HomeMy Public PortalAbout07-25-2006 Joint Public Hearing
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 1 of 22
Minutes Approved. September 11, 2006
MINUTES
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD and PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
7:00 PM, Hillsborough Town Barn
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mayor Tom Stevens, Commissioners Evelyn
Lloyd, Mike Gering, L. Eric Hallman, and Brian Lowen.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Matthew Farrelly, Jim Boericke, Neil
Jones, Eric Oliver, Toby Vandemark, and Barrie Wallace.
STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Eric Peterson, Assistant Town Manager/Public Works
Director Demetric Potts, Planning Director Margaret Hauth, and Town Engineer/Utilities
Director Kenny Keel.
ITEM #1: Call public hearing to order
.
7:03:38 PM Mayor Stevens called the meeting to order. He noted that several additions had
been requested to the agenda, including the addition of a Closed Session item. He noted that Mr.
Morphis was acting as the Town?s attorney for this hearing.
7:04:58 PM Planning Director Margaret Hauth said that an item by the Eno River Association
had originally been planned for tonight, but that item would be considered at a later time. She
said the two items they would like to add are an item for consideration by the Planning Board
regarding a proposal from Clarion with a suggestion on how the Town might take a proactive
stance on potential design for the Blue and Collins properties that was now under contract, and a
Closed Session item regarding potential litigation regarding previous violations at Larry King
Chevrolet.
7:06:05 PM Upon a motion by Commissioner Lowen, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, the
Board moved to amend the agenda as noted by a vote of 10-0. The motion was declared passed.
Mayor Stevens turned the meeting over the Planning Board Chair Matthew Farrelly.
ITEM #2:Street closing request
for a portion of Webb Street.
7:06:25 PM Ms. Hauth referred to a map and described the exact area proposed to be closed.
She noted the Town had received a request in April from Ms. Helen Kenyon who lived at the
corner of Webb Street where it turned and connected to Knight Street. Ms. Hauth said the
portion in question was the strip of land in that sharp turn that was presently used as a driveway.
She asked the Board to consider holding the public hearing open so that she could re-advertise
the hearing and place it on the September hearing agenda.
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 2 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
Ms. Hauth noted that this was a Town Board issue only, even though it had gotten scheduled at
the beginning of this Joint Planning Hearing. She said the Planning Board would not be
expected to make a decision on this item.
7:09:32 PM Linda Chamblee said she was representing Ms. Kenyon, and read a letter from
her. The letter outlined Ms. Kenyon?s request, and provided the history of the piece of land in
question. It stated her request to have that land condemned and clear ownership reverted to her
and her neighbor, Mr. Smith, for continued use as a driveway between the two properties.
7:13:04 PM Bryant Warren, a nearby resident, provided his memory of the history of the land
in question. He said he wanted to make sure that Ms. Kenyon would be able to continue using
that drive the way she had in the past.
7:14:24 PM Helen Miller ask if the other section of this road had already been closed, then
why had this part not been closed as well. She said that King Street had not come through that
area until the late 1950?s, and if you were going to legally close this part, what happened to the
other part? She said it was a public road for many years.
7:15:58 PM Aviva Enoch said she and her husband owned the house referred to as the Dixon
house, which was now a rental house. She said they had no problem with Ms. Kenyon parking
there, but the issue was that they had a back gate, and a blockade had been created so that the
gate could not be used as an entrance or an exit. Ms. Enoch said she had approached Ms.
Kenyon and asked her to move the gate so that her tenants could walk that way. She said Ms.
Kenyon had agreed, but then her son has refused.
Ms. Enoch said it was not an issue of whether or not they would park there, but was an issue of
now calling it their driveway and denying their neighbors access to walk in and out of their back
gate, obstructing access to the water cut-off and the Town?s access to the existing utilities. Ms.
Enoch said when they purchased the house they were not told that it was a private road, and
when she had checked with the Register of Deeds office she had been assured that it was a public
road. She said in light of that, she saw no reason to close the road. Ms. Enoch said they only
wanted to have access through the gate.
7:19:20 PM Greg Decker, Ms. Enoch?s husband, reiterated her statements. He said they
needed to be able to access that area, noting there was no way to get a utility truck into that area.
Mr. Decker said the water cut-off value was in that area being considered for closing, and he saw
no point in closing the road.
7:21:00 PM Steve Landon said he was opposed to closing the street, noting it was the only
access to his property in the rear of this property. He said he owned two houses behind this area
and closing this area would mean he would have to access his property by some other means.
Mr. Landon said he had never been opposed to anyone parking there, but he did not want to give
up the access. He also commented that it was suggested that if closed, the property would be
divided equally between Ms. Kenyon and Mr. Smith, but he believed it would have to be divided
into fours, and asked that that be checked.
2
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 3 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
Mr. Landon said he had never complained, but there was also a fence running down that area,
which limited his access as well. He said he would like to request that the fence be removed,
which blocked him from the street. Mr. Landon said his water cut-off was not located there, but
the gas cut-off for two houses was back there as well as the LP gas. He said he believed there
was also a Town sewer line located there for which the Town might someday need access.
7:25:12 PM In response to a question from a Commissioner, Ms. Hauth stated that apparently
somewhere in the Land Records the other section of this road had been closed, because it did not
show up as a viable right-of-way in the records. She said they had not been able to find any
record of this other portion being closed, which was what was now in question. Ms. Hauth said
the portion that Ms. Miller had referred to was resolved.
Regarding ownership of any closed portion, Ms. Hauth noted that ownership would revert to any
abutting property owners. But, she said, she did not know what would happen when the property
was at a dead end and abutted other property. Ms. Hauth said that would have to be determined
by State law should the Board vote to close it.
7:26:42 PM Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, the
Board moved to recess the Public Hearing to September 11 by a vote of 5-0. The motion was
declared passed.
7:27:12 PM Commissioner Lloyd asked if there was some way to provide a better map of the
area to lessen confusion. Ms. Hauth said she could provide a map with the property owners
listed on it for the September meeting.
ITEM #3: Annexation/Zoning/Master Plan
request 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 square feet, 17,000 square feet, and 4,000 square feet (TMBL
4.49.A.2, 2e). Special Use Permits will be required before any building is
constructed.
7:28:43 PM Ms Hauth said this item was continued from the June Public Hearing, at which
time the staff was asked to provide some additional information, noted as items 1 through 12 in
the agenda packet. Ms. Hauth then highlighted the issues, beginning with investigation of the
legal issue surrounding the recombination of the property in the most recent deed for the
property. There was a statement of intent by the then owner that the properties were not intended
to be recombined. An email is in the packet from the Town Attorney about that. While not clear
how binding that statement of intent was, it did not rise to the level of a restrictive covenant. It is
a matter for the property owners involved to enforce it if they see it to be necessary. Property is
proposed to be three lots, but currently it was only two. While not a combination of lots, the lot
lines had been adjusted but they were still individual freestanding lots.
7:30:48 PM Commissioner Gering said he was unclear, and asked if this was an application to
rezone two existing lots. Ms. Hauth said yes, and the Master Plan showed those two existing lots
to become three lots. Commissioner Gering asked if it would then become a subdivision. Ms.
Hauth responded it would become a subdivision just like many of our master plans envisioned a
3
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 4 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
subdivision. She used Hampton Point and the five outparcels on the north side of the side that
was a subdivision as an example. She said the lots could be divided consistent with the master
plan without further process.
7:31:31 PM Ms. Hauth said in the packet was a letter from Chuck Edwards regarding DOT?s
review of the driveway issues, and comments from the Town Engineer regarding utilities. She
said the water service would be provided by new water lines constructed on Old 86 by the
Waterstone developer. Ms. Hauth said the water pressure to existing customers in Cornwallis
Hills would not be impacted because a different line served them. She said the sewer connection
to Bonaparte Drive was required, noting that if the Cates Creek Outfall had not been extended to
the site by the time this project was ready to be built, a temporary pump station that would be
privately owned and maintained would be provided until the Cates Creek Outfall was extended
and the gravity connection was made. She said the Town Engineer had no concerns about the
viability of the temporary pump station.
7:32:21 PM Ms. Hauth said the Chief of Police had provided comments regarding parking.
He had stated that parking in the rear of the building was not a major concern for the Police, but
made a number of suggestions such as making sure there was adequate lighting, possibly
installing an access control device for the parking areas after hours, so some other SUP level
comments.
7:32:54 PM Ms. Hauth said the drainageway shown on the site plan did not show a buffer.
She said she had checked with Mr. Ivins in the Soil and Erosion Control Office, noting his office
had delegated authority to determine whether a water feature was a stream and required a buffer.
She said a feature had to show either on the USGS quadrangle map or on the soil survey for the
area in order for a buffer to be required. This feature does not show on either of those, Ms.
Hauth noted, and even though Mr. Ivins staff had not visited the site to do a determination,
according to State law he could not require a buffer on a feature that was not otherwise shown on
one of those two sources. Ms. Hauth said therefore a buffer would not be required on that
drainageway.
7:33:52 PM Ms. Hauth said the initially submitted site analysis showed the environmental
constraints on the property. She said she had calculated the areas not in the right-of-way, and
their environmental impact was approximately 5.76 acres of the site from the 11.26 acres, and
the impervious surface was proposed to be at about 3.5 acres. Ms. Hauth said it did not impact
the applicant?s statements about the floor area ratio or imperious surface on the site was.
7:34:32 PM Ms. Hauth said we had the Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG) conduct
some analyses on the site for the next couple of items. She said the Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design report recommended there needed to be visibility into the site from
surrounding properties, there needed to be good lighting, there needed to be visibility from
constructed buildings into the parking areas, and the creation of safe and protected walking aisles
was needed for pedestrians so when leaving a building you had a reasonably good line of sight
and a protected pathway to your vehicle.
Ms. Hauth said in conversations with Paul Black who wrote the report, he had said that a lot of
the parking was aligned the proper way so that someone leaving the building could look out and
4
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 5 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
see between the individual parked cars, lessening the chance someone could lurk or hide there.
His report also discussed the location of the parking lot, and said it was the perception of the
eyes in that if windows faced out over the parking lot, the parking lot would be safer, and if you
could see onto the lot from adjoining lots then the parking lot would be safer.
Ms. Hauth said the report also talked about barriers, and noted that the area from about 2 feet off
the ground to 7 feet should be clear and open so that dark areas or shadows were not created.
Ms. Hauth said some of the neighbors had requested a solid barrier, and that did not mesh with
the recommendations from the report.
7:37:04 PM Ms. Hauth said most of the flood-specific comments had already been addressed.
She noted that the whole idea of the flood study and the floodplain was to say that that was the
area that was going to flood. She said the point of the floodplain regulations were such that if
you developed in the floodplain and do a no-rise certificate, then you would not be making
properties upstream or downstream worse. Ms. Hauth said if building 3 which was in the
floodplain was constructed, then flooding should be no worse that it was now.
7:38:02 PM Regarding the floodplain policy, Ms. Hauth said there was not a formal one, so
TJCOG had compiled a list of what other jurisdictions did. She said she had looked at reasons
why jurisdictions prohibited building in the floodplain and talked with Triangle J as well, and
came up with several reasons. Ms. Hauth said we were seeing more storms in our area that were
causing flooding, and it simplified the permitting process and managed the expectations of the
property owner. She said allowing development in the floodplain but stating that the applicant
had to get a no-rise certificate in some ways provided false hope, and many jurisdictions simply
said they would not allow development in the floodplain. Ms. Hauth said the last area was
environmental stewardship. She said we knew these were sensitive areas, so why allow
development in them.
7:39:33 PM Commissioner Gering asked Ms. Hauth to elaborate on the note about our Hazard
Mitigation Plan. Ms. Hauth said that plan was done in coordination with Orange County, and it
contained a recommendation to amend our flood ordinance to prohibit development in the
floodplain. She said our revised Vision 2010 Plan also recommended looking at our flood
ordinance and prohibiting development in the floodplain.
Ms. Hauth verified that the plans were based on the current detailed floodplain information, and
contained the Engineer?s seal.
7:41:32 PM Sheila Pierce, the applicant, said they were confident they had provided adequate
answers and information regarding the 12 points Ms. Hauth had spoken about. She said that she
and Mr. Whitaker were both available to answer any further questions. Ms. Pierce said she
hoped that at the end of tonight?s discussion that the public hearing would be closed and referred
to the Planning Board, and then come back in September for final approval of the project.
7:42:54 PM Vic Knight entered into the record a letter from Dr. Addison. He said Dr.
Addison lived on a large parcel at the southwest corner of this piece of property. Mr. Knight
read Dr. Addison?s letter, which expressed his support for the annexation and rezoning of the
proposed development. The letter said Dr. Addison supported the outpatient medical center
5
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 6 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
planned for that location that would serve the Town and surrounding areas, providing services in
a centralized location that did not currently exist. The letter stated that the facility would
generate high-quality jobs, would be clean and non-polluting, not intrusive on the local scene,
and have a favorable impact on the tax base.
7:46:15 PM Jo Soulier said regarding the wall and questions about how it would be built
across the floodplain, if the wall were bricked behind the houses with wrought iron in between, it
would allow water to flow through. She said where the land stuck out, that could be a wrought
iron gate that would provide sewer access. And, Ms. Soulier said, the residents would feel safe
with a solid barrier provided.
Ms. Soulier said the materials in the packet indicated that the applicant had prepared only a
master plan and more detailed information would be provided at the SUP stage. She said the
application looked okay in the broad sense, but the problem was that by the time you get to the
details you could no longer say no. Ms. Soulier said we needed the details before we start
getting close to the SUP stage. She said the concerns that had been expressed needed to be dealt
with now before something irrevocable took place.
Ms. Soulier said the TJCOG review had applied CPTED standards to this development and how
safe it would be from the residents, not the other way around. She said nobody told TJCOG
about them and how they were worried about their safety from this development. Ms. Soulier
said they were the ones that would be there at night, and asked whose side the Board was on.
She asked if the Town was on the side of a developer who ?plopped? down some buildings that
we were stuck with while they disappeared into the sunset with their pockets overflowing, or the
people who lived here, gave the Town its character, paid their taxes and voted for them.
7:49:12 PM Ms. Soulier said regarding the review using the County standards, they had said
don?t building the third building and the parking lot and put in a wall, but they could not
comment further because of the lack of detail. She said that NCDOT had detailed of the ins and
out and the lanes, but the Churton Street Corridor Plan did not have a place for the northbound
traffic to turn in or for the traffic coming out to turn left. Ms. Soulier said if it stayed a whole
median all the way down, people would travel up to Lafayette to turn around and come back.
Ms. Soulier said regarding the Engineer?s comments, we were back to not having enough detail
yet again. She said she was pleased that the sewer line could be zigzagged to prevent a straight
sightline into the neighborhood. Ms. Soulier said she had some experience with pump stations,
and believed they habitually overflowed. She said there was a lot of water back there, and she
had no confidence in putting a pump station there. Ms. Soulier said when you say they would be
privately owned and maintained, who was the ?privately? and who held them responsible.
7:51:22 PM Ms. Soulier said the Chief of Police had commented that he did not feel that this
development would be a problem, and had mentioned putting in an access control device in the
parking lot. She said that might take care of vehicles, but would not address pedestrians which
they continued to be worried about, hence the need for the wall. Ms. Soulier said she understood
we did not have the manpower to have police officers patrol the parking lot.
6
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 7 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
Ms. Soulier said she had spoken to some officers who had attended her homeowners association
meeting recently, and they had said that the gang activity in Town was small but on the rise
because of the proximity to Durham and the ease of traveling here. She said so here was a
convenient parking lot right off of I-40 and I-85 for such people to meet. So, she said, we still
needed the wall.
7:52:33 PM Ms. Soulier said the review on the CPTED issues, even if the point of view was
for the protection of the development and not for the neighbors, they still talked about perimeter
barriers. She said they indicated those barriers should be on the edge of the parking lot and not
on the property lines after they had wiped all the trees out in the name of paving. Ms. Soulier
said that report talked about the overall crime rate would generally reflect that of the surrounding
neighborhood, and the neighborhood appeared to be stable and unlikely to be challenging from a
crime standpoint. She said of course they would not be a problem to them, but who is looking
out for the neighbors when the gangs are coming in from Durham.
Ms. Soulier said the key for the CPTED review was for the parking lot to be in easy view of the
windows, but it was not the neighbors? job to watch their parking lot, particularly at night. She
said the elevation of the parking lot would make it easy for anyone in the parking lot to look into
their windows. She said the report suggested a perimeter gate, and again, they still needed that
wall. Ms. Soulier said Ms. Hauth had said their request for a wall was not in line with the
CPTED report, however, in several places it mentioned perimeter barriers, walls, and
impermeable barriers.
7:54:09 PM Ms. Soulier said the recommendation for office safety was to use height to limit
trespass, and it should be at least six feet high. She said it also said that the federal standards
were overblown and would give a detrimental appearance. Ms. Soulier said federal standards
wanted six-foot high chain link or barbed wire, and she did not want to see that, either. She said
a nice brick wall with ivy on it was much nicer. Ms. Soulier said the report suggested the ?best
fit? was a partially opaque fence, and said that brick with wrought iron was partially opaque.
Ms. Soulier said she had spoken to Town Manager Eric Peterson, who had suggested she talk
with Mr. Whitaker, which she did. She said Mr. Whitaker had tried to tell her that a brick wall
was easy to climb, and she did not agree. She said he had also tried to tell her that chain link was
hard to climb.
Ms. Soulier said the TJCOG reiterated that an impermeable perimeter barrier was a key
component of the CPTED strategy, which sounded like brick to her. She said TJCOG had also
stated that vegetative barriers could eventually become impermeable, which she questioned. She
said they continued by saying that vegetation was not permanent, not easy to maintain, and the
vegetation should not be considered part of the perimeter barrier. So, she said, after the
developers had disappeared who was responsible for maintaining this vegetation.
7:55:54 PM Ms. Soulier said there was a comment from TJCOG that the boundaries varied
slightly. She said Ms. Hauth had said that the Engineer?s seal was enough to assert that they had
used the correct boundaries, and then Ms. Pierce had said they did everything through an
independent source. Ms. Soulier asked if the Engineer was a part of that.
7
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 8 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
Ms. Soulier said according to the TJCOG report, the master plan was overly broad. She said it
also had said that conforming a properly constructed building would not be damaged, and asked
properly constructed for whom. She asked what about flooding out the neighbors because the
water could not soak into the parking lot. Ms. Soulier said that flooding was based on math, but
math did not keep the water out. She said math did not help to prevent water from flooding
basements or crawlspaces.
7:57:36 PM Ms. Soulier said the TJCOG report said that Durham had a different policy, but
other jurisdictions said do not build in the floodplain. She said that third building should not
happen. She said that was the right thing to do for responsible development.
Ms. Soulier summarized her points as follows: The TJCOG needed to conduct the CPTED
review again, but from the neighbors? perspective. They would like to see the third building
removed from the plan and no building take place in the floodplain. They would like the
developer to consider scaling down the entire project, noting that just because the small stream
did not appear on the map did not mean they had the most updated map. She said no one had
noticed it until now because no one had looked at this property until now.
Ms. Soulier asked that the Board wait until the Strategic Plan was completed before moving
forward on this project. She said they still maintain the need for an eight-foot brick and wrought
iron wall for their safety, for a buffer, and for their way of life.
8:00:22 PM Gayane Chambliss, a resident of Cornwallis Hills, addressed concerns about end
development along NC 86 and the Churton Street Corridor. She said she recognized that this
type of development could be good for northern Orange County and Hillsborough. However,
she said, if the Town would first decide, finalize, and put a Strategic Plan in place, then much of
this discussion and other future issues could be avoided. Ms. Chambliss requested that the Board
not annex and rezone the land until the Strategic Plan was in place.
Ms. Chambliss said if that plan was in place, that when a developer filed an application that
hopefully ordinances would not be amended ?mid-stream.? She said the land should not be
annexed until the Town Board had approved funding for additional police officers. Ms.
Chambliss said she had spoken to the Police Chief and other officers, and she had been told that
the concerns of the Cornwallis Hills residents were not unwarranted. She said they had told her
specifically what type of crime they were encountering, and there were not enough officers.
Ms. Chambliss said her main concern continued to be the placement of the parking lots at the
rear of the buildings. She said the officers had told them that if they could not see it, then
depending on their schedules and other factors, they did not know how often they could do a
drive by. She said if they were simply driving by and shining a light on the parking lots in the
rear, who knew what would be going on there.
8:04:03 PM Ms. Chambliss said the concern was not just how pretty Hillsborough looked
when driving off of I-40, but also how safe it was. She reiterated that regardless of who
developed that property eventually, as the Community Watch Chair for her neighborhood she
could attest that the residents of Cornwallis Hills felt that it was vitally important to the safety
8
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 9 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
and well being of the residents and their children to have a brick wall installed as a barrier,
whether it included wrought iron or not.
8:05:21 PM Kim Dodson said she lived in the County, and whatever Hillsborough did
ultimately affected them. She said one of the things that had saddened them was that businesses
were asked to lower their signs, many of which could not afford to do that. She said she thought
the idea was to bring more businesses into Hillsborough.
Mr. Farrelly determined that Ms. Dodson was speaking about the Churton Street Corridor Plan,
which was item #6. Ms. Dodson said she believed that was a part of this issue as well.
Ms. Dodson stated that when the traffic pattern was changed on Grady Brown School Road, that
would affect many young drivers. She said with new development, it affected everyone whether
they lived in Town or in the County. Ms. Dodson said she wanted the Board to consider that
they should be trying to attract businesses to fill up open spaces already available, such as the old
Wal-Mart building, and hoped that the Board would fill those before allowing new projects.
8:08:25 PM Sandy Silverman pointed out her property at Pointe Place on a map. She stated
that the stream that ran behind their home was a drainage stream, and it did carry water whether
it was shown on a map or not. She said every time it rained that stream would swell. She also
pointed out that the letter that was read earlier had used the language that this development
would be unobtrusive to the Town and the surrounding neighbors, but she personally felt that it
was quite intrusive. Ms. Silverman said the parking lots would be visible, especially if the
guidelines was used that there was no brick wall. She said it made her very uncomfortable that
her two small children under the age of five would be visible from the parking lot.
8:10:07 PM Pat Fadden, Ms. Silverman?s husband, stated that he agreed with everything that
had been said so far by the Cornwallis Hills residents. He said his concern was that until the
Strategic Plan was in place we did not need to start a development in that area. He said that
several projects were already planned for that area of the Town with traffic impacts, and until
there was a Strategic Plan in place there was no reason to move forward with this project.
Mr. Fadden said there needed to be a barrier between the properties, and the point that there be
an open view between the two properties was to reduce crime in the parking lot, and not looking
at the affect on the homes that abut the property. He said he had two small children, ages 4 ½
and 1 ½, and if there was no wall to act as a barrier then children would be free to roam out into
the parking lot where they would be struck by a vehicle or exposed to some other danger. Mr.
Fadden said if the Board did decide to annex the property and rezone it, he strongly suggested
that the wall be built as a barrier between the property and the properties that abut it.
8:13:15 PM Jesse Kwiek, a resident of Cornwallis Hills, agreed with the comments made by
Jo Soulier, Gayane Chambliss, Sandy Silverman, and Pat Fadden and was opposed to the
annexation. He said he agreed that there were many vacant buildings in Town, and although we
may need medical services in this area that was irrelevant since there was other places that the
service could be provided.
9
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 10 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
8:14:10 PM Al Soulier noted he agreed with Ms. Soulier?s comments, as well as other
comments made by Cornwallis Hills residents. He qualified that the searchlight used by patrol
officers was not a flashlight but a large searchlight, and when checking the parking lot these
searchlights would shine into the backs of the houses in his neighborhood. Again, he said, this
illustrated the need for a brick wall. Mr. Soulier said a chain link fence would do nothing to
protect against sound and light pollution. He said he still had concerns regarding the third
building in the floodplain.
8:16:12 PM George Higgins, President of the Cornwallis Hills Homeowners Association,
stated that the Board fully endorsed all of the testimony heard this evening from is Association
members.
8:17:04 PM Gilbert Neil said there were many places in Hillsborough begging for intelligent
growth, noting that the Daniel Boone Village was ?crying? for something good to be located
there. He said this development would only contribute to the ?uglification? of Churton Street.
Mr. Neil said he opposed the annexation, and believed a master plan should be developed to
described how and where any developments might be placed within the Town, not just the
corridor or the downtown.
8:19:35 PM JJ Luo said he had moved his family here from New Jersey, and had chosen his
neighborhood because of the beautiful surroundings and abundant trees. He said he strongly
opposed this proposal, primarily because of potential flooding. Mr. Luo noted his wife was an
engineer, and upon learning that a building was proposed to be placed in the floodplain she had
been shocked. He explained how that would affect stormwater runoff and the risk involved for
potential flooding, particularly with the amount of paving involved.
Mr. Luo stated he was a chemist, and it was never a good idea to place a medical facility such as
this in a residential area because there was no way to eliminate the generation of pollution. He
said it was not necessary to have this facility in this location, and suggested it may be better to
have it placed in an existing unoccupied building in the downtown.
Mr. Luo said that traffic would be affected with this commercial development, noting its
proximity to I-40 and I-85. He said he believed that the number of vehicle accidents might
increase due to the configuration of the roadway and the increased traffic.
Mr. Luo noted that safety and noise was also of concern to him, noting there must be some way
to prevent noise pollution to his neighborhood and to provide additional safety from the
development. He also said that some of his neighbors were concerned that their property values
might be affected by this development.
8:28:07 PM Sheila Pierce, the applicant, said she did not believe all of Ms. Soulier?s
comments regarding the report were accurate, but were based on her own perceptions. As well,
she said there appeared to be an amount of the NIMBY (not in my backyard) syndrome in all of
us, but we also must realize that development must go somewhere or we would have nothing,
including hospitals, schools, or the neighborhoods that we lived in.
10
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 11 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
Ms. Pierce said that development was market driven and time sensitive, and the particular user
they had defined, which was the medical complex, had chosen this site because they believed it
to be the best site for their business. She commented that the statement that alluded to getting a
master plan approved would provide clear sailing for an SUP was not accurate, since the Board
had the final decision on such permits.
8:29:48 PM Tony Whitaker, with Civil Consultants, Inc., stated that it was not unethical to
build in the floodplain as stated by a previous speaker under sworn testimony. He said he was
stating under sworn testimony that it was not unethical, noting that Hillsborough?s ordinance
allowed it as did federal regulations, which made allowances for that and expected it to happen.
He said that State government allowed it as well. Mr. Whitaker said this was an example of how
issues could be taken to the extreme and were inappropriate to be talked about under sworn
testimony in a public hearing. He said he would like to bring us back to factual information.
Mr. Whitaker said the TJCOG report did in fact say that vegetation at property lines should be
seen through, and went on to say that the vegetation they had proposed was too dense and should
be scaled back. He said he was not proposing that, but wanted the record to be accurate in what
the report actually said and what was said to the contrary by one of the speakers.
Mr. Whitaker clarified one issue in the agenda packet, noting that on the second page it talked
about a comparison between Orange County standards and the Town?s standards as it applied to
this site, and mentioned a drive-through window. He said that if there was a bank as one of the
users that they be allowed a drive-through window as part of the SUP approval. Mr. Whitaker
said they were not proposing carte blanche for other types of businesses, such as fast food
restaurants, nor were they proposing a drive-through for a pharmacy.
8:32:45 PM Commissioner Lloyd noted there were no drive-through windows allowed in the
EDD.
8:33:10 PM Mr. Whitaker stated at the last hearing they were asked to look at the Churton
Street Corridor Plan to see if they were consistent with that. He said he had done that and he
believed the plan they were proposing was consistent with that Plan. He provided some brief
description of the areas in which they believed they were consistent.
Mr. Whitaker said there was also a question about who maintained the pump station. He said if
they had a pump station, which was not definite, then the State requirements were 100-fold more
stringent now than they were when the Cornwallis Hills pump station was built. Mr. Whitaker
assured the Board that the standards were stringent in regards to protective measures,
monitoring, and daily checks, and far better than they were five years ago.
8:34:47 PM Mr. Whitaker said they were not proposing a brick wall. He said it was
inconsistent with accepted standards and guidelines, it was economically not viable, it was not
good design practice, and the idea of building a brick wall for several hundred feet and then
having ten or fifteen feet of wrought iron opening does not meet the standard that CPTED
wanted you to meet in regards to a partially opaque barrier, which meant ?able to be seen
through,? not able to be walked through.
11
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 12 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
Mr. Whitaker said there was confusion generated by some well-intentioned comments in the
TJCOG report regarding the floodplain limits and the floodway limits, which were somewhat
different than what was shown on their plan than what TJCOG was using in its office for review
purposes. He said it was true they were showing something different, because it was based on
field topographical information so that when an elevation was stipulated by the flood maps they
were not merely taking the conceptual plans shown on the federal maps and superimposing them
on their own plans. He said they were finding the exact elevation on the ground at every point
and mapping that so that it was a more exact limit, or designation, or representation of the
floodplain.
Mr. Whitaker said they had also used the very latest flood maps that the State had commissioned
a few years ago and available on-line. He said they were not authoritative and had not been
adopted, because Chapel Hill had produced some questions and that had delayed the process. He
said the maps would not be adopted until February but they still represented the best available
information regarding flooding, and they believed it was important to use the newer maps as well
as the field topography in order to get an exact representation of the floodplain.
Mr. Whitaker requested that the public hearing be closed tonight to allowing them to move
forward to the Planning Board on August 1, where they could have some substantive
deliberations.
8:38:28 PM Commissioner Gering said the comments made about the orientation of the
TJCOG and the safety issues concerned him. He asked Ms. Hauth to comment on that, and to
speak to whether the public hearing needed to be considered so that that part of the analysis
could be reworked.
8:39:04 PM Ms. Hauth admitted that she was not familiar with these standards, and did not
know if the neighborhood could be reviewed in terms of whether or not the CPTED standards
could be applied to them and whether they would be protected from this project. She said her
reading of the report and the standards indicated that it could not, but she would be happy to ask
the TJCOG to look at it from that standpoint. Ms. Hauth said the standards could be applied to
an individual house. Ms. Hauth stated that the same standards that made the parking lot safe go
toward making the neighborhood safe.
8:40:11 PM Commissioner Gering said maybe what he was asking for was something slightly
different that just a pure analysis of those standards. Ms. Hauth said she felt reasonably
confident that if the TJCOG had felt that there was some major safety concern that this project
posed to the neighborhood, they would have found a way to work that into their comments, or
would have commented to her that this was a question that we were not asking. She said they
were competent people and if there was a major question that we had neglected to ask, they
would mentioned it. However, Ms. Hauth said, she would ask that question specifically and get
that information in, and then it would be a matter of whether you wanted to leave the public
hearing open to receive that information.
8:41:38 PM Commissioner Gering stated that may be an argument for keeping the public
hearing open, in order to get that answer.
12
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 13 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
Commissioner Hallman said as Co-Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee, their plan most
likely would not reach the detail that some people were expecting for a specific site such as this
one. He said he believed there would be comments in the Strategic Plan that would be relevant
as far as how we move forward on this. Commissioner Hallman asked if we could enter the
Strategic Plan into the record of this hearing by reference. Ms. Hauth responded that no
document existed as yet, so it could not be entered into the public record.
8:42:37 PM Mr. Farrelly stated that the TJCOG had said that any barrier should be seen
through, so regardless of what side you were on it had to be symmetric. He said whether we
asked TJCOG to look at this project from the neighbors perspective, he did not believe that
particular point would change.
8:43:11 PM Commissioner Gering said there was a different point, in that TJCOG had said the
crime coming from the parking lot area was reduced because of the windows overlooking the lot.
He said that would work during the day, but it did not address the issue of nighttime hours.
Ms Vandemark commented there appeared to be a conflict with the Churton Street Corridor Plan
regarding the buildings being placed on the street and parking placed in the back, as opposed to
having the parking visible from the street. She asked if would addressed, and also asked if the
Churton Street Corridor Plan had gone through a safety review with this type of thing in mind.
8:44:29 PM Mayor Stevens said from a strategic planning point of view, this brought up the
Strategic Plan addressing safety issues, particularly in proximity to I-40 and concerns regarding
gangs and other things. He said it brought up how we design to incorporate safety on a larger
scale.
Commissioner Hallman said that was more a design issue, and this was more a density issue, and
how we wanted to spend our development capacity and what kind of density we wanted to have.
8:45:57 PM Ms. Pierce commented that nowhere in the report did it recommend that parking
lots be placed in the front of the building, in fact it stated there were no statistics readily
available that referenced front versus rear parking lot crime. She said they realized that when
they reached the Planning Board stage there would be more in-depth discussion and that the
barrier would be a major point of conversation, so if they did need to acquire additional
information they would do so. Ms. Pierce said she did not believe it needed to be rehashed over
and over in this hearing.
Ms. Pierce noted that they needed the Board to realize that although they were not proposing the
brick wall and saw many reasons for it not to be built, people who had expertise and training in
this area had actually contacted her to express great concern about the consequences to
developers and future landowners and possibly the Town itself should they be forced to provide
a brick wall.
8:47:17 PM Commissioner Gering said he reason for bringing this up was to deal with the
issue of whether or not to close the public hearing at this time, or hold it open for additional
information. Specially, he said, for more analysis from TJCOG on that issue.
13
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 14 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
Mr. Farrelly asked Mr. Morphis to provide some guidance on how much more information we
could gather at the Planning Board stage that was not available at this time. Mr. Morphis replied
that if the Board continued the public hearing now as opposed to looking at additional
information at the SUP stage, the Board could get more development-specific information at the
SUP stage. He said the Board could gather more information then that it could get here. Mr.
Morphis said whether or not the public hearing was kept open, the information could still be
gathered for submittal later in the process.
8:48:40 PM Ms. Hauth said the question was if the hearing was closed now and we went back
to TJCOG for additional information, would that endanger the quasi-judicial process on the
Master Plan. Mr. Morphis said it was correct that you could not take in more testimony, which
would require reopening the entire process. He said if the developer was discussing with the
Board possible conditions of the project, then he did not believe it would be necessary to reopen
the process. Mr. Morphis said the short answer was that you could not take new evidence during
deliberation if hearing was closed this evening.
8:49:52 PM Commissioner Gering said then we had the choice of leaving it open for a limited
scope. Ms. Hauth said it could be left open for a limited scope or continue it to a date specific, or
not specific the date and trigger new notices. Mr. Morphis said you would have to re-notice the
hearing if you closed the hearing tonight, and then decided to reopen it.
8:51:10 PM Mr. Farrelly said it was true that if TJCOG had concerns regarding safety, it most
likely would have been brought out in the report. However, he said, the neighbors had been clear
about their concerns about noise, safety, and lighting. Mr. Farrelly said he was skeptical that
more information from TJCOG would be meaningful to our deliberations.
8:52:53 PM Upon a motion by Mr. Oliver, seconded by Commissioner Hallman, the Board
moved to close the public hearing by a vote of 8-2, with Commissioners Lloyd and Gering
voting Nay. The motion was declared passed.
8:53:35 PM The Boards took a brief recess.
ITEM #4: Rezoning Request
from Dwight Walters to rezone 1.67 acres on St. Mary?s Road
from R-20 to General Commercial (TMBL 4.21.C.7).
9:00:17 PM Ms Hauth said this request had originally been received in January with a hearing
scheduled for April. She said because of scheduling conflicts the request was now before the
Board in July. Ms Hauth said at the last public hearing the Board had agreed to treat this
th
application as a new application. She said a Protest Petition had been filed on July 19, with two
property owners signed who were located within the 100-foot buffer, and explained the State law
regarding that. Ms. Hauth said the Protest Petition was determined valid under State law,
because they represented 10,000 square feet when just over 7,500 square feet was needed. She
said this was a general purpose rezoning so no development plan was necessary, and sworn
testimony was not necessary. In response to a question, Ms. Hauth said the property directly
across the street, the narrow sliver, was zoned General Commercial. She said the large square of
property immediately beside the triangle was also General Commercial, as were the properties
that fronted on US 70.
14
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 15 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
9:03:51 PM Doug Hargrave, representing Dwight and Libby Walters, the property owners,
stated he wondered why this rezoning had not taken place already. He said he knew the
neighbors had serious concerns, but all of the surrounding property was already General
Commercial, and the two property owners who had signed the Protest Petition were not actually
touching this property, and were therefore not contiguous in the true sense.
Mr. Hargraves said that any impact from this rezoning would be nonexistent on the surrounding
property. He said the property already abutted General Commercial property to the north, south
and east, and the only property that would be directly affected by a change to General
Commercial was the Walters? own property. He said the Walters owned two parcels, and were
asking that only the one be rezoned to complete the straight line, and in all fairness and logic that
should be granted by this Board.
Mr. Hargrave said there would be no impact on the neighbors any more than they were impacted
by the fact that the two properties to the north and south were already zoned General
Commercial, and anything that could be said about this application already was true about the
previous applications that had been approved by the Board. Mr. Hargrave said this application
was in line with the 2010 plan and the future zoning map.
9:07:45 PM Penny Rand said she lived diagonally across the street from this property. Ms.
Rand said she and several of her neighbors host events several times a year to raise money for
various activities in and around Hillsborough. She noted that this area was an entryway into the
Town, and her street was a beautiful and meandering street. Ms. Rand said she was opposed to
the rezoning, mentioning the occurrences of speeding and her concern of additional traffic. Ms.
Rand said any additional commercialization in this area would detract from the neighborhood?s
quality.
9:10:46 PM Alice Moore said she was within 500 feet of the Walters property. She stated that
she had come to Hillsborough seeking a more tranquil place to live, and was opposed to the
rezoning of this property. Ms. Moore said when commercial property encroached into
neighborhoods it devalued the residential property, and she could not imagine a 100-person
restaurant being located next door, nor a pumping station for a septic system, both of which were
allowed under this type of zoning.
Ms. Moore said if the property were rezoned and the Walters decided to sell, then anything might
be placed there and they would have to live with it. She said it was her understanding that the
Walters had approached the Town a number of years ago for a rezoning but the attempt was
defeated. Ms. Moore said they did not want any additional commercial development on St.
Mary?s Road, because they believed further encroachment would diminish the neighborhood.
Ms. Moore pointed out that there were numerous other potential commercial sites that were
vacant in the Town, some that had never been occupied. She said there were many places
available for sale or rent, so additional commercial zoning was not needed. Ms. Moore asked
why should the hope for monetary gain of one individual, which was what Mr. Walters desired,
override the desires of the rest of the residents who lived on St. Mary?s Road and Highland
15
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 16 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
Loop. She said it was true that many of the properties did not abut this one, but they would all
feel the impact of any kind of development allowed under General Commercial zoning.
Ms. Moore stated that this beautiful entrance into the Town should be preserved, and they all
wanted to preserve their homes and protect the integrity of their neighborhood. She said they
were all opposed to any type of development that would be allowed under the General
Commercial zoning.
9:17:09 PM Mr. Oliver stated he thought all would agree that owners had a right to make use
of the property that they owned. He asked the people who opposed this rezoning what they
anticipated could ever be done with this wedge-shaped property since probably no one would
want to place a residence between property that was zoned General Commercial on either side.
He said they wanted to let people take advantage of the property they owned, and wondered what
else it could be used for. Ms. Moore said there was already homes built on that wedge-shaped
parcel, which was zoned residential. She said Mr. Walters could improve those homes and make
a nice profit, noting that was an alternative.
9:19:36 PM Dawn Raymond said she lived just west of this property, and said that any
commercial use of that property she would have to look at from her back yard, so how could Mr.
Hargrave say that she would not be impacted. She said the view from her home would be
destroyed by commercial development.
9:21:19 PM Andrea Shapiro said this was the only quiet residential entrance into
Hillsborough, and it would be a shame to ruin it. She said a single commercial development in a
residential neighborhood reduced safety and increased traffic, none of which was good for St.
Mary?s Road. Ms. Shapiro said there was no need for any more commercial development in this
area, noting there was commercial space available nearby. She said she was unclear why the
neighborhood had to withstand this ?commercial attack.?
9:23:03 PM Clarene Bennett said she did not live on St. Mary?s Road, but had a concern about
the traffic that would be affected by commercial development on this property. She said she
lived on River Road, which began as Highland Loop, and the previous commercial development
had already affected the amount of traffic in the area.
Ms. Bennett stated that the residents of her road own and maintain the road at their own expense.
She said in the last ten years there had been a dramatic increase in the traffic that exited St.
Mary?s Road and used their loop to access Highway 70, and she could only imagine that that
would increase if this particular area were rezoned commercial. She said any commercial
venture planned for that parcel could be placed anywhere else in Town.
Ms. Bennett said rejection of this rezoning request would not diminish Mr. Walters? livelihood in
any fashion, nor would it have a dramatic negative affect on the economic base of the Town.
She said it would not have a great effect on Hillsborough, but it would have a great effect on
those who lived there.
9:26:24 PM Ms. Danahower stated that this rezoning should not be considered just because it
made a map fill out nicely.
16
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 17 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
9:27:01 PM Bill Crowther stated that he generally opposed the rezoning, but specifically there
was a segment of the American Trading Path that actually abutted this property and ran
contiguous with it on the eastern side of the wedge. He said historically we needed to make sure
that was preserved. He said he opposed the rezoning because it endangered an historic element
of the Town.
9:27:54 PM Jane Gaede said she was opposed to the rezoning, noting there was already
adequate commercial property on US 70 as well as empty storefronts in Churton Grove. She
said the rezoning was incompatible with St. Mary?s Road, which was a NC Scenic Byway, and
with the pride that the landowners had in their properties. She said creeping commercialism
should not be allowed to spoil this area.
9:29:19 PM John Pelphrey said he was the owner of one of the two properties within 100 feet
of this property. He said he was opposed to the rezoning because it would affect his view from
his home. Mr. Pelphrey said the increased traffic was of concern, and agreed with the comments
made by his neighbors.
9:30:00 PM Mr. Hargrave said the phrase ?creeping commercialism? was used. He said that
Mr. Walters intended to continue to live there, but wanted to sell this particular parcel for
commercial use. Mr. Hargrave said Mr. Walters had no intention and would be opposed to
anyone extending the line past where it was drawn on the map, because that was the line
established in the 2010 plan. He said Mr. Walters had the right to develop his property to the
best advantage. Mr. Hargrave said he understood that peoples? views would be affected, but he
did not know of anyone who bought their property with any rights to view anyone else?s
property, and Mr. Walters was the first person who would have to view any commercial
development on that property. He said Mr. Walters intended to keep the second parcel as his
residence.
9:31:57 PM Mr. Oliver said it had been mentioned by a citizen that this request had been put
forth before and turned down. He asked Mr. Hargrave was he aware of that or when it had
happened. Mr. Hargrave responded that Mr. Walters had spoken to someone, perhaps in the
Planning Department, about that but no formal application was ever made. Mr. Hargrave said
that Mr. Walters had opposed prior rezoning applications for property around him, but now that
all of that property was rezoned commercial Mr. Walters wanted this one parcel to be rezoned as
well.
9:33:14 PM Brenda Hayes said if Mr. Walters was interested only in selling the property and
maintaining the other parcel as residential, then why did he not accept the offers made by
neighbors to purchase that piece of land that was up for rezoning.
9:34:06 PM Bobby Burton said that Mr. Walters had requested rezoning in the past, according
to what Mr. Walters? son had told his son.
9:35:18 PM Lee Gordon said that Mr. Walters had the right to get the first and best use out of
this property. However, at what expense to the neighbors do you benefit one over the other. Mr.
Gordon said he was asking the Board to look at the long term and not just try to plug a hole in a
17
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 18 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
map. He asked the Board to consider the benefits of the Town and the residents over the benefits
to one individual.
9:37:00 PM Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Ms Vandemark, the Board
moved to close the public hearing by a vote of 10-0. The motion was declared passed.
ITEM #5:Master Plan Modification
for Waterstone to designate pod 6 as single family
development and add residential units to pods 15, 18, and 22.
9:37:23 PM Ms. Hauth noted there was a request in the packet from Stratford Company asking
that this hearing be continued to the October meeting.
9:38:04 PM Upon a motion by Commissioner Lowen, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, the
Board moved to recess the public hearing to the October meeting by a vote of 10-0. The motion
was declared passed.
ITEM #6: Churton Street Corridor Plan.
9:38:46 PM Ms. Hauth said that she had placed around the room some of the story boards used
to provide information about this Plan. She explained some of the history that had brought them
to this point. Ms. Hauth said there were three components to the Plan:
?
Transportation improvements, which were a significant component of the Plan. Main
concern was the congestion and the stop and go nature of the traffic that we currently
see, and some safety concerns for pedestrians and bicyclists. Most comments concerned
the installation of roundabouts at several interchanges. Stressed that this was a concept
plan.
?
Signage, which we can move forward with the fastest in terms of developing a
wayfinding system for the Town. Also, bring back for consideration this fall some
amendments regarding freestanding signs.
?
Corridor redevelopment, and looking with a broad-brush view where our development
and redevelopment potential within the corridor exists. She noted that many areas of the
corridor had different identities and that must be taken into account.
Ms. Hauth said the packet included a revised implementation schedule that attempted to modify
what was recommended by the consultant to make it more action oriented and more specific in
terms of what might be done quickly, and to start the ball rolling on projects that needed funding.
She said they needed to work on the development review process changes, look at incentive
programs for facade and landscaping and signage compliance, and work with existing partners to
make sure that everyone was kept up to date and the proper steps were followed.
Ms. Hauth said they needed to continue to work with the Economic Development Commission
on economic development tools and marketing strategies, and work with the Chamber of
Commerce and the Economic Development Commission to try to get identities established for
the different portions of the corridor.
9:46:53 PM Mr. Hallman said looking at timeframes and the fact that the South Churton Street
improvements were the number one priority on the State Transportation Improvement Program,
he asked if this document had been forwarded to DOT. Ms. Hauth said the document had been
18
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 19 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
forwarded to DOT, and she would continue to work with them to make sure all comments were
included. She said that Churton Street was not yet funded, so we would continue to work with
them and change the scope if necessary.
9:48:25 PM Wilma Shook said she lived on Highway 57, and believed that a roundabout
would be the wrong thing to put at 57 and 86. She said there were too many trucks and many
homes close by, and believed it would cause accidents. Ms. Shook said she believed it was a bad
idea.
9:49:32 PM Steve Landon said he owned property near 57 and 86, and was concerned because
there was a section of this corridor planned where there was no city sewer. He said the sewer
line ran up to 70, and then somewhat went back around and missed a group of homes that would
be right in this corridor. Mr. Landon said not providing a sewer line there would stunt the
growth of that corridor, and believed the sewer line should be installed prior to the installation of
sidewalks and landscaping and signage. Mr. Landon said it would certainly make it harder for
him to make improvements to his property.
Mr. Landon asked if the sewer line would completely south of the corridor, and if so wouldn?t it
make sense to have it run north as well. Ms. Hauth said she did not know if plans were in place
that would address Mr. Landon?s house but they would certainly feed into the plan where gaps
might exist in the utilities.
9:52:28 PM Commissioner Lloyd asked where was the house that Mr. Landon owned. Mr.
Landon responded he owned 219, and explained where the sewer line stopped and then picked
back up again.
9:54:11 PM Upon a motion by Gering, seconded by Commissioner Lowen, the Board moved
to close the public hearing by a vote of 10-0. The motion was declared passed.
ITEM #7: A proposal from Clarion with a suggestion on how the Town might take a
proactive stance on potential design for the Boone and Collins properties that
was now under contract
9:54:55 PM Ms. Hauth said that a portion of the Daniel Boone property and the Collins
property were on the market, which was interesting as it coincided with our Churton Street Plan
and our Strategic Growth Plan. She said she had asked Roger Waldon with Clarion Associates
about what the Town might do in terms of proactively making sure that everyone would know
what we wanted to see in terms of development for that property.
Ms. Hauth said Mr. Waldon had responded with two concepts, one of which was fairly common
in that charettes were sponsored to give citizens a chance to voice what they believed was the
best development for the site in question. She said such a process would make public what the
Town wanted to see on these properties, and would certainly spark public discussion about what
could go on those properties. Ms. Hauth said it would make a clear indication to both the current
owners and the contract owners what might see a path of least resistance during an approval
process. Ms. Hauth said this would be the Town?s process, and we would not necessarily have to
have full buy-in from the owners or contract purchasers to participate.
19
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 20 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
9:57:41 PM Ms. Hauth said Mr. Waldon had also talked about a shorter process where there
was an issue paper drawn up that laid out in detail what some of the design issues were on a
particular property, and had provided an example of one his firm had prepared. She said there
were a number of questions that needed direction from the Board, one of which was this
something we wanted to pursue, and if it was which of the two options should be used. Ms.
Hauth also asked if they wanted the staff to continue to work on it and possibly bring something
forward for the September Town Board meeting.
Ms. Hauth said there were a number of firms that ran these types of processes, Clarion was
certainly one and the Lawrence Group was another. She said she could contact design
professionals that lived in or near Hillsborough and discover if they were willing to denote their
services in return for the public attention the designs would get, as well as contact others to try
and develop this into a package they could move forward with.
9:59:44 PM Commissioner Hallman said he hoped whoever conducted this could keep it in a
realistic mode, that is, with the constraints that had to be based on reality.
10:00:15 PM Commissioner Lowen agreed that it was a great idea, and something we should
do. He said there were many questions waiting to be asked, and giving all the stakeholders an
opportunity to be involved and express their opinions was the best way to go.
10:01:06 PM Commissioner Gering agreed as well, given the importance of these particular
properties. He said he only concern was that it be kept a relatively short and focused process,
and to keep it ?real.? Commissioner Gering said the other option regarding a design paper, he
believed that was also important but may be too early to do that. He said once we had more
ideas taking form then that may be the time to engage someone to help.
10:02:07 PM Mr. Oliver said he had two questions. He asked would there be any opportunity
beforehand to collect information for this event or gather information from the community, or
would this committee get together just to brainstorm.
Ms. Hauth responded it could be structured in any way we wanted. She said that the
Hillsborough Youth Athletic Association (HYAA) had been kind enough to share their draft plan
that many board members had seen, which included four fields on the northern part of the
Collins property that currently existed on the Collins property. Ms. Hauth said they were
rightfully concerned about their longevity on that property. She said we could design the process
to be whatever we wanted it to be and there could be a certain amount of preliminary research
and then, depending on how it was structured, we might be able to determine what items on the
property were important and needed to be left as is. Ms. Hauth said depending on the number of
design professionals available, teams could then produce different plans and then work to bring
them together. She said the Town Board could always state that certain things were ?a must? for
the design, or that certain things had to happen.
10:04:34 PM Mr. Oliver said that led to his second question, which was what kind of guidelines
we could give the committee to make sure we ?kept it real.? He said with the guidelines Ms.
Hauth had just described, he believed that could be accomplished.
20
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 21 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
10:05:12 PM Ms. Vandemark asked how much coordination with the developer would or
should take place before or during this process. Ms. Hauth responded it was something that was
within the Town?s control, and developer could be invited to attend and hear what was said. She
said it would be up to them as to how much they wanted to participate. Ms. Hauth said the same
was true for the current owners, since we wanted to involve them as well.
10:06:01 PM Commissioner Gering said he liked the idea of having the Town Board authorize
the Mayor to invite them.
10:06:28 PM Mayor Stevens said he absolutely supported anything to expand public discourse,
but wanted to make sure we did that within available resources, including time and energy. He
said it would take some coordination by the Town, and as early as possible including the
stakeholders.
10:07:23 PM Commissioner Lowen said he believed whoever the potential buyer should be,
that we open the door to them as soon as possible. He said they may come in and decide that
what we wanted was nothing like they had planned, and they back out of the deal.
Commissioner Lowen said it was important to get them involved as soon as possible so that they
had buy-in to the process.
10:07:57 PM Ms. Wallace said it would be helpful to talk with the new owners early on so that
we had some idea of what they planned, and that would provide a good foundation for us to
move forward.
10:08:18 PM Commissioner Lloyd asked if the gentleman from State lived near Hillsborough,
noting that he could prove to be a valuable resource through this process, although he may not be
willing to provide his services free of charge. Ms. Hauth said she had not yet contacted him, so
could not answer that. She said that through the Division for Community Assistance, the fee for
the Churton Street project was incredibly reasonable. Ms. Hauth said we might very well see
someone from the Design School versus hiring Clarion or The Lawrence Group that had a much
more elaborate fee schedule.
10:09:19 PM Commissioner Hallman said that Roger Waldon or Clarion had told him that
many of the local firms the Town worked with on a regular basis might very well volunteer their
time, such as Corley Redfoot Zack. Ms. Hauth agreed, noting she would expect to have to hire
only the facilitator who would organize the event. She said in theory the staff could do that, but
they had no experience and she was afraid it might become a less productive day if we did not
have an experienced facilitator running the event. Ms. Hauth said it would be a limited fee, but
necessary to have a better outcome.
10:10:05 PM Mayor Stevens asked if the two Boards were in agreement about how to proceed.
There was no objection. He asked Ms. Hauth if she needed additional direction.
Ms. Hauth responded she had heard direction to come back with a more concrete proposal for the
Town Board at their September meeting, and if time allowed she would place it on the
21
:
July 25, 2006 Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board
Page 22 of 22
Minutes Approved____________________
September Planning Board agenda as well. She said if the Planning Board wanted to spend some
time discussing this at their meeting next week she could add that to the agenda as well.
10:10:52 PM Mr. Farrelly said in terms of the public hearing aspect of this, was this something
that would remain open for comment or should we close it. Ms. Hauth said this was simply an
addition to the agenda, and not a public hearing item. She said it would be at the Board?s
discussion whether they wanted to allow public comment.
Ms. Hauth reminded the Board that they needed to adjourn the Joint Public Hearing and conduct
a brief Closed Session item with the Town Board.
ITEM #7:Adjourn Joint Planning Meeting. Move into Closed Session
10:11:33 PM Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Lowen, the
Board moved to enter into a Closed Session as authorized by the appropriate NC General Statute
to discuss potential litigation regarding previous violations at Larry King Chevrolet by a vote of
5-0. The motion was declared passed.
10:27:29 PM Upon returning to Open Session and upon a motion by Commissioner Lowen,
seconded by Commissioner Hallman, the meeting was adjourned by a vote of 10-0. The motion
was declared passed.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret Hauth, Planning Director
22