(Brian Pate posted this on his Facebook page last week and it is printed here with his permission.)
To the editor:
There have been many accusations and allegations about the vote on Tuesday night by the Wake Forest Board of Commissioners regarding the addition of allowing the site to be used for a gas station at the intersection of Ligon Mill Road and Burlington Mill Road. In order to set the record straight, and to keep others from putting words in my mouth, I will explain exactly why I voted for the change.
You may not agree with me and that is your right, however I am not going to argue each point. This is merely posted so that people know the “why” behind my vote.
First, there are some people who are inaccurately stating that this site was zoned residential when it has been zoned commercial since at least 2007.
Secondly, the only thing we did was add the possibility of a gas station as an acceptable concept there. Fast food, veterinary clinics, business offices and more would have already been allowed there. The Board of Commissioners even included the conditions in the consistency statement from town staff.
There has also been discussion that “people were not allowed to speak Tuesday night.” I would like to explain.
The process is simple. A public hearing was held on May 3rd and every person that had comments was allowed to voice their concerns. Once that hearing is closed, the Board of Commissioners takes that information and analyzes it to come up with their votes. There is no public comment after the joint Planning Board/Board of Commissioners hear the information from that public hearing, other than those who reach out to discuss the potential action directly with their commissioners.
The Planning Board members make a “recommendation,” but that recommendation is not binding on the commissioners. If you are like me, many people give you recommendations that you may or may not follow.
I only had one person call during the two-week period between the public hearing and the meeting this past Tuesday night opposing this project. I had five phone calls saying that it is worth it for the traffic improvements.
Let me say that there are people in Wake Forest that support this project due to the potential improvement to the traffic at that intersection. Most of those people have told me they wouldn’t comment publicly because those that commented in favor have been verbally attacked on social media by others. With that said, here are my thoughts:
The traffic at this intersection is some of the worst in Wake Forest. NCDOT currently has no plans to make any improvements to the intersection and this was agreed upon by most of the people that spoke at the planning board meeting. I listened to those concerns. I heard them loud and clear.
The only way that road improvements will be made by NCDOT is if the development also contributes to the project. All of the road improvements are not paid for by the developer, only part. In addition, NCDOT would need to acquire some land in order to do those improvements.
In other words, the only chance we have to improve traffic at that intersection is to do some kind of development on that piece of land. Otherwise, the traffic stays the same or worsens with no improvements to the road.
The Town of Wake Forest does not own or control those roads. We have no say in when and what project is completed. We can make requests, but that does not mean that DOT will provide for those requests. They have the entire state to take care of and can’t always do projects when we want them done.
The second major contention is the risk to the water supply in Deer Chase.
On Wednesday morning May 4th, the day after the public hearing, I met a geologist friend of mine at the site and spent about 45 minutes with him learning the details surrounding the potential impact. I have known this person for many years and I trust him to give me an honest assessment of the risk of water contamination. He is a specialist in well monitoring, environmental risk assessments and Brownfields. In other words, well qualified to give me an “expert” opinion.
Not only did we walk the lot, but we also went down to actually see how far away the main well pumps were. He explained to me how the system worked with a community well and answered my numerous questions.
When I asked how much of a risk there is with possible contamination, he said, “There is slight risk, but I would not say significant.” He went on to explain how difficult it is to get a gas station built these days with all of the environmental laws surrounding the process.
I asked him what would happen after a potential buyer created a plan for a gas station. There is significant investigation of the ground water, where the aquifers are, along with a detailed soil evaluation test to make sure the property would handle the needs. All of this would be done to EPA standards and with very strict guidelines.
In addition, he spoke of a 1500-foot buffer away from wells that is normally adhered to. We drove again back to the site at the corner to estimate how far away it was from the well pumps. The estimate was “at least 1500 feet away if not more.”
When I asked him if he thought there was risk, he told me that without detailed evaluation, we could not say for sure if there would be an issue with the ground water.
I then asked who would do the evaluation. His reply was that the prospective purchaser of the property would be required to invest in those investigations during the due diligence process. In other words, the only way to know for sure if there is risk to the water supply is for these investigations to be done. In order to do that we would have to make the property available for the gas station and allow a plan to be put on the table.
In this discussion, I also learned that if it were determined to be a risk, the entire project could be scrapped by the state of North Carolina. Again, if there is too much risk based on the tests and investigations, the entire project would be terminated.
How else are we to find out if there really is an aquifer underneath this property without doing these investigations? In my opinion, if there is an aquifer underneath as claimed by some (which I do not know and the expert could not tell me without further testing) then the property would be limited and a gas station likely not allowed.
After I received this information, I called a close friend who lives in Deer Chase and shared this information with him. He and I had a good discussion on it and he acknowledged that a breach is “possible but not probable.” He also made it clear, “I still don’t want it.” I told him I understood and I was going to continue to try to learn more.
Many people that spoke at the public hearing also mentioned water as a concern. I listened and heard you loud and clear.
I then went back and looked at the information from when the Sheetz on Rogers Road was built. I was initially concerned about the Sheetz for three reasons; 1) It backed up to Smith Creek which feeds directly into the City of Raleigh water system and thousands of citizens, 2) the potential crime that is might cause and 3) the noise and lights from the property disturbing my section of Heritage right behind Hope Lutheran Church.
The same concerns I have with the Deer Chase property were present in the Sheetz property. It would butt up against Smith Creek and I wanted to know, “What is the risk of one of the gas tanks leaking?” Knowing that, I pulled up some information on the construction of gas stations and found information on how it is constructed.
The days of steel-only holding tanks for the gasoline are gone. There is usually fiberglass on the inner and outer walls to protect the steel from corroding. In addition, there are repetitive safe guards in place in the event of a leak being detected that shuts down the tank from being used and sets off alarms so that employees are immediately made aware there is an issue.
Breaches are detected by sensors that detect leaks by comparing the amount of fuel disbursed in the pumps to the amount of fuel remaining in the tank. There are also “line leak detectors” that use a spring loaded probe to determine fuel pressure. Any unexpected change in fuel pressure triggers an alarm.
There is also overfill prevention technology to keep a tank from being overfilled including a flapper valve that automatically cuts off the flow of fuel into the tank and ball float valves that activate to prevent vapor from escaping.
In the midst of all of this, I read the Johns Hopkins study that many people have referenced. The article was initially published on September 19, 2014, in the Journal of Contaminant Hydrology and has been republished and referenced many times.
I also searched for other studies that looked at similar information as the Hopkins study and found no others. I did find information on a tank leak in 1979 in Natal, Brazil, but discarded it as the technology of construction today is so far advanced compared to the 70s.
I am not discarding the Hopkins study. Yet in that article, it is clearly stated, “The environments and health impacts of chronic gasoline spills are poorly understood.” No single study can identify a problem. There has to be further testing. Based on this, as I said earlier, if there is risk to ground water, then the state of NC would stop the building process.
I don’t pretend to be a scientist but I know that it takes more than one study to determine if something is truly a hazard. I would expect that people that know far more than I will be overseeing this project and preventative measures would be put in to protect the water supply at every turn.
My second issue with the Sheetz was the potential crime. One of my friends did a study of the amount of crime at the Sheetz on Capital Boulevard near the Durant Road intersection. He showed me his stats and using those stats, came to his conclusion.
Realistically, there can be crime at a place like this. The majority of it based on my research is that it is kids stealing a pack of gum or someone driving off without paying for gas. As far as I know, there has not been any violent crime at the Sheetz.
The third concern I had with the Sheetz was the noise and lights from it being a disturbance. To be transparent, my home does not allow sightlines directly to the Sheetz. My personal home is as close to the Sheetz as this property is to the intersection of Buck Run Trail and Deer Lake Trail. I hear no noise from the Sheetz from my home and I’m guessing that folks in this area and deeper in the neighborhood will be little effected by noise too.
The challenge is on Trophy Trail and I listened carefully to the property owners that live on that road during the public hearing. I get their concerns and appreciate them. The development will likely have an effect on their lifestyle especially for the four homes that are on the west side of Trophy Trail that back up to the property.
The Unified Development Ordinance deals with the amount of buffer required between commercial and residential property. There are requirements again that the Town of Wake Forest would have in the planning stages of this development. The Town would have to sign off on those buffers. I realize it is not perfect, but this issue will occur with any development on this property, not just a gas station.
I’m going to say this and some may get upset, but the one way the Deer Chase and surrounding residents could prevent anything from going on that property would be to unite and purchase the property from Jim Adams. That would likely mean no traffic improvements for a long while, but it would stop any development from going there. I don’t know if it has been discussed, I’m just throwing the idea out there.
All things considered, I looked at the information gathered and found more reasons to vote yes than I did to vote no. I made the decision that I thought was best for the Town of Wake Forest and the residents of the surrounding communities of this intersection. I am truly sorry that people are so upset over the decision. There is no perfect solution where everyone is happy. I did the best job I know how to do.
Commissioner Brian Pate
Wake Forest
9 Responses
A very thoughtful explanation of why he voted for approval. I still have concerns with the two primary ones being:
– I think more consideration needs to be given to the Johns Hopkins study. Hopefully any approval process will vet all the issues but I do not have sufficient information to trust the process.
– I do not know what ‘improvements to the intersection’ means. Specifics are needed and a comprehensive plan for that intersection that considers all the current and proposed development adjacent to the intersection. A comprehensive plan is needed or we will have a series of bandaids applied taking years. For example, one would presume that ‘gas station’ actually means ‘gas station and convenience store’..There is a church across the street. There are existing homes down Burlington Mills and Ligon Mill Rd. There is a plan for 300 residences catty corner from the proposed gas station. While one expects that those using the gas station will generally arrive in a vehicle, though not always as someone could walk with a gas can. However, the convenience store draws different clientele, some not of driving age. Does ‘intersection improvements’ include pedestrian access to the site? This would really be needed for any commercial use of the property but certainly for a convenience store. How will a pedestrian access the site from Deer Chase, Richland Creek Church, Caddell Woods or the proposed Kitchin Farms development all of which are in close proximity? A comprehensive growth plan is needed that addresses all aspects of life. Putting in a turn lane now and then waiting for a child to be hit while crossing a street without a crosswalk is not adequate planning and planning for all aspects should proceed approval. If the approval process does not address pedestrian needs then it is inadequate.
I appreciate the Commissioners process and explanation. However, for me there are unknowns that need to be addressed and I am not comfortable that they are going to be addressed.
It’s not clear yet whether you’ve made the right choice, but I wanted to say thanks for your deliberation and in particular thanks for your transparency around your decision-making!
Thank you for the information you have provided. You are doing the job no one wants but everyone wants to tell you want you are doing wrong! Thank you for the thoughtful decision.
I find it odd that Mr. Pate is willing to trivialize a scientific article from Johns Hopkins. It’s fortunate, however, that he has a friend that happens to be a geologist (that also specializes in toxic substances and hydrology) that was willing to put his mind at ease. May I also speak to your friend, Mr. Pate? I have a few questions…
Here are a few counterpoints to Brian Pate’s response. I have no idea how many people misstated that the zoning was residential, but based on the many Facebook posts I’ve read I think most people knew that it was commercially zoned. It does not matter that some may have been wrong on that particular point. Many people strongly objected to additionally allowing the possibility of a gas station, which Brian describes as the “only” change, as if that somehow makes it not a big deal. It seems insulting for Brian to imply that ignoring the collective input of the Planning Board is no different than ignoring the recommendation of a random person. This is a committee that has a responsibility to make informed recommendations. I see their nearly unanimous recommendation as much different than just anyone giving a recommendation. Also, the idea that receiving a phone call from one person against versus five people in favor, as if this is some kind of meaningful statistic, is pretty ridiculous. I get the impression that the angle for justifying this is to gain a road improvement. It would take blind faith to assume that road improvements will be guaranteed as part of this deal. DOT make take look, but who can predicate that outcome. Brian indicates that DOT will do nothing if the business owner does not contribute. I doubt a business owner would willingly do that. If the business owner is required to contribute to road changes, they are likely to negotiate least cost changes to meet the requirement and minimize financial impact to their business. The business owner is not likely to be looking for an optimum solution to solve a traffic problem. It sounds like there is little information on environmental risk. In fact, Brian was only able to find the Hopkins study, and since the study indicates that more studies and testing were needed (that did not occur), Brian is not too concerned about the study (he does seem to disregard it, contrary to his stating otherwise). His fall back position is that development can safely be put in the hands of North Carolina who, could shut it down if deemed unsafe (which is essentially business as usual). BTW, NC has had it’s share of environmental issues that were not caught or shutdown in time. Yes, it does offend me to imply that the only way for residents to protect themselves from poor decisions by the Board of Commissioners is to purchase property that they feel may be at risk. I’m surprised to hear that as Brian’s personal suggestion to the affected residents.
First let me say that I disagree with your decision. I do applaud you for digging into this to the depth you did even though you only have one opinion. Maybe you should have contacted NCDOT and have one of their engineers provide input as well.
I think that your logic of building something that worsens the condition with hopes that a developer will forego the expense of improving the traffic pattern is extremely optimistic and dangerous to our community. The roads are lined with good intentions that never come to fruition. That shouldn’t be a surprise to you.
In your comments you stated that “NCDOT currently has no plans to make any improvements to the intersection” and Wake Forest has “no say in when and what project is completed. We can make requests, but that does not mean that DOT will provide for those requests.” That sounds like a “hope/wish” to me. Did you give any thought as to the traffic patterns for entering and exiting the property? How’s a 65 foot gas hauler going to get in and out without blocking lanes of the adjacent roads? Did you notice that only moderate visibility available to a driver for the intersecting roads is the westbound lane of Burlington Mills? The other directions have extremely limited and, in some cases, no driver visibility to the approaching traffic? Now lets look at your logic.
As I understand your thinking, you believe that if that property is developed that magically the developer and NCDOT will improve the intersection. You’ve already stated that Wake Forest has no control over what NCDOT will do. Why are you so certain that the property development will force the change in the roads? And, what’s the timeframe that NCDOT will make the improvement? One year, three years, five years, never? As I see it, your planning to make a very bad situation so much worse hedging that NCDOT will be forced to do something. And that contradicts what you’ve previously stated. In my experience that’s a plan for failure.
Do you know how many cars pass through that intersection on a daily basis? I’m sure there have been studies and that the data is available to you. A large number of those people are Wake Forest residents that you will be directly impacting. People trying to get to work or dropping off their kids at the charter school west of the Neuse on Burlington Mill. Just this morning I couldn’t even get out of Deerchase because the westbound Burlington Mill traffic was backed up from Ligon Mill to almost the Whippoorwill entrance. Now picture people trying to turn into and exit a gas station on the corner during rush hour. As the intersection gets more difficult to traverse, people are going to be cutting through Richland Creek’s Church lot and through Whippoorwill Subdivision to get out onto Ligon Mill. I’m sure the residents of Whippoorwill will not be too pleased with your decision as well. This makes no sense.
I realize that some day that property will be developed. However, if you fix the traffic situation first, you may just have a more attractive property and something that is better accepted by the communities that are impacted by your decision.
Thank you for your thoughtful explanation. Change is tough and we tend to resist it. But you obviously have considered the pros and cons and made a reasonable decision based on available information.
I wish our state legislators were as thorough as you in researching the issues they are voting upon with their constituents’ best interests in mind.
Thank you Brian for doing your due diligence and making an informed decision.