HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-05-2006 Joint Public Hearing
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 1 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
MINUTES
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD and PLANNING BOARD
Monday, June 5, 2006
7:00 PM, Hillsborough Town Barn
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mayor Tom Stevens, Commissioners Frances
Dancy, Evelyn Lloyd, Mike Gering, L. Eric Hallman, and Brian Lowen.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Matthew Farrelly, Jim Boericke, Edna
Ellis, Neil Jones, Paul Newton, Eric Oliver, Dave Remington, Toby Vandemark, and Barrie
Wallace.
STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Eric Peterson, Assistant Town Manager/Public Works
Director Demetric Potts, Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Engineer/Utilities Director
Kenny Keel, and Police Chief Clarence Birkhead.
ITEM #1: Call public hearing to order
.
Chair Matthew Farrelly called the meeting to order.
ITEM #2:Annexation/Zoning/Master Planrequest for Old 86 Commons
to annex 11.26
acres on the west side of Old NC 86 and request Entranceway Special Use Zoning. A Master
Plan has been submitted for the site proposing 3 office buildings of 24,000 sf; 17,000 sf; and
4,000 sf (TMBL 4.49.A.2, 2e). Special Use Permits will be required before any building is
constructed.
Planning Director Margaret Hauth stated that because this was a quasi-judicial process, all
speakers must be sworn in. She provided a brief summary of item and the materials submitted
by the applicant.
Mr. Farrelly asked if the applicant wanted to speak. Ms. Hauth responded that typically the
applicant would be given the opportunity to state his case and then we would call on the speakers
who had signed up.
Responding to a statement from Commissioner Ellis, Ms. Hauth noted that large-scale plans
were signed and prepared by an engineer. Commissioner Ellis asked if this was the only review
plan that the Board would receive. Ms. Hauth said yes, because if the Board were to approve the
rezoning and Master Plan, it did not entitle the applicant to do anything, other than to install the
infrastructure. She said the applicant would still need to come back and obtain a Special Use
Permit for any of the individual buildings before they could actually receive any building
permits. Ms. Hauth said at that point we would see detailed construction drawings.
1
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 2 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Edna Ellis asked if approval on this would give them a destined right to proceed. Ms. Hauth said
this would only mean they were compliant with the Master Plan. She said before proceeding
with a Special Use Permit applicant, this process gave the applicant the opportunity to discover if
the general concept was acceptable to the Town, which was the purpose of the Master Plan.
Mr. Farrelly began calling on speakers, beginning with the applicant. He reminded each speaker
to swear in by raising their right hand and reading the statement provided at the podium, and to
print and write their name on the list provided.
Sheila Pierce, the Applicant, said they had requested the annexation of the 11.62 acres and the
rezoning to a Special Use district. She said they had submitted a Master Plan, and there was not
Special Use Permit associated with this request. Ms. Pierce said they had an identified user,
DeWitt Health Care Services, who?s due diligence protocol required that zoning be in place
before they start funding the process.
Ms. Pierce said they had tried to provide as much information as possible in the materials
submitted. She said this property have 1,300 feet of road frontage, much of which overlooked
Cates Creek. Ms. Pierce said she planned, if approval was granted, to produce a professional
office-based high quality development, which she said would be sensitive to the environmental
features of the property. She said this project promised to bring new and high-quality jobs to the
community, increase the commercial tax base, and without demanding the Town?s resources.
Tony Whitaker, Civil Consultants, Inc., said the site was 1,300 feet long by a few hundred feet
deep on a very important corridor entering Hillsborough, a fact of which they were well aware.
He explained some of the features of the site, including old home sites and the location of the
higher points and lower areas by Cates Creek.
Mr. Whitaker said the creek was environmentally sensitive and important, and their plans sought
to preserve that stream buffer, preserve the floodway, and make limited intrusion into the flood
fringe area as allowed to facilitate construction of the buildings and parking. He displayed a
drawing of the site and pointed out particular features, explaining layout, lines of sight, and
service areas for dumpsters and HVAC units.
Mr. Whitaker noted that the planned users of this property were traditionally low-water users,
which was important for the Town. He said the floor area ratio was quite low at about 10%, and
the total impervious area was also quite low at about 35%. Mr. Whitaker noted they had
submitted a traffic study even thought it was not required at this point, so that any issues
regarding traffic could be addressed early on. He noted that NC Department of Transportation
had already approved the site for the driveways, noting they were considered to be a safe
condition for people entering or exiting the site. Mr. Whitaker added they were providing a
sidewalk along Old Highway 86, and a stormwater impact analysis that the Town?s consulting
engineers had given their seal of approval.
2
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 3 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Ms. Ellis said regarding the recombination of property for this site, she had researched that issue
and found that the previous owner had requested that the property be sold as three individual lots
and not be recombined. She asked Mr. Whitaker to explain the recombination of these lots.
Mr. Whitaker said they had not accomplished a recombination as shown on the plat, noting they
were proposing to take two existing lots and to appropriately recombine to ultimately create three
lots, consistent with the Town?s subdivision ordinance and State law. He said he was not sure of
the history Ms. Ellis had mentioned, but during the survey that was conducted nothing had been
identified that would preclude them from their plans.
Ms. Ellis said regarding the right-of-way, the plans were showing a variable right-of-way on Old
Highway 86 of 50 feet, but the sidewalks was not indicated. She said if there was a sidewalk to
be indicated, she believed it would be within the State?s right-of-way, since 50 feet was needed
measured from the centerline of the roadway. Ms. Ellis stated that Waterstone required an
additional 50 feet of right-of-way for a total of 100 feet. She said she had found a 1997 chart
from NCDOT that stated they had an existing 100-foot of right-of-way.
Ms. Ellis said taking that into account it would appear that the sidewalk would be in the
roadway. She said a sidewalk should be at least five feet wide, so she had a problem with the
design. She said she was also concerned because the street between the buildings had not been
indicated on the plat, and asked was it an alley, one-way, two lanes, or something else. Mr.
Whitaker responded he believed he had indicated that street on the plat.
Ms. Ellis stated her other concern was that the existing neighborhood not be disturbed anymore
than necessary, and asked if the buildings could be moved to the back of the property to less any
impact on the neighbors. She stated that regarding the parking, that if a problem developed with
people prowling that lot at night, it would be impossible for the Police to patrol it. She said the
parking lot needed to be closer to the street to allow the Police to see it. Ms. Ellis stated the
sidewalk looked like it was in a curve.
Mr. Whitaker said it was conventional practice to place a sidewalk in the NCDOT right-of-way,
as far away from the edge of the pavement as practical. He said that was what they had done,
and was showing it as being predominately against the edge of the 50-foot right-of-way from the
centerline of Old Highway 86. Mr. Whitaker said there was one point over the creek where the
shoulder was narrow, and if they were to put the sidewalk at the edge of the right-of-way it
would be in the creek. So, he said, in keeping with minimizing stream impacts, it was prudent in
that one location to pull the sidewalk closer to the roadway and then curve back.
Ms. Ellis said she did not believe the NCDOT would approve having that portion of the sidewalk
that close, and it should not be near the ditch because she believed people would use it as a
walking/biking trail. She said she believed there was a trail planned to follow Cate?s Creek.
Ms. Hauth said the planned trail would be located within the buffer and not in the public right-of-
way
3
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 4 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Mr. Whitaker stated they would keep an open mind when discussing these issues, noting the next
step in the process would be to come before the Planning Board for consultation and review of
things that might need to be adjusted, and then responding. He said then they would do the same
before the Board of Commissioners.
Mr. Whitaker noted that the plans indicated a common driveway, which would be a private,
common two-lane roadway, expanding to three lanes at the roadway to allow for one incoming
and two outgoing lanes. He said it would be protected by restrictive covenants regarding its use
and maintenance.
Ms. Ellis said that Mr. Chuck Edwards had provided recommendations, but they had not been
provided for this meeting. She said Mr. Edwards had indicated that when Old 86 was widened
that it would have a median, and there would be a right-in/right-out entranceway similar to that
at Oakdale Village.
Mr. Whitaker said they were aware of that, noting it was an existing condition that they would
work with. He said when the roadway was eventually widened, there would not be median break
at this location that would force that entrance to be a right-in/right-out only, adding the applicant
was well aware of that and accepted it.
Ms. Ellis said the chart of expected employees indicated 70 for Lot 1, Lot 2 had 60, and Lot 3
would have 20. She said if you did not know who would be occupying these buildings, how did
you estimate the number of employees.
Ms. Ellis said the peak traffic entering Lot 1 where you have 70 employees indicated a peak of
53. Again, she said, with Lot 2 you show 50 employees but a peak of 40, and for Lot 3 you show
20 employees but a beak of 15. She asked what the rationale was for that.
Mr. Whitaker said the number of employees and the number of peak hour traffic trips estimated
was educated guesses. He said this was a Master Plan, and was not intended to be a specific plan
with specific buildings or users. Mr. Whitaker said this was about getting the property annexed,
and getting it ready for development within the Town. He said rezoning came with annexation
by law, and by ordinance a Master Plan was required for the rezoning in this particular rezoning
district. Mr. Whitaker said that was why they were present tonight, not to talk about specific
uses because they did not yet know what they would be.
Mr. Whitaker said they did have one user waiting for the applicant to get past the Master Plan
stage so that they could commit their funds to the Special Use Permit process. He said we were
not yet at that point, so tonight they were talking about development parameters for this site to
give the Town enough comfort to annex and rezone the property and to approve this Master Plan.
Ms. Ellis said on the Master Plan, it was stated the property would be a combination use. She
asked what that meant.
4
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 5 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Mr. Whitaker responded an example would be a medical office that had offices set up for
different doctor groups that were complimentary to each other. For instance, he said, one might
be a general practitioner, one might be for X rays, or one might be an optometrist who also sold
eyeglasses which was a retail use but would be an accessory retail use. He said that accessory
retail use was called a combination use.
Ms. Ellis said they had also listed an accessory use, and asked was that part of the combination
use. Mr. Whitaker said the term combination use came from the Town?s ordinance, and he was
not aware of the background of that term.
Mr. Oliver said three buildings were planned on Lots 1 and 2 with the possibility that the
buildings would split. He asked under what circumstances they envisioned that those buildings
might split and to where they would split. For example, he said, would they be 20 feet apart,
would they move backwards or forwards, or how would the Master Plan change if they decided
to split them.
Mr. Whitaker responded that the most likely scenario was for the two building masses to
continue to be building masses, and then each one of them might split into two smaller buildings
within the same footprint zone. He said they would be no closer to the street and not any further
back. Mr. Whitaker said there was flexibility written into the language, because they wanted to
place parameters and boundaries around what could be done so that there was a clear
understanding, but not burden the Town with them coming back for each small change.
Mr. Whitaker said he envisioned the same building mass and in the same footprint area, which
may be split into two buildings closely spaced on one lot.
Commissioner Gering said the information provided indicated that certain criteria and
components may not meet the presumptive requirements of the use. Mr. Whitaker said the
entranceway special use district had certain requirements, and if those requirements were met it
was presumed that you met the intent of that district. He said the Town Board had the authority
to waive certain of those requirements if in their judgment it was justified.
Mr. Whitaker said one way that this planned development did not meet the presumptive
requirement was that smaller building at the south end of the site did not meet the 50 foot
setback, noting it was shown at 40 feet in an effort to pull that building as much as possible off
the most sensitive area in the rear of the property to provide additional buffer. He said they
believed that was a reasonable thing for the Town Board to approve that varied from the
presumptive requirements but was a good thing to do nonetheless.
Mr. Whitaker said the other difference to the presumptive requirements was the requirement for
a 20-acre minimum lot size. He said this project was 11.2 acres, similar to what the Town had
approved further north in the same district on a lot less than 20 acres. Mr. Whitaker said they
believed it was appropriate for the Town to consider this lot in the same light.
5
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 6 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Commissioner Gering said regarding the allowable uses, did they intend that any subset of those
potential uses, including a drive-through bank, would be on this property. Mr. Whitaker said he
did not see this as a primary site for a bank, although it could be. He said it had not been
programmed as such, and none of the building masses were intended to portray a bank. He said
a bank was not the most likely use.
Commissioner Gering asked what was their interest in having a bank on the list. Mr. Whitaker
responded to keep the flexibility that it might happen.
Mr. Oliver said the building heights of all three buildings had been identified as 40 feet. He
asked how many stories that would be. Mr. Whitaker responded that the buildings were intended
to be primarily single-story, but up to 25% of the floor area for each building could be on a
second level. He said the possibility of approach the 40-foot height was low, and would most
likely be around 32 feet for a second story.
Commissioner Gering asked if Mr. Whitaker had read the County?s review. Mr. Whitaker noted
he had. Commissioner Gering said one of their recommendations concerned lighting, noting the
County had suggested that lighting could be ultra-traditional open four to six-sided lights. Mr.
Whitaker said he was not exactly sure what was meant by that, noting he believed it was
describing a lantern-type light on a post that cast light out. He said they had proposed standard
shoebox lighting with the proper controls to cut off baffles that would not permit light to travel
back, and managing the height and flow. He said they also would have a flat lens so that you
would not see the light protruding down.
Commissioner Gering said the Cornwallis Hills residents had expressed concern about the
HVAC. He asked how those would be shielded. Mr. Whitaker replied that the HVAC units
would be placed on the ground, which would have either shrubbery or some other barrier to
shield it.
Commissioner Gering asked if Mr. Whitaker knew any of the Cornwallis Hills property owners.
Mr. Whitaker said he had meet with them on December 15 of last year, and had met with the
Homeowners Association at one of its regular meeting and at a second meeting on January 28 of
this year at one of the neighbor?s home. He said it was important to them to consult with the
neighbors, noting he had roots in that neighborhood and it was important to him to understand
their concerns and respond to them. He said it was their intent to be good neighbors.
Responding to a comment by Barrie Wallace, Mr. Whitaker said the County had made a
comment regarding the sediment pond location, which they were inferring because they had not
yet shown a sediment pond location on the plans. He said the County inferred it would be down
or against the creek and when it rained, and you would really want to be doing good erosion
control at that time, the creek would be flooding and the sediment pond would not be working.
He said that was not the situation that would be proposed, noting the pond would not be placed
in such a low-lying area. He said those details would be worked out prior to the construction
phase.
6
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 7 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Ms. Wallace asked which lot the County was referring to. Mr. Whitaker responded Lot 2. Ms.
Wallace asked where they might propose to put the sediment pond. Mr. Whitaker responded it
was proposed to be in the general location of the stormwater management pond, but that was a
construction detail that would be decided much later on,
Ms. Wallace stated that the County did not allow building in the floodplain. Mr. Whitaker said
the National Flood Insurance Program, administered by FEMA, had certain guidelines regarding
what could or could not be done in floodplains. He said what had been established was that a
floodplain where water would most likely flow to in a 100-year storm or a 50 year-storm, that
some the fringe areas of that flooding area could be encouraged upon safely and reasonably
without much impact on the flooding levels of the creek.
He said the National Flood Insurance Program had established something called a floodway,
which was a subset of the floodplain, which was a strip of land that you must not encroach upon
except in extraordinary conditions, but you could encroach in the fringe area with minimal
impact on flooding. He said that was a nation-wide standard, and that was what they were
proposing for this site. Mr. Whitaker said some jurisdictions adopt more strict standards, which
Orange County had done, but the Town had not. He said it was an entirely safe and common
practice to do this if the guidelines were followed, and they would be here.
Commissioner Hallman said the Town was interested in adopting the Neuse River buffer rules,
and asked if Mr. Whitaker was familiar with those rules and how would they impact this
development. Mr. Whitaker responded he was aware of those rules, and there were two phases
to them. He said one was the stream buffers that had been in place in Hillsborough for some
time, and those stream buffers would be honored.
Commissioner Hallman said the Upper Neuse River rules, if adopted, would extend those stream
buffers to 100 feet, although Ms. Hauth was indicating that was not the case.
Mr. Whitaker stated that the second phase of the rules had to do with nutrient loading, trying to
protect the quality of the water. He said that was not currently in effect for the Town, but may be
in the future. He said if they were build a stormwater management pond that meet Town
regulations and Neuse regulations at this time, they would not have to do water quality controls,
meaning a wet pond. Mr. Whitaker said if they were to do it two years from now, they would
most likely have to have a wet pond. He said at the time the Special Use Permit was applied for,
the prevailing rules at that time would be applied.
Commissioner Hallman said the Board may ask that they meet the future standards. Mr.
Whitaker said that was understood.
Commissioner Lloyd asked what problems they believed they might cause to the people living
nearby, such as refuse trucks coming during nighttime hours, HVAC noise, light pollution, or
any other change to their environment. She said for instance, Mr. Whitaker had said earlier that
light would not shine upwards. Mr. Whitaker said that was correct. He said they had taken steps
and shown many kinds of protections to the western property line that could be reasonable
7
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 8 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
provided. He said there may be variations that could be discussed, but he believed they were
provided good buffers and providing re-vegetation in a healthy manner of those buffers that were
cleared, which was not even half of the buffer width. He said they were putting limitations on
lighting as well.
Mr. Whitaker said they believed the uses were neighborhood-compatible. He said there would
not be much if any activity at night. He said there may also be an occasional dumpster truck, and
it would be heard just as you would hear an airplane flying over.
Commissioner Lloyd related a situation where a neighbor of a church had come almost to the
point of suing because the noise coming from the church?s HVAC system. She said she did not
want to see that happen to any resident of the Town. Commissioner Lloyd said that in the near
future these same residents would feel the effects of the Waterstone development, so she did not
want to add any further problems.
Mr. Whitaker said the Special Use Permit process would delve into those specifics and give the
Town the opportunity to make sure that the public health, safety and welfare were preserved.
Mr. Farrelly asked if Mr. Whitaker envisioned any of the uses to have nighttime hours at all. Mr.
Whitaker responded potentially. He said if a medical facility with an urgent care service were
located there, he believed the community would want some nighttime hours, although those
hours would be limited.
Mr. Farrelly said he believed the neighbors were going to request a wall be built to minimize
those types of issues. Mr. Whitaker said they did not like the idea of a wall as it had been
described for many reasons. He said the Homeowners Association was asking for an eight-foot
high brick solid wall along the entire common property line between the project and the
neighborhood with no openings. Mr. Whitaker said first of all, the wall could not be built in the
stream buffer and creek areas. He said it also was not the neighborly thing to do.
Ms. Pierce, the applicant, said she felt that such a wall would not give the appearance that they
believed was wanted to people coming into the Town. She said an eight-foot wall, regardless of
what it was built of, was to her unfriendly and gave the impression that there was some problem.
She said a vegetation buffer was much more friendly and much more in tune with the natural
look of the property. Ms. Pierce said they were trying to preserve the green look and green
space, and a wall would destroy that look.
Ms. Pierce said she believed a wall was counter-productive to what the neighbors were asking
for as far as security, noting it provided an opportunity to walk around the wall and hide and
blocking view. She said she believed a vegetation buffer would ultimately be a better sound
barrier and a better visual barrier because it would ultimately be higher.
Ms. Pierce said she wanted this to be a win-win situation and was open to conversation regarding
this, but she did not believe a brick wall was in everyone?s interest. She said she understood the
8
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 9 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
concerns behind the request, but that was a drastic step to take before you knew whether you
even had a problem.
Mr. Oliver said there was a fork of land that went out to Bonaparte Drive and he had two
questions about it. He said first it was set up for a temporary forced main, and asked why a
temporary forced main had to be used. He also asked what they would do with that access to
Bonaparte Drive if they every planned to use that access, noting he was also like to hear what the
neighbors thought about that.
Ms. Pierce said initially the neighbors had brought up whether or not they wanted there to be
some kind of pedestrian or bikeway located there, and the members they had spoken to did not.
So, she said, their plans were indicating that the area be kept natural.
Mr. Whitaker said if a brick wall were placed there, that where the topography changed the wall
would meander down and up again as the land shifted, so it would appear taller in some places
and shorter in others. He said a brick wall would artificially be imposing itself on the natural
topography, and aesthetically was a reason not to erect it.
Mr. Whitaker said the small fork of land was a leftover piece that had been recombined with the
parcel years ago, and it did touch Bonaparte Drive. He said they had immediately seen it as a
pedestrian connection to Bonaparte Drive, but neighbors did not want that.
Mr. Whitaker apologized to the neighbors because he had originally told them that the small fork
of land would not be disturbed, but an issue had come up regarding sanitary sewer service for
this project that required them to disturb that land. He said small 10-foot wide strip would need
to be used to construct a temporary sewer line to connect to the sewer on Bonaparte Drive,
because the Cate?s Creek Outfall was not yet built. Mr. Whitaker said until it was built, they
needed to install a temporary pump and a temporary small diameter force main, both of which
would later be abandoned, connected to the sewer on Bonaparte Drive. He said the area
disturbed could be replaced, since this was not a long-term utility.
Ms. Ellis said she was in agreement with the neighbors regarding the placement of a brick wall,
in order to cut down on noise and improve safety. She said the parking lot could not be seen
from the street, and someone could easily travel through the shrubbery into the neighborhood.
Mr. Jones said vegetation was a seasonal thing. He asked if they had considered a combination
of both the wall and the vegetation to get the buffer you were looking for. Also, he said, look at
it as a good neighbor to give neighbors privacy, so why not provide the brick wall or provide
both. Mr. Whitaker said they had thought about that, noting the natural vegetation would thin
out in winter. He said the vegetation they were proposing was evergreen, upright hollys.
Mr. Whitaker said you could be both, that is a wall and a substantial evergreen screen. But, he
said, if you were doing a wall to prevent passage through it, then the vegetation would be
different.
9
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 10 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Commissioner Hallman said as part of the Master Plan application would they see some signage
and design standards. Mr. Whitaker said they had not planned on doing that, noting that at this
point they did not have enough knowledge of the users, and they wanted the signage to match the
buildings in terms of architectural style. He said the Special Use Permit process was the time to
get into those kinds of details.
Commissioner Hallman said they wanted to have some consistency across the entire site. Mr.
Whitaker agreed, noting that these buildings could be developed separately with separate Special
Use Permits, so the first one that came would have the burden of establishing the architectural
style for the rest. He said that heavy review would be accomplished by the first Special Use
Permit.
Mr. Newton said regarding the fence and wall, good fences made good neighbors. He said it was
obviously important to residents of Cornwallis Hills to have some sort of boundary. Mr. Newton
suggested that when they come before the Planning Board that they make an earnest effort to
address the wall. Mr. Whitaker said he agreed that good fences made good neighbors, but he did
not believe that an eight-foot wall was a good fence. He said they would address that issue when
it came before the Planning Board.
Commissioner Gering said the Town was in the process of completing plans for the Churton
Street corridor, which included this property. He requested that even though it was not yet
codified, that Mr. Whitaker read it and provide the Board some feedback about what it might
mean to him, and whether or not he would have trouble complying with those guidelines. Mr.
Whitaker agreed to do so.
Ms. Ellis said she wanted to get back to the issue of recombining the lots, because what was
shown on this plat was not the same as a recombination she had found on file at the courthouse
that was prepared in 2004. She said it showed the property recombined, yet it did not look the
same as what had been provided by the applicant.
Mr. Whitaker said what was currently on record as the lot configuration was proposed to be
changed, so it would not be expected for the ultimate lot lines to match what was currently on
record.
Mr. Farrelly said they would now begin to call on members of the public who had signed up to
speak. He reminded speakers that they would need to swear in and print and write their names
before commenting.
Vic Knight was sworn in. He said he is the Manager of Old 86 Commons LLC, a family-formed
limited liability corporation, said he and the family were in support of the applicant?s request.
He said they had a great deal of interest in positively moving towards an eventually approval for
the medical facility. Ms. Ellis asked if Mr. Knight had a share in the LLC. Mr. Knight
responded he owned a 1% interest, the minimum legal requirement to be the Manager.
10
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 11 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Cheryl Pochinski was sworn in. She is a resident of 106 Pointe Place in Cornwallis Hills, said
the development of the property behind their homes would destroy the homes of our feathered
friends and other ?critters.? She said her main concern was increased crime, which came with
growth and expansion. Ms. Pochinski said during her tenure as a Security Monitor in Chapel
Hill, she had found that the highest risk areas for crime were behind buildings and in isolated
parking lots. She said she could only image the possibilities of what could happen on the semi-
secluded strip of land that adjoined their backyards.
Ms. Pochinski said compounding the problem was their location between two major interstates.
She said living in such proximity to those two roadways made it an ideal meeting place for
undesirables to go about performing bad deeds behind buildings and in parking lots with easy
escape routes on either interstate.
Ms. Pochinski said speaking of undesirables, there were 81 registered sex offenders living in
Orange County. She said 23 were in Hillsborough, 24 in Chapel Hill, and the other 47 living
throughout the County. She said Durham County had 241. Ms. Pochinski asked how easy
would it be for any of those 322 individuals in just these two counties to sit inside their cars in
the parking lots planned for this development and observe them through their windows or watch
their children play in their yards. She said how long before they reach out to what appeared to be
easy prey that was close by, again with easy escape routes in either direction.
Ms. Pochinski asked that the Board help maintain the excellent quality of life they currently
enjoyed in Cornwallis Hills, while preserving the integrity and charge of Hillsborough.
Margo Pinkerton was sworn in. She said before moving to Hillsborough she had been the
president of a 32 bi-state regional planning commission, and was also secretary of her state
association of planning commissions. She said she provided that information so that the Board
would know she spoke with some experience.
Ms. Pinkerton said she was appalled when she saw Master Plan application, noting it was
inconsistent with County regulations. She said while they were asking for annexation, it was not
yet annexed nor was there any guarantee that it would be. Ms. Pinkerton said the Master Plan
contained vague wording, and tonight she had heard the applicant use such words as envision,
probably, intended and maybe, which she said was nebulous for a major proposal.
Ms. Pinkerton said the Master Plan contained many loopholes. She noted that the County?s
regulations regarding wetlands were more stringent that the Town?s, noting the Town required a
50-foot buffer, whereas the County required the buffer from the 100-year floodplain mark. She
said if you looked at the plat it was a huge difference in the amount of space the developers had
to work with. She asked had the appropriate EPA 404 Permit request been filed as yet,
determining that it had not been.
Ms. Pinkerton asked why it was so important that the property be annexed, which would mean
that the Town would have to provide utilities. She said the Town?s water was already overtaxed,
and many of the residents feel that the drinking quality of the water was already questionable.
11
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 12 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
She wondered who would pay for these utilities, noting most likely it was raise all of their taxes,
and for what purpose. She said that area was a wonderful green space, with a good portion of it
in the 100-year floodplain.
Ms. Pinkerton said some neighbors were concerned about the lack of proper notification for the
last hearing, and it made it appear as if ?someone was trying to push something through.? She
said they wanted to be assured that this would not happen again, and that ample notice would be
given so that all interested parties could attend and participate.
Ms. Pinkerton then address the Master Plan paragraph by paragraph, noting that her statements
were supported by many of the residents in Cornwallis Hills. Regarding the first paragraph, the
quoted, ?The buildings will be designed to blend with the existing businesses to the north? .?
She asked what buildings that statement referred to, noting that statement was too nebulous.
Continuing the quote, she read ?appearance controls will be enforced through restrictive
covenants to be established? .? She asked when would they be established, and who would
approve them and would the neighbors be notified well in advance. She read ?landscape
standards,? and asked when would they be presented.
Regarding the second paragraph, Ms. Pinkerton said the requested zoning district had already
been addressed, but it concerned her and others that the conversation tonight had assumed that
annexation was a fait accompli, which she found to be inappropriate. Ms. Pinkerton said
regarding the entranceway special use zoning, she was concerned that in the future when this
road went from a two-lane to a four-lane road and divided, where would people coming from the
south turn around. She said she believed people would have to turn around at the entrance to
Cornwallis Hills, and the questioned the sensitivity of that.
Ms. Pinkerton quoted ??special emphasis on professional office and medical office users.? She
said there was not definitive usage, and asked what if the intended use changed and would
neighbors be notified. She asked what else would that loophole allow, and who would approve
it. Ms. Pinkerton said flexibility for extended office hours was mentioned, but it had not been
defined. She said she and others believed that professional offices in most medical facilities did
not need extended business hours. Ms. Pinkerton said if urgent care was provided, then the issue
of sirens and other noises was an issue.
Ms. Pinkerton said the Master Plan stated there would be no unusual levels of impact, and asked
what was considered unusual for a project planned to abut a residential neighborhood. She asked
who would determine what was unacceptable, and by what benchmark.
Ms. Pinkerton said the Town and County required one parking space per three hundred square
feet of building. She said that would make 137 parking spaces for the two main buildings, and
yet the applicants were proposing about 50 extra parking spaces. She asked why the
inconsistency.
Ms. Pinkerton said there was no effective barrier planned between the commercial and
residential areas. She said they had concerns about the vermin associated with waste generation
12
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 13 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
and with construction. She said in the original plans the dumpsters were placed far too close to
the property line, but that had since been corrected.
Ms. Pinkerton said safety had been addressed previously by a speaker. She said trees being
planted would not prevent their children from traveling through the greenery and being at danger
from cars speeding in the parking lot or accosted by others. She said it was common knowledge
that parking lots could attract undesirables.
Ms. Pinkerton said noise issues had been brought up as well. She said without a brick barrier
those issues would remain. She said copperheads during construction brought up safety
concerns, noting when you disturb land the animals had to go elsewhere. Ms. Pinkerton asked
how would the developer deal with felled trees and the resultant stumps.
Regarding lighting, Ms. Pinkerton said 30-foot poles had been mentioned and it was noted that
Cornwallis Hills was higher than the proposed development. She said that was only true for a
part of Cornwallis Hills. Ms. Pinkerton said the elevation map showed that some of the abutters
were approximately 20 feet below some of the higher places in the proposed development. She
said that made a 30-foot lamp pole actually 50 feet for those residences.
In the third paragraph, Ms. Pinkerton quoted ?fully preserve and integrate much of the existing
vegetation?? She said that was too vague, and asked what was meant by integrate? She said
regarding the drainageway within the buffer zone, there was a small stream that was very close
to that drainageway. She said that would impact the water that went into the watershed that
flowed into the Neuse River Basin.
Ms. Pinkerton wording regarding the river said it ?follows horizontally along Old NC 86? and
she did not understand that. She asked for an explanation.
Mr. Whitaker said if you look at the plan and the way it was oriented, there was a stretch by the
creek adjacent to the right-of-way, and it was shown horizontally on this plan. Ms. Pinkerton
said then he meant parallel. Mr. Whitaker said it was parallel but it was horizontal as well.
Ms. Pinkerton said regarding preserving existing trees, the County regulations mandated a buffer
of 40 to 50 feet for small lots, but must be non-land disturbing and which may not be cut and
replanted. She said that was a concern when the County regulations clearly say no cutting within
the buffer.
Ms. Pinkerton said in paragraph four they were talking about reducing the 50-foot buffer to 25
feet because of paving concerns. She said either it was a buffer or it wasn?t, and it was
troublesome to the residents. She said either the regulations were in place or they weren?t. She
said why have regulations if we continue to chip away at them.
Ms. Pinkerton said another phrase used in the Master Plan was ?to the extent practical
the existing vegetation would be left undisturbed. She said that was a major loophole, and asked
13
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 14 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
who would deem it practical, who would monitor it, and would abutters be notified well in
advance.
Ms. Pinkerton said that replanting the buffer zone was not a legal option, yet the developers were
proposing that they cut down and replant. She said if they were given permission to do this,
what kind of trees would they replant, how closely would they be replanted, and no one was
addressing the fact that it takes trees a long time to grow.
Ms. Pinkerton said the noise issue would not be addressed by a few trees. She said a study was
conducted recently regarding noise reduction in residential areas, and the best reduction was a
brick wall or a stone wall, and they were proposing a brick wall. She said there would be
additional noise by the very fact that they would have to cut down trees to construct the
buildings, so that noise buffer would be lost between Old 86 and the neighborhood. She said it
would bring increased traffic as well, so it was a double-edged sword.
Ms. Pinkerton asked about the 10% of floor area ratio to the site. She asked was it 10% of the
entire site of only the area not covered by the 100-year floodplain. She said the same could be
asked about the impervious surface at 35%.
Ms. Pinkerton asked what was mean by ?level spreaders.? Mr. Whitaker said in the Neuse buffer
requirements there was a requirement that stormwater runoff must enter through the stream
buffer in a diffused manner, not in a concentrated. He said level spreaders were a recognized
and common device to accomplish that.
Ms. Pinkerton asked what would prevent the construction dirt from going through that. Mr.
Whitaker said level spreaders were typically built at the end of construction when the site was
stabilized so that did not happen.
Ms. Pinkerton asked what about during construction to prevent pollution of the stream. Mr.
Whitaker stated that was a construction technique that he would be happy to explain if the Board
wanted to take the time tonight. Ms. Pinkerton said she did not need to know tonight, but she
believed the residents of Cornwallis Road and the entire Town would want to hear the answer to
that.
Commissioner Lloyd asked if Ms. Pinkerton was an abutting property owner. Ms. Pinkerton
responded no, but she had a friend who was. Commissioner Lloyd asked if Ms. Pinkerton lived
in Cornwallis Hills. Ms. Pinkerton replied yes, on Lafayette Drive.
Ms. Pinkerton asked why if was so necessary to place this development here. She asked what
was wrong with a green space access. She said there was many vacant spaces in Town, and she
believed the Town should concentrate on filling those before allowing new development. She
said she and others would like to see proof that this development would increase the commercial
tax base within a large demand on Town resources.
14
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 15 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Ms. Pinkerton said she believed the traffic impact figures were taken from the Waterstone
figures, and it also seemed to be too much for a two-lane road. She said the statement that ?this
development will integrate with other developments along Churton Street? was verbiage that was
too vague. She said there were not many good arguments for something of this nature to be built
here, but there were many other uses for this land, including parks and other activities. Ms.
Pinkerton said regarding lighting, Duke Energy did have some approved lighting, and they
would not like to see mercury vapor lights or sodium vapor lights.
In summary, Ms. Pinkerton stated they had grave concerns regarding safety, environmental
impacts, privacy, noise, and traffic. She seemed this proposal was too loose and too fraught with
loopholes to be responsibly approved. Ms. Pinkerton asked the Town to put a hold on this
development until the Town?s Strategic Growth Plan was put in place.
Gayane Chambless, a resident of Cornwallis Hills, said she was a the Community Watch
chairperson and a member of the Board of the Homeowners Association. She said she was in
favor of increasing our economic base while no taxing our limited resources, but she had
concerns that she would express from the viewpoint of Community Watch. Ms. Chambless
described the issues that Cornwallis Hills had gone through over the last several years that had
resulted in a Community Watch being formed. She noted trespassing, vandalism, stop signs and
street signs being stolen, drug deals, and young adults from other neighborhoods arrested in their
neighborhood on alcohol charges, weapons violations, and possession drug paraphernalia.
Ms. Chambless said they had worked hard to clean it up, and it was now a peaceful residential
neighborhood that they wanted to keep that way. She said their concern was trespassers being
able to enter the neighborhood from this property. Ms. Chambless said having the parking lots in
the rear of the site would allow covert activities to take place. She said unfortunately, we do not
have enough police to address all the concerns that Hillsborough residents have. Ms. Chambless
said unless the Town was going to increase the number of police officers, they were concerned
about annexing that property into the Town limits and taxing police department with they already
had so little manpower.
Ms. Chambless said light pollution was an issue, as well as noise pollution. She said she hoped
that the Board would also consider questions regarding the Economic Development District. She
asked why was it put into place and why were the specific restrictions addressed. Ms.
Chambless said another question was why should we allow new development when we had
buildings standing vacant. She asked could this development proposal not wait until the
Strategic Growth Plan was finalized.
Ms. Chambless said there had been a request for an urgent care facility north of Town off of
Highway 70. She asked why the interested tenant was not looking in that area if they truly
wanted to serve Hillsborough.
Ms. Chambless said she sincerely hoped that the annexation would not go forward. But, if the
Board did grant the annexation, she requested that an eight-foot brick wall be erected along the
length of the property and up the sides at least 10 feet to help address safety issues.
15
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 16 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Mr. Oliver said regarding the fork of land that jutted out, what would her recommendation be.
Ms. Chambless said she was not a developer or an architect, and did not have a recommendation.
Mr. Oliver said she was recommending an eight-foot wall to go from one point to another point,
and asked what did she suggest doing with that fork of land. Ms. Chambless responded that she
wanted to ensure that Cornwallis Hills was protected, and did not know how to answer that
question.
Will Anderson, of 116 Pointe Place, echoed all of the statements previously made by his
neighbors. He said he had many concerns with the wildlife disturbance, and the continuous
developments happening throughout the Town, including this one. Mr. Anderson said what most
disturbed him was the safety of his family. He described how young adults who were not
members of the neighborhood traveled from NC 86 and through his property to access the
neighborhood. Mr. Anderson said they generally exit in the same manner. He said certainly
with the size of this development and the number of parking spaces, that concern was
heightened.
Mr. Anderson said another issue of great concern was flooding around and on his property. He
said it was ruining his backyard, creating gulleys and holes. He distributed photos of his
backyard after a flooding incident, pointing out how close the water comes to his home. Mr.
Anderson asked if the structure that was proposed closest to his property would worsen the
flooding he was experiencing.
Mr. Oliver said since most of Mr. Andersons backyard was in the stream buffer, then the brick
wall that had been suggested would not be able to be built there. He said he would assume that
even his house was within the 100-year floodplain. Mr. Oliver wondered exactly where people
expected an eight-foot wall to be built, asking where it would start and stop. Mr. Anderson
stated that he personally liked the idea of a brick wall, but understood that it would not come to
his area.
Mr. Oliver said he did not think a wall would help him at all. Mr. Anderson said the problem
they had now with trespassers was coming from homes along Old 86 and the young people that
lived there. He said his biggest concern was if the development was built, that it would
encourage loiterers and trespassers who would then access the neighborhood through his yard.
Mr. Anderson said to him, the way to stop that was not to put the development there. He said the
young people who trespassed now he could control with the help of the Police.
Mayor Stevens asked if trespassing was a daytime problem or a nighttime problem, or both. Mr.
Anderson said it was a little both depending on the season. He said during the fall when the
creek was lower it was more common.
Commissioner Lowen said the pictures Mr. Anderson had shared were quite alarming. He asked
when they were taken. Mr. Anderson said they were taken about 3 years ago, but every time
they got an substantial rain of a day or longer, that same situation occurred.
16
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 17 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Commissioner Lowen said then he had a serious problem whether the development happened or
not. Mr. Anderson said yes, and over time he was going to have to address it in some way. He
said his main concern was if the development would force more water onto his property.
George Higgins, President of the Cornwallis Hills Homeowners Association, publicly affirmed
the Board?s commitment to its members, particularly those who would be directly impacted by
this development. He said they supported the testimony heard thus far and that would continue
to be heard.
Mr. Oliver asked Mr. Higgins to describe exactly what they wanted with the eight foot fence.
Mr. Higgins said that Jo Soulier would address that when she speaks.
Emily Ander, 108 Point Place, and an employee of the Triangle Land Conservancy, stated that
her yard floods each time they experienced a substantial rain. She said that indicated it was not a
good idea to build in the floodplain, so why build more. Ms. Ander said she believed only the
higher ground should be developed.
Ms. Ander said by honoring only a 50 foot buffer, you really were not accomplishing any
protection that was above and beyond what was required. She suggested a 100-foot buffer on
either side was more appropriate. Ms. Ander said if the Board decided to annex this property,
she asked that they at least uphold the Orange County standards.
Jo Soulier, owner of adjoining property at 112 Point Place and a resident of Cornwallis Hills,
stated that this project should not be annexed into the Town. She said that Waterstone would not
be built until Old 86 was widened. She said this project would depend on the Cornwallis Hills
water tank to supplement them until then, and they already had poor water pressure.
Ms. Soulier said the lift station nearby had never worked, and the sewer frequently overflowed.
She said she could only imagine the problems with one positioned further down into the
floodplain. Ms. Soulier said if that temporary system failed, the Town would be liable for the
pollution caused to the water supply. She said the developer had spoken about connecting onto
the Cornwallis Hills sewer, but the residents were not interested in any form of ingress
whatsoever.
Ms. Soulier said the third building should not be built, noting it was only 5,000 square feet,
which was double the size of some of the homes in Cornwallis Hills. She said the County had
recommended against that as well. She asked if the developer?s need to make money supercede
common sense.
Ms. Soulier used the posted map to explain where the resident?s preferred for the brick wall to be
built. She said they did not object to the project, only to what it might attract to their backyards.
Ms. Soulier said the project was too grandiose for this piece of l and, and it did not meet the 20-
acre restriction. She added that the parking was larger than what was needed.
17
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 18 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Ms. Soulier said that 35% impervious surface had been mentioned previously. She noted that
35% was of the entire lot, not of the buildable lot. Ms. Soulier said regarding the traffic analysis,
it stated that 50% of the traffic to this development would come from the north. She commented
there was already too much traffic in Town.
Ms. Soulier said regarding the note on the Master Plan map referred to the fact that some plans
may not meet presumptive requirements. She remarked that the developers would cram
whatever they wanted through and the Board was supposed to approve it as is. Ms. Soulier said
she believed that language was a loophole. Ms. Soulier said the County had regulations in place
for a reason, and annexation would allow the developers to bypass much of that. She said that
should not be allowed.
Ms. Soulier said with all that being said, if the Board went ahead and annexed it anyway, she
asked them to scale the project down. She said if it worked the work the developer said it would,
that might be okay, but asked what would happen if the development was sold to someone else?
Ms. Soulier said that much of the wording was too vague and there were too many loopholes.
She asked that the Board wait to make a decision until the Strategic Growth Plan was in place,
and then decide if we really needed this office space.
Ms. Soulier commented that the plan called for wall-mounted security lighting. She said she had
visited Churton Grove Center who had such lights mounted in the rear, and it was like daylight
all night. Ms. Soulier said that was not a good thing for the neighbors.
Al Soulier, a resident of Patriot Place and owner of property on Pointe Place, noted that every
point he had wanted to emphasize had already been commented on. He said the most important
points to him were the trespass issue, with people not of their neighborhood using their property
to cross into the area. He said they were at a crossroads of two major interstates, with
exacerbated their trespass issues. Mr. Soulier said another issue was the easy access this
development would promote if there were no wall erected.
Mr. Soulier said the placement of the parking lot shields it from view, particularly from the
Police who would be patrolling in the area. He mentioned the number of children who lived in
the neighborhood, as well as the presence of a day care center that would potentially be only a
few steps away from a shielded parking lot. Mr. Soulier said the neighborhood needed to be
sealed off from easy access from this development, adding his support for an eight-foot brick
wall. He said noise was a concern, noting the HVAC and dumpster service. He said that privacy
and lighting were issues, noting that even if the lighting were aimed down you would still have
reflection off the buildings and cars that might be in the lot at night. Mr. Soulier said this light
would be directed into the kitchens and bedrooms at the back of their homes.
Cindy Mihake, a resident of Point Place, said if trees were to be planted as a buffer, why not just
place a brick wall there instead. She said a brick wall was a good idea and becoming more
common. She said if they ever sold their property they wanted to make sure it was still a nice,
safe place to live.
18
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 19 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Mr. Oliver said a neighbor had mentioned a drainageway that overflowed. He noted he was not
sure a brick wall could be built across a drainageway, but it was possible to plant trees. Ms.
Mihake wondered if there was a way to build a wall that was not flush with the ground, or that
had ?weep holes? similar to a house to allow water to run through.
Mr. Oliver said he wanted to know exactly what she was asking for so that the Board would
protect the neighbors interests. Ms. Mihake said residents asking for a brick wall was clear, and
was not sure why that did not answer Mr. Oliver?s question. She said Mr. Oliver had asked
where the residents wanted the wall to be, and she believed the buffer area planned for new trees
was the likely place. She added it might be possible to use a combination of a brick wall and
trees to lessen the harshness of what a brick wall might look like to some.
Ms. Ellis asked which drainageway Mr. Oliver was speaking of in regards to the brick wall. She
asked how wide a space was it. Ms. Mihake said she could not respond to the spacing.
Mr. Farrelly noted those issues would have to be worked out with the right people to provide
guidance, specifically engineers. He noted we had reached the end of the citizen comment
period.
Mr. Whitaker said he would like to solicit comments and guidance from the Boards about how to
focus their efforts to respond to all of the concerns expressed tonight. He said they were real
concerns that affected quality of life. However, he asked that people not disproportionately
assign responsibility for some of those issues to this project. He said let?s talk about the valid
parts of these issues that were attributable or appropriate to this project. Mr. Whitaker said he
did not believe it was appropriate to talk about people who might stop in who were traveling
through the State to commit some crime in Hillsborough and then leave. He said they just
wanted to give an honest treatment to the issue, and if we were not careful we would pass the
honesty mark and get into dishonest territory.
Mr. Whitaker said in their meetings with Cornwallis Hills residents, they had been hopeful that
some of these issues would have come to light at this time, and he was disappointed that they had
not. He said they had tried to resolve some of these points with the neighbors prior to tonight?s
meeting, and for whatever reason that did not happen. He stated they wanted to be good
neighbors, were open for discussion, wanted an honest treatment of the real issues this project
should address, and did not want to waste anyone?s time with big picture, socio-economic
demographic issues that they could not solve.
Mr. Whitaker said there were many points he wanted to respond to that deserved an honest
answer, although there was no time tonight. He asked what were the most important issues that
they should put their effort into.
Mr. Farrelly said there were issues they would like for them to address prior to coming before the
Planning Board, and asked for a thoughtful response on the major items. He stated he did not
want issues talked about tonight, such as crime, to be pushed aside. Mr. Farrelly said he
understood there were things Mr. Whitaker could not change, such as the nearby highways that
19
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 20 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
might make it easy for people to access the neighborhood, noting that might not be a realistic
concern for the development to address, but it was a sincere concern for the neighbors. He asked
Mr. Whitaker to come back with ideas that would address the heart of those concerns.
Mr. Farrelly said issues such as the County?s remarks regarding the floodplain boundaries should
be responded to, as well as the Town?s inter-growth and the viability of the project. He said the
concern expressed regarding ?why here and why not somewhere else? should be address, since
there were other properties that were suitable. Mr. Farrelly said whether it was a wall of
something else, there were other innovative solutions that should be addressed.
Mr. Farrelly said the hours of operation and the anticipated uses should be articulated,
particularly regarding the urgent care facility and the questions around that such as operating
hours and expected flow, or other disturbances. He said worst case scenarios were the types of
things the neighbors would want to be aware of.
Mr. Whitaker said they did not set about to create a package of loopholes to get this project
approved, noting that was not their mission. He said they had set about to meet the ordinance,
and to bring something good to Hillsborough and do it in a way that made planning sense. Mr.
Whitaker said they wanted to follow the steps to get the Master Plan set up and allow reasonable
flexibility for that, and then to live by it. He said all of that was subject to proper public notice
and proper public debate, which would be true for any subsequent Special Use Permit for this
property, no matter what happened in the process they were engaged in now.
Mr. Whitaker said there were multiple levels of protections, and they were doing the prudent first
step and did not want to have second-step issues placed into the first step that make it doomed to
failure from the beginning. He said the process was sequential and they would be happy to
discuss details at the appropriate time. He reminded everyone they were at the beginning of the
process, and were trying to plan how the site would develop, not to detail and specify every
aspect of the development.
Mayor Stevens said he would like to see this discussion left open, noting that issues of safety
were a concern as well as the floodplain, and these were issues that it was the Boards?
responsibility to look into. He said there were also questions regarding the effects on the
commercial tax base as well as the economic development impact. Mayor Stevens suggested
that the discussion be continued.
Ms. Hauth asked if they wanted to continue the discussion to a date specific, noting there was
another hearing in July then another in October. She asked did they want to leave it open to see
how long it took to respond to the questions, which would trigger new notices.
Commissioner Hallman asked what the July agenda looked like. Ms. Hauth responded it was
beginning to fill up. She said if this issue were continued to the July hearing, it would be put
ahead of anything new that might come in before the deadline.
20
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 21 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Upon a motion by Commissioner Lowen, seconded by Commissioner Gering, it was decided that
this issue would be included on the agenda for the July public hearing, scheduled for Tuesday,
July 25. The vote was unanimous.
Mr. Farrelly called for a short 3-minute break before beginning the next item of business.
ITEM #3: Zoning Ordinance Text amendment
to create ?outlet sales? as a defined and
permitted use within the General Industrial and Light Industrial districts.
Ms. Hauth noted the Town had received a letter from Vietri regarding the proposed expansion of
their operation on Elizabeth Brady Road to have a routinely opened outlet sales facility, which
the ordinance had not envisioned. She said that had prompted the request for an amendment to
the General Industrial and Light Industrial zoning districts to create the use of outlet sales. She
noted that the proposed definition would be ?ancillary sales by manufacturing or distribution
uses of products manufactured and distributed on the same parcel. Outlet sales may not exceed
10% of the building space on the parcel, and the parking spaces shall be provided by the outlet
sales area using the same formula as retail and be conveniently located to the sales entrance.?
Ms. Hauth said that was slightly different from the flex spaces they currently had, and it made
sure that people who wanted to have some sort of outlet were already dealing with the exact
same product on their property.
Commissioner Lloyd said she was in favor of this, but asked was there anything that we could
get in trouble with if we adopted this. Ms. Hauth said she not that she could envision. She noted
that if a company such as PHE, Inc. wanted to set up a retail outlet that would be an adult use,
and would have to go through the standard process for that because what they were selling would
qualify differently within the process.
Commissioner Lloyd said then this would be safe. Ms. Hauth said it would not preclude PHE
from trying, but they would have to go through a Conditional Use process to do that, making it
harder.
Mayor Stevens said from Ms. Hauth?s professional perspective, were there particular issues that
the Board should be looking at. Ms. Hauth said the reason you would not want to do something
simple like disallow retail sales in the general industrial district is that historically you keep retail
out of your industrial areas because ideally they were better suited for industrial uses. She said
this would put a cap on the amount and would require that whatever was being sold was also was
being dealt with on the property.
Mayor Stevens asked would this still be a Conditional Use. Ms. Hauth said it would be a Use by
Right, and she imagined that in most cases people would renovate their existing building, so it
may not be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. She said if they proposed an addition to the
property it would be subject to review by the Board of Adjustment.
21
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 22 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Commissioner Gering asked if the establishment next to Southern Seasons could take advantage
of this. Ms. Hauth said it could.
Commissioner Hallman wondered about the 10%. Ms. Hauth said that was to provide a
reasonable size that was not large. She noted that Vietri was not planning to be anywhere near
the 10% range with their building. She said many of their industrial operations were 58,000
square feet and larger, so 10% was a good sized retail store as compared to some of the smaller
stores around the Town.
Commissioner Gering asked if Ms. Hauth was comfortable with the vagueness of the word
?conveniently? in the definition. Ms. Hauth said they would look at that when it came before the
Planning Board and see if that was sufficient or needed to be changed. Commissioner Gering
said being as specific as possible was one way of staying out of trouble.
Ms. Ellis said at one time they had discussed flex space, and asked if these were free-standing
buildings, noting there was flex space all over Town and she did not want to see small outlets
everywhere. She asked if one of those small flex spaces happened to have a manufacturing
shop, would they also be allowed to have an outlet store. Ms. Hauth responded that under the
conditions of flex space they were already eligible to do that, and named some specific spaces.
Ms. Ellis said she would not like to see that all over Town, noting she did not like the word
?flex.? Ms. Hauth reminder her that this would be only in the General Industrial and Light
Industrial zoning districts. She said much of the flex space was in the High Intensity
Commercial district..
Jeff Black of Vietri, Inc., said one of the important things to them was their brand, and they had
worked hard to protect that for 23 years. He said the outlet store would allow them to control the
sale of their retired product, noting they had experienced a lot of success with bi-annual
warehouse sales. He said they would appreciate the Boards? consideration.
ITEM #4:Zoning Ordinance Text amendment
to amend the definition of ?junk car? to
coincide with the Town Code definition.
Ms. Hauth said the primary change here would to amend the zoning definition to refer to the
Town code definition so the possibility of them being independently amended was removed.
She said they wanted to provide an opportunity for the people contacted over the years regarding
potential junk car violations on their property to comment, noting she had notified them plus
homeowner associations about the potential text amendment.
Ms. Hauth said the Town Code definition currently stated that if your vehicle exhibited any of
the four criteria then it was considered junk, and noted the four criteria. She said currently they
had approximately 47 cars that met that definition because there was no current tag and
inspection on the car, and the vehicles look as if they otherwise could be operational.
22
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 23 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Ms. Hauth noted many people believed this was a revenue generator. She said they had
considered that, and realized that the intent of the ordinance was to prohibit unsightliness, and
not necessarily to prohibit a reasonably well-maintained car from remaining in a driveway
regarding of whether the State and the Town was receiving revenue for it.
Ms. Hauth said to that end, they were proposing an amendment to the definition of a junk car so
that a vehicle had to exhibit two or more of the criteria, rather than one. She said she believed
this definition would allow them to experience a higher compliance rate and still meet the intent
of the ordinance.
Ms. Wallace asked if you could have only one vehicle that fit the definition. Ms. Hauth said you
could have only one.
Mr. Jones asked how we monitored that. Ms. Hauth said the Zoning Enforcement Officer would
track this on a spreadsheet database to keep up with people who had been cleared of violations
by documenting compliance and others who had not.
Kathleen Yarborough, representing the Hillsborough Heights Neighborhood Association, said
that junk cars were an issue in her neighborhood, noting they were working hard towards
revitalization. She said where there were houses with junk cars the neighboring houses could not
be sold, even if they were in pristine condition because of the perception. She added that
unfortunately, perception was reality.
Ms. Yarborough said this was a real property value and quality of life issue. She said the other
issue was that there were many drivers in the area without insurance, and why encourage it by
lowering the barrier. She said this would have a direct impact on her neighborhood, adding they
were attempting to improve their neighborhood and that was a hard battle.
Mr. Farrelly asked if Ms. Yarborough had specific comments about the proposed text
amendment. Ms. Yarborough said they would like to see a stricter definition so that there was
increased enforcement. She said she new that taxed resources, but this affected their quality of
life and the overall quality of the neighborhood. She said they wanted the ordinance to support
that.
ITEM #5: Zoning Ordinance Text amendment
to Section 3.8, special exception permits
for building heights.
Ms. Hauth said a letter had been received from Orange County detailing this text amendment and
how it would impact the Courthouse expansion. She said the zoning ordinance currently allowed
what they called ?special exceptions? permits for additions to buildings already in setbacks and
also some special exceptions for height limitations. She said this text amendment would expand
the scope of those special exception permits to allow additional height variances for buildings
that were built prior to the zoning ordinance that already exceeded the height limitation, and then
come forward for conditions that would possible meet or exceed the height of the existing
building but not all of its roof elements.
23
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 24 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Ms. Hauth said in the context of the Courthouse, you had a roof element that was at one height
and then you have a significant roof element, being a cupola, that was 20 or so taller than the
addition that may exceed the main building height but not the height of the roof element. She
said one provision that might be added to this would be that a few of these buildings would be
located in the Historic District, and the Historic District did have design guidelines that spoke to
building height as an addition to a main building.
Ms. Hauth said there was often the question of who went first, the Board of Adjustment or the
Historic District Commission when there was a building that was reviewed by both. She said it
might be reasonable to in this case to say that the Historic District Commission should review the
project first to determine whether an addition that was going to exceed the height of a portion of
the main building was architecturally and historically appropriate before the factual issue was
determined by the Board of Adjustment. She added that the Historic District standard would be
the harder standard to get by.
Mr. Oliver asked how many buildings besides the new Courthouse would qualify for this
exception. Ms. Hauth said the Justice Facility Building and the Whitted Building. She said
other properties that may quality were this building and a couple of churches in the Historic
District.
David Taylor, of Corley Redfoot Zack, Architects, and representing the County, stated that he
would let the letter from the County suffice as far as what was being requested. He said that this
was a very limited text amendment that would have little effect, and did not believe that the
Historic District Commission should have to sign off on this project before it came to the Board
of Adjustment.
Mr. Oliver said the Courthouse addition would have some difficulty, noting the land was lower
and may slope lower than the current Courthouse. Mr. Taylor said yes, it places. Mr. Oliver said
the measurements were taken from ground level, and asked if they would run into any special
problems where they were trying to reach the same height that they were at but it made them go
five feet taller because of the slope. He asked if that would be worked out with this text
amendment.
Mr. Taylor said the standard this was based on was Section 3.8(f)(2), which stated ?The total
height of the addition including any roof elements does not exceed the height of the maximum
height including any roof elements of the original, non-conforming building.? He said in other
words, they would not go any higher than the existing cupola with the roof or any roof elements
on the addition.
Mr. Oliver said then if the existing roof element was at 60 feet, and if the land was seven feet
lower, then you would have to go to 67 feet to line up with the existing cupola if you added an
additional cupola. Mr. Taylor said the question was whether we were talking about absolute
height or relative height. He said if the existing roof element was 60 feet off the ground, then to
architecturally match it may require the extra seven feet of height.
24
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 25 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Mr. Taylor said first of all you had to look at all four sides of the building, and always take the
worst case. He said as far as he knew there was not a seven-foot difference that would come into
play with this property.
Mr. Oliver said he did not want to adjust the ordinance, and then realize they did not adjust it as
much as was needed. Mr. Taylor said he understood that, and the County was willing to work
within the parameters of the wording.
ITEM #6:Close Public Hearings, Adjourn Joint Planning Meeting, Convene Town
Board Meeting
Upon a motion by Commissioner Hallman, seconded by Commissioner Lowen, Items 3, 4, and 5
and the Joint Public Hearing were closed. The vote was unanimous.
ITEM #7:Provide direction to staff
regarding July meeting schedule.
ITEM #8:Budget Workshop
Mayor Stevens convened the Budget Workshop, and called on the Town Manager to make
introductory comments.
Town Manager Eric Peterson called attention to the sheet entitled ?Adjustments to Proposed
FY07 General Fund Expenditures,? and asked the Board to make sure that it accurately reflected
the changes that the Board wanted to see in the budget, regarding cuts and deferments as well as
additions the Board wanted to make. He said one item of note was a request that $6,000 from
the Margaret Lane Cemetery budget be used for videotaping of an oral history by the Cemetery
Committee.
Commissioner Hallman asked if those funds would come from the Tourism Board?s budget.
Assistant Town Manager/Public Works Director Demetric Potts stated they had missed the grant
cycle deadline for the Tourism Board and wanted to make sure that there was some funding
available for this, and were asking that the Board funds for this.
Commissioner Gering said the Tourism Board did not have many funds, and there were many
more needs than they could support. He said had the funding request been received on time he
believed it would have been difficult to approve.
Commissioner Lloyd asked if the $6,000 request were approved did that mean they would have
to cut something else. Commissioner Lowen said we didn?t have to.
Mr. Potts said there were about five individuals who were quite elderly that they wanted to get an
oral history from, and suggested it would be easier for the individuals to videotape the
interviews.
25
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 26 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Commissioner Lloyd asked didn?t we already have videotape on hand. Mr. Potts responded he
did not.
Commissioner Gering said the Margaret Lane Cemetery Committee had made great strides, and
they had drawn on the resources of the Tourism Board. He said he did not feel that this was such
a large amount, and did not see the need to cut something from the budget if the request was
granted.
Mr. Peterson said if this was something the Board wanted to fund, another option would be to
reduce its Contingency Fund. Commissioner Lloyd said she did not want to consider doing that.
She asked if there was any other option. Mr. Peterson said to either fund it or not fund it.
Commissioner Lloyd said it was not that she did not want to fund it, but there were many needs
that we just did not have the money for.
Commissioner Hallman asked what the Board wanted to accomplish tonight. He said he would
prefer that Commissioner Dancy be present when final decisions were made on the budget. He
asked what the Manager needed tonight. Mr. Peterson said in order for the staff to bring a
budget ordinance before the Board for its consideration, he would ask that the Board look at the
list provided on the adjustment sheet and say yes or no to what was listed. He said then he could
recalculate everything and create a budget ordinance or options for budget ordinances for
consideration.
Mr. Peterson said the second item was the tax rate, although it did not have to be set tonight. He
said we could move the rate either up or down, and have the staff bring back several different
budget ordinances with six different tax rates for consideration. He said if the Board was okay
on the expense side, then they could bring back options based on varying tax rate increases.
Commissioner Lloyd said in the materials mentioned a Cemetery grant match of $5,960, and that
the cost of markers was half of what was expected. She asked what markers the material was
referring to. Mr. Potts said there were no markers out there at this time.
Commissioner Lloyd asked did this refer to the slave cemetery markers. Mr. Potts said they had
conducted a survey of the cemetery and determined the foot and head of each grave. He said the
Cemetery Committee wanted to put permanent markers down to identify that.
Commissioner Hallman said he wanted to advocate for including funds for the Police dog.
Commissioner Lloyd said her only concern had been whether or not a new Police vehicle would
be needed for the K-9 unit.
Mayor Stevens asked had we completed the discussion regarding the cemetery. Mr. Peterson
asked if we could go down the list provided in sequence so that the Board could provide him
direction on each. He said the Police traffic grant match, the Police K-9/Drug Dog and the
special appropriation for the Church Street signage were the three items that had been added. He
26
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 27 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
said the cuts and deferments were listed as well, and asked for any changes the Board might want
to see made.
Commissioner Hallman asked if the money put aside for the Library was still in the budget. Mr.
Peterson said it was.
Mayor Stevens said then the Cemetery funds would be another addition. Mr. Peterson said he
had been made aware that the cost of the markers was half of what was expected, so he had taken
those funds out of the budget. He said it had been included in the original draft, but was
removed when additional cuts were made to address he deficit. Now, he said, the Margaret Lane
Cemetery Committee was asking that those funds remain to pay for the cost of the oral history.
Mayor Stevens asked if they needed the entire $6,000 for the video. Mr. Potts said the Cemetery
Committee did not know at this time what the cost would be.
Commissioner Hallman said regarding the Senior Planner, if we had the money and we started
working now to hire, when could be reasonably expect someone to be hired. Mr. Peterson said
most likely we could have someone on board in September.
Commissioner Hallman asked if waiting until November 1 was a problem. Ms. Hauth responded
there was some benefit to waiting to bring someone in until November or December because that
was traditionally a slower time. She said that would allow them to spend more time getting the
new hire up to speed so that when the workload increased, they could deal with it. She said she
had no problem with delaying that hire until November 1.
Mr. Peterson said that date could be adjusted a few weeks either way if necessary without any
hardship to the Town.
Mayor Stevens said if necessary we could contract help between now and then. Mr. Peterson
said that was correct.
Mayor Stevens said regarding the cemetery, he had some concerns about the delay of the
archeology report, and he did not know how the oral history would play into that. He added that
we were really tight on funds.
Commissioner Hallman said he believed we were talking about rerouting the Riverwalk so that it
would not impact the cemetery, so it was not imperative that we do that right away.
Mr. Peterson said if the Board was interested in adding the funds for the oral history, the Board
could wait until more information was known and then if it were compelling enough then funds
could be transferred from Contingency. He said the Board did not have to make a decision
tonight.
27
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 28 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Mayor Stevens said he was more comfortable with that. Mr. Peterson said Mr. Potts could let the
Cemetery Board know that the Board wanted to see a more specific proposal before funding was
considered.
Commissioner Lowen said he would agree with that. He said $6,000 seemed like a lot of money
for an oral history. He said he could take his video camera and sit down and interview five
people with very little expense, and wondered where that number had come from. He said that
$6,000 was a lot of money for what was being planned.
Commissioner Lloyd asked Chief Birkhead how soon would he get the K-9 once it was funded.
Police Chief Clarence Birkhead responded they would begin the process in June, noting they had
a trainer who had K-9?s available. He said once a K-9 was selected, it would take a few weeks in
order to complete the training.
Commissioner Lowen asked if the new K-9 would be alternated with the one we currently had.
Or, he said, would we need to outfit another vehicle. Chief Birkhead said they would outfit one
of their current vehicles, noting they had a kennel that could be added to an existing vehicle.
Mayor Stevens he believed the Board needed to discuss the tax rate increase. Mr. Peterson
reiterated that the rate did not have to be narrowed down to one tonight, but if two or three could
be identified, then he would prepare alternate budget ordinances for the Board?s consideration.
Referring to his memorandum, Mr. Peterson said regarding the suggested scenarios he did not
think scenarios number one or two were the best choice, noting they were the most unrealistic.
He said that scenarios number five and six were financially excessive. He said that scenarios
number three and four were the most viable and practical given the picture the Financial Plan
was currently painting.
Mayor Stevens said that scenarios number 3 and 4 were the most financially responsible, and
four and five were the ones that kept our fund balance at a policy level.
Commissioner Hallman asked if we needed to add in the additions. Mr. Peterson said they had
already been taken into account, including all cuts and deferments.
Mr. Peterson said traditionally in the General Fund, our condition is generally better than what
was predicted. He said he expected that to be the case again this year. For that reason, Mr.
Peterson, he did not believe we needed to raise the tax rate drastically as scenarios five and six
would do.
Commissioner Hallman pointed out that if we used the fund balance percentage as our metric,
the difference between scenarios three and four was negligible in 2007 and only 3% in 2008. He
said you would not see any real impact until 2009.
Mr. Peterson noted that just because money was budgeted, did not mean that we always spend it,
noting that they tried to be reasonable about that. He said the one thing that was hard to forecast
28
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 29 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
was the unexpected issues. He said those unexpected issues were the reason he had continued to
bump up the contingency appropriation in out years to take that into account.
Commissioner Hallman said he was impressed that the difference between the budgeted and
actual estimates were so close. He complimented the Manager, stating he had been right on the
mark. Mr. Peterson said most of the credit went to the departments, but he appreciated the
comment.
Mayor Stevens said contingency had been at least $100,000. Mr. Peterson said State law said the
maximum you could have in a contingency fund was 5%, so we were well below that. He said
we could actually have over $300,000, but keeping it at around $100,000 was a good fiscal
restraint for us. Mr. Peterson said he had lowered it to $75,000 this year because things were so
tight.
Commissioner Hallman said it was clear to him that a 5.4% tax rate increase, or scenario number
three, was the most obvious choice.
Commissioner Lowen asked if the Manager wanted direction from the Board as to what to bring
back for the next meeting. Mr. Peterson said one, either one scenario or a couple of scenarios.
Commissioner Lowen said Commissioner Dancy had not had an opportunity to study this since
she was out of Town. Mr. Peterson said that was correct, but she was expected back on June 12.
Commissioner Lowen asked if the Manager could prepare budge ordinances using scenarios
three and four so the Board could discuss them and choose. He said that would give
Commissioner Dancy the respect of looking at two different options.
Commissioner Lloyd said she preferred scenario three. Commissioner Lowen agreed.
Commissioner Lloyd asked Mr. Peterson if we would be in good shape regarding fund balance
using scenario number three. Mr. Peterson said from a financial standpoint either scenario
number three or four would be fine. He said he believed we would be okay with the lower tax
rate suggested by scenario number three.
Commissioner Gering said it would be a major help if we could convince the State to refund the
funds that were confiscated from municipalities in 2002.
Commissioner Lowen suggested making a formal request for the return of those funds from the
State.
Commissioner Gering said he believed it amounted to about $107,000 for the Town. Mr.
Peterson said that was about right. Commissioner Gering said they were discussing a tax rate
increase of 5.4%, 2 cents of which could be accounted for by return of that $107,000 by the
State.
29
June 5, 2006 Joint Public Hearing and Monthly Workshop
Page 30 of 30
Minutes Approved: July 10, 2006
Commissioner Lowen said the County had already made that request, and the Town should do it
as well.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Lowen, the staff was
authorized to draft a letter to be sent to the State requesting a return of the funds in question. The
vote was unanimous.
Mayor Stevens said at this point we had eliminated consideration of scenarios five and six, as
well as one and two. So, he said, it appeared we were asking the Manager to bring back budget
ordinances for consideration based on scenarios three and four.
Mr. Peterson stated that it was always their target to adopt the budget as earlier as possible so
that they could move on to other things, but it was the Board?s budget and if there were other
issues or ideas that the Board would like staff to explore, he was happy to do that.
Commissioner Lowen asked how much the sidewalk project for Nash Street would cost. He said
he was referring to the unfortunately incident last week where a pedestrian was struck and killed.
He asked if we tried to move up the construction of that sidewalk project, what effect would that
have on the budget? Mr. Peterson said he believed that $68,000 was the projected debt service,
and if the Board wanted the staff to make a more specific, refined estimate, we could conduct a
preliminary feasibility study. He said he believed the full estimated cost would be less than
$500,000 unless there were overruns.
Commissioner Hallman said the debt service would add another penny to the tax rate increase.
Mr. Peterson said they could determine what the study would cost and report back to the Board.
He said these types of projects were difficult to estimate because of the curb and drainage and
other issues.
Commissioner Lowen said the incident was unfortunate, and he had recently realized just what a
heavy amount of traffic used that roadway particularly in the morning and afternoon, as well as
he many pedestrians. He said it was amazing to him that no one else had been killed on that
street, noting that one person killed was too many. Mr. Peterson said he would report back to the
Board when he had additional information.
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Upon a motion by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Lowen, the meeting was
adjourned by a unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna F. Armbrister, CMC
Town Clerk
Margaret Hauth, AICP
Planning Director
30