HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-20-2016 Minutes BOC PB JPHPlanning Board Minutes
October 20, 2016
Page 1 of 5
MINUTES
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD and
PLANNING BOARD
Thursday, October 20, 2016
7:00 PM, Town Barn
PRESENT: Mayor Tom Stevens, and Commissioners Jenn Weaver, Brian Lowen, Kathleen Ferguson, and Mark
Bell, Planning Board Chair Dan Barker, Rick Brewer, James Czar, Lisa Frazier, Carolyn Helfrich, Janie
Morris, Doug Peterson, Toby Vandemark, Jenn Sykes, Chris Wehrman
STAFF: Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Hornik
ITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum
Mayor Stevens called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and welcomed new planning board
member Carolyn Helfrich.
ITEM #2: Consideration of additions or changes to the agenda
There were none. Mayor Stevens passed the gavel to Planning Board Chair Dan Barker.
ITEM #3: Open Joint Public Hearing
Chair Barker opened the public hearing.
ITEM #4: Request from Vouthaus, LLC to Rezone 9.75 acres at 505 Eno Street from General Industrial to
Adaptive Re-Use so the building can house a wider variety of uses that are not industrial (OC PIN
9864-65-3492)
Ms. Hauth reviewed this is the former Southern Season Warehouse, formerly on Flint Fabrics property
and now on its own separate parcel. The Adaptive Re-Use zoning was created a few years ago to assist
owners of buildings built for one purpose who now would like to house businesses of different purposes.
The criteria for this zoning includes that the parcel has to be at least three acres, the building must be at
least 10,000 SF, and the owner must desire at least three different uses in the building. This application
meets the criteria. If the Town Board approves this rezoning, it permits everything on the list.
Scott Jennings, who owns a home at Knight and Holt Streets, said he came to hear more about the plans.
He expressed concern about drawing more people to an area that has some pedestrian-traffic concerns.
He cited problems with pedestrians crossing Nash Street near Hillsborough BBQ but not at the
crosswalk and concern about a new wooded trail that would could cause additional pedestrian-car
conflict.
Ms. Hauth explained that the town has plans to address the pedestrian traffic on Nash Street through a
state project called the Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) sidewalks project. That project
should go out to bid soon and entails widening the sidewalks on the Hillsborough BBQ side of Nash
Street, removing on-street parking, and creating a three-way stop at Nash and Eno Streets. There will be
control on the parking lot side (either fence or landscaping) to encourage pedestrians to cross Nash
Street at the crosswalks. As for parking in the mill village neighborhood, she said that if those three
streets not already designed for no on-street parking, residents can request that. She added that the path
is being constructed by the developers of the Bellevue Mill.
Ms. Hauth summarized the process regarding this application. The boards can vote to close the public
hearing this night. Then the Planning Board reviews the application in November and makes a
recommendation. The Town Board considers approval at its December meeting.
Planning Board Minutes
October 20, 2016
Page 2 of 5
Ms. Hauth briefly reviewed the differences between the current list of permitted uses under current
zoning and this new zoning; the General Industrial list allows industrial uses and specialty schools that
need big buildings. It allows manufacturing and processing operations that might have an air quality or
water quality impact. A concrete plant and a distribution warehouse are both permitted. The Adaptive
Re-Use zoning allows some light industrial uses but it’s also a very broad district.
MOTION: Mr. Peterson moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Ferguson seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
ITEM #5: Request from The Little School Development LLC to modify their approved Special Use Permit to
create additional on-site parking and remove the enrollment limitation (OC PIN 9873-25-6187)
Ms. Hauth reminded everyone that for this item, speakers need to be sworn in before they speak. Ms.
Hauth was sworn in.
She reviewed that The Little School had an enrollment cap established at 196 students. The school has
exceeded the cap and Ms. Hauth noted that some of the management has changed at the school so the
situation is more likely an inadvertent violation than a blatant one. Part of this application is to alleviate
the nonconformity and bring the school back into compliance regarding the enrollment cap. The
proposal to expand the parking isn’t so much to address a nonconformity as it is to address operations.
The site is highly constrained in a very narrow part of the Waterstone Development. Adjoining
properties are not in the city limits. The school is requesting to reduce the buffer to accommodate
additional parking. The master plan required 100 feet. They are proposing having 75 feet. The fire
marshal didn’t have concerns with the parking proposal.
Tony Whitaker, a civil engineer with Civil Consultants representing The Little School, was sworn in. He
introduced Jennifer Dock from The Little School.
Mr. Whitaker acknowledged that on a daily basis, The Little School (TLS) experiences traffic
congestion at morning drop off and afternoon pick up. That is normal for this type of facility. This
property has an insufficient number of parking spaces. Cars stack up onto College Park Drive. It’s not
particularly unsafe but it’s potentially unsafe.
The school proposes to go from 62 to 92 parking spaces, but some people are parking in non-designated
spaces now. Probably 20 of the 30 are new spaces. The school has already taken several measures to
alleviate parking congestion, Mr. Whitaker said. It has incentivized teachers and staff to carpool and
park at the nearby Durham Tech park and ride lot. It happens to some degree but not a great degree.
Teachers arrive and depart in shifts. They’ve asked parents to pick up and drop off quickly. A staff
person is designated in the afternoons to help communicate to those trying to park.
Mr. Whitaker reviewed that the school is requesting several waivers but the one regarding excess
parking is no longer needed. Ms. Hauth explained that at the last quarterly hearing, child care centers
parking standard was changed and the application reflects that change. The other things are
modifications to the Special Use Permit. One is to add more parking, to modify a buffer on eastern edge
from 100 feet to 74 feet. This impacts neighboring property owner Albert Kittrel. They’ve met several
times, Mr. Whitaker said. He was a great advocate after we suggested removing trees and then planting
a double row of evergreens. His house is far from the property line and he has good screening. Mr.
Whitaker said the school is also asking to remove the cap of 196 students because this facility is licensed
by the state. The school is already maximized as far as building floor area and playground. To maintain
a 5 star program, TLS will not be able to exceed the cap they currently have by the state and will always
be regulated by the state.
Mr. Whitaker said the capacity was reached about a year after opening. The current enrollment is 239.
Mr. Peterson asked if it went from a 5-star to a 4-star facility, would it changed the number of students?
Mr. Whitaker said not immediately but a higher number of students could be permitted under the 4-star
Planning Board Minutes
October 20, 2016
Page 3 of 5
rating. The licensing limit right now is around 296. Mr. Peterson said so if we lift the cap, it could go to
296. Mr. Peterson wondered why the school doesn’t create a drive through drop-off/pick-up.
Wendy Vavrousek, one of the school owners, was sworn in. She said the school has contemplated that
and the difficulty is staffing. Also, last year they tried having parents pick up older children at the
Durham Tech campus on early dismissal days, but that was inconvenient for parents who also needed to
pick up a younger child. Mr. Peterson suggested identifying the peak hour of drop-off and only staffing
a drive through drop-off then. Right now you’re having trouble at 239. What happens when its 250 and
260 and 290, he asked? Ms. Vavrousek said based on our square footage we could have 294. But based
on our model of 9 infants, 12 1-year-olds, 15 two-year-olds, we couldn’t have that many. Mr. Peterson
asked what’s the maximum for this model. The answer was the school is full. There is a waiting list.
Chair Barker asked what is the process to change that model. Chair Barker asked could you change
tomorrow to allow one more child per classroom. Ms. Vavrousek said we haven’t done it in 10 years.
That isn’t something to be expected from us at all.
Commissioner Weaver said her two kids went to TLS and it’s hard to imagine dropping off tiny kids
without parents walking them in. She asked Ms. Hauth if they one day decided to close and a new
school opened up with a different standard that wanted to go to the 290, what could be done. Ms. Hauth
said we apply our ordinance, 1 parking spot per employee and 1 spot for 8 students. Ms. Vandemark
asked if they could make the new cap the current enrollment and Ms. Hauth confirmed.
Ms. Sykes asked how the number of infants per classroom changed during the school year. Ms.
Vavrousek answered the only fluctuation is they start out younger.
Jessica Larsin, school director, was sworn in. Ms. Larsin said she has done enrollment for many years.
We cannot put another child in another space. We have maximized the potential. There are sixteen
classrooms, three infants, three one-year olds, three two-year old. She compared math with Ms. Sykes
who had figured their cap under this model was 252. Ms. Larsin said there’s a classroom that can only
have 6. The size of the classrooms contributes to the caps.
Chair Barker asked about Wayne Pollard, another close neighbor. Ms. Hauth indicated she had
discussed the plans with Mr. Pollard, but he had not come by the office to review them in detail and did
not express concern. Jennifer Adams was sworn in. Ms. Adams said this parking is not expanding
toward him. We stay away from his deer blind. Chair Barker said there are piles of toys marked TLS on
different areas including at the traffic circle, a tent down at the creek bed. Mr. Brewer said does this
have anything to do with the application. Chair Barker said it does if it’s indicative of how they conduct
business. Chair Barker said there’s a pile of toys with your school name now down by the hospital. Ms.
Adams said they were bringing chalk to the new Cates Creek Park and as soon as Ms. Hauth asked them
to stop, they did. Ms. Adams said they value the transfer of children from parent to teacher. It’s a
valuable few moments. We need parents to come in and be with us.
MOTION: Commissioner Ferguson moved to close the public hearing on this item. Commissioner Weaver
seconded.
Chair Barker asked whether the public hearing needed to stay open for additional information regarding
enrollment. Ms. Sykes said she’d concluded it was 243 under the current model and was satisfied.
VOTE: Unanimous
ITEM #6: Text Amendments to Unified Development Ordinance
a. Amend Section 6.20, Stormwater, to match state minimum requirements and meet the mandate for local
regulations to not be more stringent than the state.
Ms. Hauth said the long and short of it is that these are state mandated. No option. Commissioner
Ferguson asked can we say something like if the state removes those restrictions, we can revert back.
Ms. Hauth answered we can go back through the process again.
Planning Board Minutes
October 20, 2016
Page 4 of 5
b. Amend Section 7.3, Nonconforming Characteristics of Use, to provide guidance on when a site is required
to correct existing non-conforming characteristics.
In answering a question, Ms. Hauth explained nonconforming characteristics are not usually based on
use. We end up with tension between wanting development to conform to the ordinance and wanting
existing buildings occupied and productive. A new business owner can potentially live with the existing
conditions (maybe it doesn’t look the way we want it to). The question is, can we really issue that permit
when it has these nonconforming characteristics. We’re trying to make it easier for staff to determine.
The language we’re proposing here sets a higher threshold that the applicant must want to do something
to the property of a certain size or value in order to be required to fix the other nonconformities. The
Planning Board hasn’t had a lot of time to talk about it. She encouraged the Planning Board and Town
Board to take this opportunity to talk about scenarios. Commissioner Ferguson suggested a 25 percent
value threshold. Ms. Hauth said it could be one-quarter. She thinks someone on the board had suggested
10 percent. Mr. Czar said the wrinkle is that it’s of assessed tax value. Commissioner Ferguson said
she’s ok with that and that’s why she was thinking one-quarter and not 10 percent. Mr. Hornik said
we’re lowering the threshold if we go from one-third to one-quarter….just making sure people
understand that.
Ms. Hauth reiterated the example of the barber shop on 70. Two loads of gravel for the parking and the
new owner was ready to open. Commissioner Weaver said I’d like for things to look nice but I like for
people to start small businesses and therefore likes the one-third threshold. Or one-quarter.
Commissioner Ferguson said I agree I want people to do stuff. It’s always easier to be more strict at
first. We want to see what’s coming forth. It would be easier to loosen up. There is that line of what’s
character versus what’s desirable.
Mr. Peterson said we went to tax value which is a tangible number to get. And the Planning Board went
with one-third. Commissioner Bell said there are hidden costs to opening a business that you would
never see. Mr. Czar said that just speaks to the arbitrary nature of any certain number. Ms. Vandemark
asked why it includes interior. Ms. Hauth said some businesses do a lot more interior. Dental practices
have a high cost of internal upfit. Probably restaurants and doctor’s offices have similar interior costs.
Ms. Vandemark said but nonconforming characteristics pertains to the outside. If they are fixing up the
inside, why would that affect the calculation for changing the outside? Ms. Hauth answered we’ve
adopted an ordinance that says this is how we want it. Chair Barker said the connection is the interior is
tied to what their total budget is. Mr. Brewer asked if bringing into compliance is cost prohibitive for a
new business owner, what’s their recourse. Ms. Hauth said an appeal to the Board of Adjustment, but
generally they just go find another site.
c. Amend Section 7.5.2.1 to clarify that non-conforming residential lots are buildable.
Ms. Hauth explained if you own two properties side by side and are nonconforming for size, we order
you to combine to get a conforming lot. But the ordinance has never said if you have two lots, put them
together and still have a nonconforming lot, you can build anyway. This usually applies to residential.
The division has to comply with the ordinance.
d. Amend Section 3.8.5.1.a to modify cultural resource documentation requirement for special use permit
applicants.
Ms. Hauth explained when someone submits a SUP, they have to talk about cultural resources. We have
learned from the state office that if it’s on the list, phase 1 has already been done so there is no need to
require that. The amendment is to change the text to say if phase 1 has been done, you have to document
how to protect the resource.
e. Amend Section 3.13.3.d to make reference to the traffic impact study requirements in the street standards
document.
Planning Board Minutes
October 20, 2016
Page 5 of 5
Commissioner Ferguson asked to eliminate acronyms from the town’s written documents. She thinks
that would help citizens digest the information and it’s important for transparency. Commissioner Bell
said he understands but thinks it would need to be organization wide and pertain to the Website, too. Ms.
Sykes suggested repeating the spelled out form at the start of each new section.
Ms. Hauth asked Mr. Hornik if an amendment to remove all acronyms form the ordinance would count
as scrivener’s error. Mr. Hornik indicated it would, since it wouldn’t be changing the meaning. He
added that at this level of detail, it’s a professional looking at document. It’s the lingo. A traffic engineer
knows what TIA is. Commissioner Ferguson said let’s keep it in mind and be watchful. Members
suggested just fixing as we go along.
f. Delete reference to the Design Standards manual in Section 6.2 and list this section as “reserved for future
codification”
There was no discussion.
g. Amend Section 6.11.7.3 to remove the sentence requiring site lighting to be extinguished when a business
is closed.
Ms. Hauth explained Duke Power only issues contracts for site lighting that is on all night. There are no
timers. The ordinance sets a standard that is impossible to meet. We would have fewer waiver requests
until such time as Duke changes their processes. Chair Barker said it’s a shame but reality.
MOTION: Commissioner Lowen moved to close the public hearing on the text amendments. Commissioner
Ferguson seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
ITEM #7: Adjourn
MOTION: Commissioner Lowen moved to adjourn at 8:35 p.m. Mr. Brewer seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Hauth
Secretary