Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-19-2016 Minutes PB Regular MeetingPlanning Board Minutes May 19, 2016 Page 1 of 5 MINUTES PLANNING BOARD Thursday, May 19, 2016 7:00 PM, Town Barn PRESENT: Erin Eckert, Dan Barker, Rick Brewer, James Czar, Lisa Frazier, Janie Morris, Doug Peterson, Jenn Sykes, Toby Vandemark, Chris Wehrman (after item 4) STAFF: Planning Director Margaret Hauth ITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum Chair Erin Eckert called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Ms. Hauth called the roll and confirmed the presence of a quorum. ITEM #2: Consideration of additions or changes to the agenda There were none. ITEM #3: Approval of minutes from March and April meetings MOTION: Ms. Morris made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Ms. Vandemark seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #4: Elections Ms. Hauth opened the floor for nomination for chair. Ms. Morris nominated Dan Barker. Mr. Barker agreed to serve. Ms. Hauth asked for a motion to that effect. MOTION: Ms. Morris moved to elect Dan Barker as Chair. Ms. Frazier seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Ms. Hauth opened the floor for nominations for vice-chair. Ms. Vandemark confirmed that the primary responsibly is to chair in the chair’s absence and Ms. Hauth agreed. She said she would be willing to serve if others were nt interested. MOTION: Mr. Barker moved to elect Ms. Vandemark as Vice Chair. Mr. Peterson seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Ms. Hauth said Mr. Czar was currently serving as the board representative to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Czar said he would be willing to continue that role. MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to appoint Mr. Czar as the Planning Board representative on the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Sykes seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Ms. Hauth said Mr. Wehrman was currently serving as the board representative to the Parks and Recreation Board. Mr. Wehrman was not present to comment. MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to appoint Mr. Wehrman as the Planning Board representative on the Parks and Recreation Board. Mr. Peterson seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #5A: Special Use Permit modification request to expand the uses permitted by Special Use Permit at 128 W Margaret Lane. OC PIN 9874-06-2054 Ms. Hauth reviewed the testimony from the public hearing. She cautioned email exchanges are not sworn testimony. Ms. Morris asked for review of what the owner is allowed to have there now versus what she wants. Ms. Hauth summarized that massage therapy and mental health counseling don’t qualify as office use under the Unified Development Ordinance. Planning Board Minutes May 19, 2016 Page 2 of 5 The owner can have a lawyer, CPA, travel agent, and/or Web designer. She can have up to eight employees on site, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Mr. Peterson said expressed concern because the property was put up for sale shortly after the permit was approved. Ms. Hauth said the applicant has indicate there were changes in her life. She said it was not her impression that think it was a deliberate attempt or change. Mr. Peterson appreciated that assurance. Ms. Morris said eight employees doesn’t take into account how many people are coming in and out. Ms. Hauth said over time attempting to manage by the number of employees becomes a significant enforcement issue. Chair Eckert said although we want to respect personal changes in the owner’s life, we explicitly wrote the permit to not include the businesses that are requested. She can’t feel 100 percent that the neighboring property value will not be affected with the driveway that close. Ms. Morris said she completely concurs with Chair Eckert. Chair Eckert said her concern is not traffic or spreading commercial down Margaret Lane, it’s just the configuration of that site and the neighboring property. She doesn’t see how it wouldn’t have a negative effect on the neighboring property owner. If there is some way to relax the home occupancy standard so the property could have more space for home occupation, she is interested in allowing that. Ms. Hauth advised polling the board to see about the two new uses. If there’s interest in trying to craft language about the home occupation side, then move into that. With a straw poll on the new uses, Mr. Brewer would decline. Mr. Czar said he would split the two. He doesn’t have a problem with mental health counseling. He said he didn’t see how it’s particularly different from what was already approved. For massage therapy, you have people coming and going. Ms. Sykes thinks with massage therapy only one person going in at a time. For the mental health part, you have group counseling sessions and that to her would cause more of a problem. Ms. Sykes added that group sessions after hours would be a traffic impediment. Mr. Barker is curious whether the neighbor or applicant could get an appraiser to state whether there would be an impact. Ms. Hauth said the hearing is closed and both sides had that option. Mr. Barker said there is evidence either way and it is his belief it will have an impact. He said the counseling service on Millstone Drive sometimes takes emergency calls with people exiting angrily and threatening to harm themselves. Mr. Peterson said he didn’t see either one of these businesses being done at 6 o’clock. The property owner checked that the neighbor’s email said that he was OK with counselor and massage therapist. That was confirmed. MOTION: Mr. Barker moved that these new uses be approved. Mr. Czar seconded. VOTE: 0-10. The board was unanimously opposed to this motion. Chair Eckert asked for discussion whether there’s something the board could approve. Chair Eckert asked for the percentage allowed for home occupation. Ms. Hauth said 25 percent of the heated area and gave examples. Planning Board Minutes May 19, 2016 Page 3 of 5 The property owner asked if she can make a modification to allow counseling and drop the other two uses.Mr. Peterson asked what the hours would be. The answer was 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Mr. Barker asked what are the hours of the library? The answer was 8 p.m. Chair Eckert said she’d like to say it changes her opinion but the proximity to the neighbor’s house, the shared space that is the driveways next to each other and lack of buffer don’t change her opinion. If we could reconfigure that and provide a buffer, that would be fine. Ms. Vandemark said for group counseling, it could be eight people walking in. Mr. Barker asked would the applicant accept a cap on the number of customers at a time. There was agreement that can’t be regulated. There was brief discussion that if a counselor couldn’t simultaneously treat couples or a family, then it’s limiting her livelihood. Ms. Sykes sees it as a privacy issue on both sides, with neighboring kids playing outside seeing who is coming in and out of the counselor’s office. Chair Eckert asked if home occupancy would apply to a rental situation as well. Chair Eckert said if three separate spaces, you could create a boarding house situation with businesses running there as well. That seems like two to three time the impact as a single family building. Mr. Barker asked if any of the three is configured as a dwelling. The answer was there is only one and a half baths and no kitchen. Mr. Barker suggested that massage therapy would eat up the most space. There was brief discussion that you could end up having eight massage customers at a time. Mr. Barker suggested this proposal is a little bit too much and he didn’t hear support from other members. Chair Eckert is wondering whether there is benefit in adjusting home occupation. Ms. Sykes thinks group counseling during lunch would probably not have much of an impact but during dinner time and evening, it would have more impact. Mr. Barker asked if hours were restricted 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., did that make a difference for members. Mr. Peterson said that would make a difference to him. Chair Eckert expressed concern for limiting the business too much. Mr. Barker asked if restricting to a single counselor helped others. Mr. Brewer doesn’t want to get in the habit of discussing minutia like this. He doesn’t want to set a precedent. Chair Eckert said any discussion we have here today isn’t protecting the neighbors. Whatever decision we make today is binding in perpetuity. She said she thinks approving the modification would be a bad decision down the line. Mr. Barker said a re-application with more specificit y might be helpful but we don’t have this tonight. Mr. Czar said to Mr. Peterson’s point, there’s economic evidence you could give but that’s not the sole criteria to judge this on. Chair Eckert said we know this house is difficult and there’s not an easy answer. MOTION: Mr. Czar made a motion to recommend to the town board the denial of this modification to the special use permit for the reasons discussed. Mr. Brewer seconded. VOTE: Unanimous B. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments to merge the Economic Development District uses into the UDO and delete the EDD Design Manual Planning Board Minutes May 19, 2016 Page 4 of 5 MOTION: Ms. Morris moved to recommend approval of these amendments to the Town Board. Ms. Vandemark seconded. VOTE: Unanimous C. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments to insert the Historic District Commission into the review process for SUP and CUP applications in the historic district. There was brief discussion regarding that currently the HDC’s hands are tied in this process. Mr. Czar said he need to understand a little more the proposed mechanism. Ms. Hauth said the HDC would review the application before the public hearing and then give comments at the public hearing. Mr. Barker said this board will see any notes from the HDC which will reduce tension. Mr. Czar said he didn’t anticipate arguments between the two boards. Mr. Czar said it would go to the HDC and they have to make recommendations. It comes to us and we say we agree with this recommendation and don’t agree with this one. Then the applicant has to go back to the HDC. It seems you are putting the applicant in a double jeopardy. Mr. Barker said if we use the current process, the HDC is stuck. They can’t ask for a different massing. Mr. Brewer said it will take some guidance from staff. Ms. Hauth said it will make it easier if it can be done with the HDC offering guidance earlier and we get an application more in compliance with their guidelines. Mr. Czar said we’ve done a ton of work on the UDO and we believe it’s the best practices for the town of Hillsborough. Ms. Hauth said the HDC can’t approve something that doesn’t comply with UDO, but the BOA & Town Board can grant waivers. Mr. Czar expressed concern about telling an applicant to go beyond the UDO and there was additional discussion around this topic. Mr. Brewer said with the past scenario with the condos, multi-family is fine in the UDO. If there had been a chat with the HDC, talking about the massing, perhaps it would fit better with the streetscape than what we got. Ms. Hauth said after the HDC review an application more likely to be compliant with the UDO and Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Czar said he wasn’t convinced it was a good idea. Discussion continued. Chair Eckert asked why not send it from Planning Board to HDC before Town Board approval. Ms. Hauth explained the HDC can’t approve a COA until the zoning is settled. It has to be tight and square with the UDO first. Mr. Czar expressed concern that the process could set up a case where the HDC provides a comment or recommendation that the permit issuing board does not impose and then, when the applicant has to go back to the HDC, the HDC will deny the application and we end up in court and unsuccessful. Ms. Hauth said when an HDC representative gives live testimony under oath at the public hearing, that’s their due process, and it is taken as their expert testimony just like a traffic engineer’s or an appraiser’s. Chair Eckert said the HDC can’t trump the UDO but we just have more information for something that meets the UDO and meets the HDC guidelines. Mr. Barker said let’s try this for a year. Mr. Czar continued to express concern. Ms. Hauth clarified that in the example of the new condos for Churton Street, no one is saying that what got approved across the street shouldn’t have been approved. That project complies with the Design Guidelines. There was more discussion. Mr. Peterson said we have to trust that Ms. Hauth, Ms. Trueblood, and Mr. Hornik have talked about this and we should give it a try. MOTION: Mr. Barker moved to recommend approval to the Town Board. Chair Eckert seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Planning Board Minutes May 19, 2016 Page 5 of 5 D. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments to Section 9.2 – definitions of office and recreation uses E. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments to Delete Section 2.5.1.p – special exception permits F. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments to Delete Section 3.6.1 - protest petition authorization has been removed from state law G. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments to Delete Section 4.1.4.3 – remove standard for property rezoning from AR to another district H. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments to Delete Section 4.3.5 – South Churton Street Corridor District I. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments to Rename Section 4.4.2 and 5.2.25 to assistive living neighborhood J. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments to Delete Section 6.20.16 – impervious surface K. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments to Delete Section 7.2.3 – expansion of non- conforming uses in the Limited Office district MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to recommend approval of amendments D through K. Ms. Morris seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #6: Discussion of request from Orange County to amend the Future Land Use Plan to reclassify properties south of I-40 to designations that do not allow residential development. Ms. Hauth reviewed that this would change the classification on four parcels. This would be to allow this to be scheduled for public hearing. Mr. Brewer asked why the property was treated differently on one side of the road than the other. Ms. Hauth answered the property on the east side doesn’t have good frontage. Also, the parcels on the west are so much bigger which would allow warehouse/distribution. This would go on the July public hearing schedule and then later to a county public hearing. MOTION: Ms. Sykes moved to send to public hearing. Ms. Vandemark seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #7: Adjourn MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to adjourn at 8:17 p.m. Ms. Morris seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Hauth Secretary