended in injury or
death. The aforementioned effects of noise may help explain some of the dehumanization
seen in the modern, congested, and noisy urban environment. I
6. Impaired Task Performance: The effects of noise pollution on cognitive task performance
have been well -studied. Noise pollution impairs task performance at school and at work,
increases errors, and decreases motivation, 11, 41 Reading attention, problem solving, and
memory are most strongly affected by noise. Two types of memory deficits have been
http://www.iionoise.org/library/sMj/smj.htm 2/18/2016
Noise Pollution: A Modem Plague
Page 12 of 20
identified under experimental conditions: recall of subject content and recall of incidental
details. Both are adversely influenced by noise. Deficits in performance can lead to errors
and accidents, both of which have health and economic consequences.'
Cognitive and language development and reading achievement are diminished in noisy
homes, even though the children's schools may be no noisier than average. 18 Cognitive
development is impaired when homes or schools are near sources of noise such as highways
and airports. 4, 11 Noise affects learning, reading, problem solving, motivation, school
performance and social and emotional development, 3, 5, 11, 11, 4' These findings suggest that
more attention needs to be paid to the effects of noise on the ability of children to learn and on
the nature of the learning environment, both in school and at home. Moreover, there is
concern that high and continuous environmental noise may contribute to feelings of
helplessness in children. ", "
Noise produces negative after-effects on performance, particularly in children. It
appears that the longer the exposure, the greater the effect. Children from noisy areas have
been found to have heightened sympathetic arousal indicated by increased levels of stress -
related hormones and elevated resting blood pressure. 18 These changes were larger in
children with lower academic achievement. As a whole, these findings suggest that schools
and day-care centers should be located in areas that are as noise -free as possible.'
7. Negative Social Behavior and Annoyance Reactions: Annoyance is defined as a feeling
of displeasure associated with any agent or condition believed by an individual to adversely
affect him or her. Perhaps a better description of this response would be aversion or distress.
Noise has been used as a noxious stimulus in a variety of studies because it produces the
same kinds of effects as other stressors. 2Annoyance increases significantly when noise is
accompanied by vibration or by low frequency components. 32The term annoyance does not
begin to cover the wide range of negative reactions associated with noise pollution; these
include anger, disappointment, dissatisfaction, withdrawal, helplessness, depression, anxiety,
http://www.nonoise.org/library/sii�j/si-nj,htm 2/18/2016
Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague
Page 13 of 20
distraction, agitation, or exhaustion. Lack of perceived control over the noise intensifies these
effects. '- '0
Social and behavioral effects of noise exposure are complex, subtle, and indirect.
These effects include changes in everyday behavior (e.g., closing windows and doors to
eliminate outside noises; avoiding the use of balconies, patios and yards; and turning up the
volume of radios and television sets); changes in social behavior (e.g., aggressiveness,
unfriendliness, non participation, or disengagement); and changes in social indicators (e.g.,
residential mobility, hospital admissions, drug consumption, and accident rates); and changes
in mood (increased reports of depression).'
Noise exposure per se is not believed to produce aggressive behavior. However, in
combination with provocation, preexisting anger or hostility, alcohol or other psychoactive
agents, noise may trigger aggressive behavior. 38 Our news is filled with examples of this kind
of behavior.
The degree of annoyance produced by noise may vary with the time of day, the
unpleasant characteristics of the noise, the duration and intensity of the noise, the meaning
associated with it, and the nature of the activity that the noise interrupted. 1 Annoyance may be
influenced by a variety of non -acoustical factors including individual sensitivity to noise. 43
These include fear of the noise source, conviction that noise could be reduced by third
parties, individual sensitivity, the degree to which an individual feels able to control the noise,
and whether or not the noise originated from an important economic activity. 1, 10 Other less
direct effects of annoyance are disruption of one's peace of mind, the enjoyment of one's
property, and the enjoyment of solitude.
Greater annoyance has been observed when noise is of low frequency, is
accompanied by vibrations that contain low -frequency components, or when it contains
impulses such as the noise of gun shots. 1,32 Annoyance is greater when noise progressively
increases rather than remaining constant. Average outdoor residential day -night sound levels
below 55 dB were defined as acceptable by the EPA; acceptable average indoor levels were
littp://www.nonoise.org/librai-y/si,nj/sinj.htm 2/18/2016
Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague Page 14 of 20
less than 45 dB. 17 To put these levels into perspective, sound levels produced by the
average refrigerator or the sounds in the typical quiet neighborhood measure about 45 dB. 17
Sound levels above this produce annoyance in significant numbers of people.
The results of annoyance are privately felt dissatisfaction, publicly expressed
complaints to authorities (although underreporting is probably significant), and the adverse
health effects already noted. Given that annoyance can connote more than slight irritation, it
describes a significant degradation in the quality of life, which corresponds to degradation in
health and well-being, In this regard, it is important to note that annoyance does not abate
over time despite continuing exposure to noise. 12
Effects of Multiple Sources of Noise Pollution
Most environments contain a combination of sounds from more than one source (e,g,,
aircraft, motor vehicles, and trains). In urban environments, boom cars, car horns, car alarms,
and public transit systems may be the offenders. In suburban areas, leaf blowers, other power
equipment, and barking dogs may be the source. There is, as yet, no consensus on a model
for measuring total annoyance from multiple noise sources. Adverse health effects appear to
be related to total noise exposure from all sources rather than the noise from any single
source.
The evidence related to low -frequency noise is sufficiently strong to warrant immediate
concern. It is a special concern because of its pervasive nature, because it arises from
multiple sources, and because of its efficient propagation, which is essentially unimpeded by
conventional methods of either building or ear protection. Adverse health effects from low -
frequency noise are thought to be more severe than from other forms of community noise.
This form of noise is underestimated with the usual types of sound measuring equipment. 32.44
In residential populations, combined sources of noise pollution will lead to a
combination of adverse effects such as impaired hearing; sleep disturbances; cardiovascular
disturbances; interference at work, school, and home; and annoyance, among others. These
effects are the result of stress from noise; stress that has been increasingly linked to illness. 2
http://www.nonoise.org/library/smj/snij.htm 2/18/2016
Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague Page 15 of 20
Vulnerable groups, generally underrepresented in study populations, include patients
with various diseases, patients in hospitals or those who .are rehabilitating from injury or
disease, the blind, the hearing impaired, fetuses, infants and young children, and the elderly.
Although anyone might be adversely affected by noise pollution, groups that are particularly
vulnerable include neonates, infants, children, those with mental or physical illnesses, and the
elderly. Because children are particularly vulnerable to noise induced abnormalities, they need
special protection. 5,19 This vulnerability to noise may be an age related sensitivity but may be
also be due to increased risk based on behavior (personal music systems, loud concerts) or to
an inability of the very young to remove themselves from a noxious source. 5 The evidence is
strong enough to warrant monitoring programs in schools and elsewhere to protect children
from noise exposure. 1, 5, 19
The effects of noise on the fetus and newborn are unclear. Exposure to noise during
pregnancy may increase the risk of high -frequency hearing loss in the newborn, shortened
gestation, prematurity, and intrauterine growth retardation. 5, 19,10, 41. 46 Noise in the NICU may
cause cochlear damage and may impair the growth and development of the premature infant,
24 Even though studies have been inconsistent with respect to noise and congenital
malformations, the data were sufficiently compelling for the National Research Council to
recommend that pregnant women avoid noisy work settings. 18
WHO Guidelines
Because health effects are relevant to specific environments, guidelines have been
proposed for the following: dwellings, including bedrooms; schools and preschools; hospitals,
industrial, commercial, shopping, and traffic areas; ceremonies, festivals, and entertainment
events; use of headphones for music and other sounds; impulse sounds from toys, fireworks,
and firearms; and outdoors in parklands and other such areas.' Similar guidelines were being
developed by the EPA, but ended with termination of federal funding in 1982.
Conclusions and Recommendations
http://NA,ww.nonoise.oi-g/l.ibraty/smj/sMj.htm 2/18/2016
Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague Page 16 of 20
As a society, our history is filled with failures to recognize the agents that cause
disease; once the causes have been recognized, we have responded reluctantly, slowly, and
often inadequately. The case with tobacco is an instructive one. It took many years of
lobbying by dedicated individuals before legislators and the general public recognized the links
between the hazards of tobacco smoke and disease; as a result laws were finally enacted and
behaviors changed accordingly.
Despite the evidence about the many medical, social, and economic effects of noise,
as a society, we continue to suffer from the same inertia, the same reluctance to change,and
the same denial of the obvious that the anti -tobacco lobby faced a couple of decades ago.
This inertia and denial are similar to those that delayed appropriate action on lead, mercury,
and asbestos. Now we seem unable to make the connection between noise and disease,
despite the evidence, and despite the fact, which we all recognize, that our cities are becoming
increasingly more polluted with noise.
Noise makers and the businesses that support them are as reluctant as smokers to
give up their bad habits, Legislators at all levels should protect us from noise pollution the
same way they protected us from tobacco smoke and other forms of pollution. It is clear that
laws can change behaviors in ways that benefit society as a whole.
Noise represents an important public health problem that can lead to hearing loss,
sleep disruption, cardiovascular disease, social handicaps, reduced productivity, impaired
teaching and learning, absenteeism, increased drug use, and accidents. It can impair the
ability to enjoy one's property and leisure time and increases the frequency of antisocial
behavior. Noise adversely affects general health and well-being in the same way as does
chronic stress. It adversely affects future generations by degrading residential, social, and
learning environments with corresponding economic losses. Local control of noise has not
been successful in most places. This points out the need for improved methods of local
control that should include public education, enlightened legislation, and active enforcement of
noise ordinances by local law enforcement officials. Part of the solution may require federal or
state legislation aimed at supporting local efforts or the restoration of federal funding for the
Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
http://www.non.oise.oi-g/library/smj/snij.htm 2/19/2016
Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague
Page 17 of 20
1. Berglund B, Lindvall T. (Eds.) Community Noise, Archives of the Center for Sensory Research.
1995; 2: 1-195. This document is an updated version of the document published by the World Health
Organization in 1995. Available at:
http://www.who.inUdocstore/peh/noise/guidelines2.htmi. Accessed January 6, 2007.
2. Babisch W. Noise and Health, Environ Health Perspect 2005; 113: Al 4-15. Available at:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?article=1253720. Accessed October 10, 2006,
3. Suter AH. Noise and its Effects. Administrative Conference of the United States, 1991. Available
at http://www.nonoise.org/library/suter/suter.htm. Accessed October 10, 2006.
4. Lee CSY, Fleming GG. General Health Effects of Transportation Noise. U.S. Department of
Transportation. Washington , DC. 2002.
Available at:http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/RRDev/heaIth_Final.pdf. Accessed January 6, 2007.
5. Committee on Environmental Health, American Academy of Pediatrics Handbook of Pediatric
Environmental Health. Noise. Washington, DC, American Academy of Pediatrics, 2003,
6. Ising H, Kruppa B, Health effects caused by noise: evidence from the literature from the past 25
years. Noise Health 2004; 6: 5-13,
7. Shapiro SA. The Dormant Noise Control Act and Options to Abate Noise Pollution. Administrative
Conference of the United States, 1991. Available at:
http://www.nonoise.org/library/shapiro/shapiro.htm, Accessed October 10, 2006,
8. Stansfeld S, Haines M, Brown B. Noise and Health in the Urban Environment. Rev Environ Health
2000; 15: 43-82.
9. Passchier-Vermeer W, Passchier WF Noise exposure and public health. Environ Health Perspect
2000; 108 (Suppl. 1): 123-131.
10. Stansfeld SA, Matheson MP. Noise pollution: non -auditory effects on health, Brit Med Bull 2003;
68: 243-257.
11. Evans GW, Lepore SJ. Non -auditory effects of noise on children; a critical review, Children's
Environments 1993; 10: 42-72.
12. Bluhrn G, Nordling E, Berglind N. Road traffic noise and annoyance - - an increasing
environmental health problem. Noise Health 2004; 6: 43-49.
http://www,iionoise.org/librai-y/sinj/snij.htin 2/18/2016
Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague Page 18 of 20
13. Carlos D. A different route to health: implications of transport policies, Brit Med J
1999; 318: 1686-1689,
14. Gershon RR, Neitzel R, Barrera MA, et al. Pilot survey of subway and bus stop noise
levels. Urban Health 2006; 83: 802-812.
15. U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Economic Statistics Division, Available at
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs99/tab28.html, Accessed September 25, 2006,
16. Axelsson A, Jerson T. Noisy toys: A possible source of sensorineural hearing loss. Pediatrics
1985; 76: 574-578.
17. Environmental Protection Agency. Information on levels of environmental noise requisite to protect
public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004. U'S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 1974.
18. Bronzaft AL, Noise: Combating a ubiquitous and hazardous pollutant. Noise Health 2000; 2: 1-8.
19. Brookhouser PE. Sensorineural hearing loss in children. Ped Clin N Amer 1996; 43: 1195-1216,
20. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Healthy People 2000:
National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives. Washington, DC, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1990.
21. Niskar AS, Kieszak SM, Holmes AE, et al. Estimated prevalence of noise -induced hearing threshold
shifts among children 6 to 19 years of age: The third national health and nutritional examination survey
1988-1994, United States. Pediatrics 2001; 108: 40-43.
22. Chung JH, Des Roches CM, Meunier J, et al.. Evaluation of noise -induced hearing loss in young
people using a web -based survey technique. Pediatrics 2005; 115: 861-867,
23. Special Article. Year 2000 Position Statement; Principles and Guidelines for Early Hearing
Detection and Intervention Programs. Joint Committee on Infant Hearing, Pediatrics 2000; 106; 798-
817,
24. Roizen NJ. Etiology of hearing loss in children. Ped C/in North Amer 1999; 46: 49-64,
25. Karchmer M, Allen T. The functional assessment of deaf and hard of hearing students. Am Ann
Deaf 1999; 144: 68-77.
26. Gunderson E, Moline J, Catalano P. Risks of developing noise -induced hearing loss in employees
of urban music clubs. Am J Ind Med 1998; 31: 75-79.
27. Sadhra S, Jackson CA, Ryder T, et al. Noise exposure and hearing loss among student employees
working in university entertainment venues. Ann Occup Hyg 2002; 46: 455-463.
http://www.nonoise.org/libraiy/smj/snij.litni 2/18/2016
Noise Pollution: A Modern. Plague
Page 19 of 20
28. Hobson JA. Sleep. Scientific American Library, W,H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY,
1989.
29. Ohrstrom E, Bjorkman M. Effects of noise -disturbed sleep — A laboratory study on habituation and
subjective noise sensitivity. J Sound Vibration 1998; 122: 277-290.
30. Carter NL. Transportation noise, sleep, and possible after-effects. Environ Int 1996; 22: 105-116.
31, Coren S. Daylight savings time and traffic accidents. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 924-925.
32. Leventhal HG. Low frequency noise and annoyance, Noise Heath 2004; 6: 59-72.
33. Babisch W. Stress hormones in the research on cardiovascular effects of noise. Noise Health
2003; 5: 1 -11.
34. Babisch W, Beule B, Schust M, et al. Traffic noise and risk of myocardial infarction.
Epidemiology 2005; 16: 33-40.
35. Willich SN, Wegscheider K, Stallmann M, et al. Noise burden and the risk of myocardial
infarction. Eur Heart J 2006; 27: 276-282.
36. Van Kempen, EEMM, Kruize H, Boshuizen HC, et al. The association between noise exposure
and blood pressure and ischernic heart disease: a meta analysis. Environ Health Perspect 2002; 110:
307-317.
37. Bronzaft AL. It takes a "silent village" to harm a child, Available at
http://www.lhh.org/hrq/24-1/village.htm. Accessed October 10, 2006.
38. Konenci VJ. The mediation of aggressive behavior. Arousal level versus anger and cognitive
labeling. J Pet -sot? Soc Psychol 1975; 32: 706-712.
39. Korte C, Ypma 1, Tappen A. Traffic noise, environmental awareness, and pedestrian behavior.
Environ Behav 1980; 12: 408-420.
40, Mathews KE Jr, Cannon L. Environmental noise as a determinant of helpful behavior,
J Pets Soc Psychol 1975; 32: 571-577.
41. Cohen S. After effects of stress on human performance and social behavior: A review of research
and theory, Psychological Bulletin 1980; 88: 82-108.
42. Stansfeld SA, Berglund B, Clark C, et al. Aircraft and road traffic noise and children's cognition
and health: a cross national study. Lancet 2005; 365: 1942-1949.
43. Soames JR. Noise sensitivity as a factor influencing human reaction to noise. Noise Health
1999; 1: 57-68.
44 Berglund B, Hassmen P, Job RF. Sources and effects of low frequency noise.
littp://www.nonoise.org/library/smj/stni.htm 2/18/2016
Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague
Page 20 of 20
J Acoust Sac Am 1996; 99: 2985-3002.
45. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Environmental Health, Noise: a hazard for the
fetus and newborn. Pediatrics 1977; 100: 724-727.
46. Jones FN, Tauscher J. Residence under an airport landing pattern as a factor in teratism. Arch
Environ Health 1978; 33: 10-12.
http://www.nonoise.org/library/sn,ij/siiij.htm 2/18/2016
Legend
yc [=CountyBoundary
LEVEL CROSS
*Fire Stations FIRE DISTRICT
CITY CODE
o
Roads L7r C06-Randleman
Interstate Highway
US Highway
N ATTACHMENT C-1
-1 — I —A— el RA—Ll. .—TI F.R
ITI A-1 --l—
R EE" 'R AIC' RAW IF T" E I IF'R "AT
11T Fl— 11 — IAR —TIER E.IR—E � R , F-T R
' — I liL"TAT"' IE 1-1— —RRMIT. F
.E --1 F -- F.R nch :::::: 4,000 feet —C-ABASED 11 I—E 1-111ATE 'I"TTEC, , —R I , URI-E
DAT"
rn
NN 84 AN
900
cl I5
41000
\ >
40
C.
so
,0%5 180CSrr
STEED R, 'A43
.291200
o
00
a
10
5 Q.PROVIDENCE CHURCH RD 843 1084
ID :1
CEDAR RUN DR 162 333
ADA
MS RD 149
334
74
o 0
% ly
0
ul
621
Ass ------- 1—ol PA 00 SN
02254
FOX HOLLOW LN 500 779 d
NA —I RD 1524 1669 aP
Legend
NORTHEAST
C3
*Fire Stations CountyBoundar y FIRE DISTRICT
L C08-Staley
Roads LT, C04-Liberty
Interstate Highway
US Highway
N ATTACHMENT C-2
-1 — I —A— el RA —APR .—TI F.R
ITI A-1 --l—
R 11T Fl— 11 11R —TIER E.IR—E � R , F-T R
TAT"' IE 1-1— —RRMIT. F
.E --1 F -- F.R
I linch :::::: 4,000 feet —C-AlAlEl 11 I—E 1-111ATE l,,TTEC—R,,21URlT-E
OLD 421 RD 8705 8993
OCDg21
0
fy
N
78
Zlot 0 4
------- ov-
N
0 0
RD 7 00
0
RICHLAND CHURCH RD 64006993
0
0
0
0
op
O
10
----------- 4>
ASH AVE 407 605
Ou
44005142
E �1.681 E
200 386
. ............
't,"D t
ry RD8100
z
OLD
LIBERTY RD 9700 9983
K HOPE
i?o 7 00 hop�
RD
8833
E KID lE AVE 300'446 7526
E 500 731
Sti E T AGU AVE
PO
ISAAC OR
KKINRO RD 6800 7062
RD 5400 594ra
00
In
00
00
,?RD 7200 7161
-- ---- S->O, P, OVERM A14
ly
F-
1.1>_7 z
SANDY
CREEK CHUB
ro LL
v
ro
VLv 6000 6532
Croo
� �,,y.....•.•,.,,
� y��4�jI8
kA
�°
O NOV
CREE�`a QOQ' ?
� ,.._.../.,. AQ
SP
z
rob
WO
W
tA
18400
SOACE RD 6800
7111
Ll
08-��4,v
Legend STALEY ATTACHMENT C-3
6. *Fire Stations C3CountyBoundary FIRE DISTRICT
CITY CODE --l. .—T1
ITI A-1
Roads L Z CO3- Fran klinvi Ile 11T Fl— 11 -1 11R 11�T.R"�'.R�.�I.RA'RYIFT".Il� 'F-'T
.11-T 1-1. —RRMIT. F
"IRI"Al AIIFTl�Fl.1Q111R, 11R 1—
Interstate Highway Lam/C04-Liberty I inch 6,700 feet A, = TA TE ft %_ y.D�
US Highway L C05- Ramseur
L,,% C08-Staley
RD 5400 59A6 JGS NRO RD 6800 7062
00
00
M
00
U
.90
ER�y
0%.'D
A
ono, . � ,,,..,,,, 4 jl8 099
TA22
0
S
co
14
rq
ch
US HWY 64 E 8408 8800
kliTwiii/e jo, >
0
tti
0'-
,j 6AA,
3
f.1
US � HWY 64 E
�7
673101
oE RD 5804 7030
STA-7"
X . ....
c 5- �D 6100 6808
06
FOUSHEE RD 5300 5606 77
BURGESS
6838 -TBURGES
. N r ........ ......... ............
1
ST 88 1 48
2; fto 6300 1�1 00 26
0 H S)A LEY
6
040
300
10,
ly AD 6920 8092
a
z Z
cr
40F
cr
ca
5 $00 q TROY CAVENESS RD 6011
KS RD 3700 4199 -670S