Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-18-2016 Minutes PB Regular MeetingPlanning Board Minutes August 18, 2016 Page 1 of 3 MINUTES HILLSBOROUGH PLANNING BOARD Thursday, August 18, 2016 7:00 PM, Town Barn PRESENT: Chair Dan Barker, Chris Wehrman, Lisa Frazier, Vice Chair Toby Vandemark, Erin Eckert, Jenn Sykes, Janie Morris, Doug Peterson, James Czar STAFF: Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Hornik, Kevin Hornik ITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. 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 June regular meeting and July public hearing MOTION: Ms. Sykes made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Ms. Vandemark seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #4: Interview of volunteers for up-coming ETJ seat vacancy Ms. Hauth shared that Eddie Sain lives near Forest Ridge, adjacent to the town limits but not in the ETJ. He was the only candidate to answer the questions the board sent out to those interested in the vacancy. None of the candidates who applied for this vacancy live in the ETJ. Mr. Sain addressed the board. He told them he served on the Board of Adjustment for 7 years. He believes he only missed 4 meetings in 7 years. Ms. Sykes asked what grocery store he shops at. He answered the Food Lion on Old 86. Mr. Sain shared that he worked at two of the dealerships in town. Ms. Hauth said Ms. Eckert’s term expires in October. MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to recommend that Eddie Sain be appointed to the Planning Board. Ms. Eckert seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Recognizing that there were guests present for Item 6 on the printed agenda, the board agreed to swap items 5 and 6. MOTION: Ms. Morris moved to address Item 6 before Item 5. Mr. Czar seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #5: Recommendation to Town Board regarding public hearing items: a. Annexation and Rezoning request from Orange County No discussion. b. Annexation and Rezoning request from Piney Creek properties, LLC There was brief discussion and acknowledgement that in good faith the town expects the property to be well maintained, as it would any property. c. Future Land Use Plan amendment to reclassify properties south of I-40 to designations that discourage residential development Planning Board Minutes August 18, 2016 Page 2 of 3 There was brief acknowledgment that some residents in that area have concerns that the county could someday build a transfer station there. d. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments to amend minimum parking requirements for child day care, attached dwellings, and warehouse operations No discussion. e. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments to amend Section 9 to clarify that building setbacks are measured from property lines No discussion. MOTION: Mr. Peterson made a motion to recommend all five for approval by the Town Board. Ms. Morris seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #6: Special Use Permit request from Lennar of the Carolinas to develop 42.2 acres on the north side of Waterstone Drive as 200 townhomes with amenities as defined in the Waterstone Master Plan for revised parcel 15 and 17. Part of OC PIN 9873-33-3376 Ms. Hauth reviewed that this went to public hearing in July and there were concerns about the public access to the walkways on the site. A great deal of discussion ensued on this topic. Ms. Sykes thinks the connectivity will organically happen. She is wondering how it connects with commercial development. Ms. Morris is thinking that an HOA sets the rules. Ms. Sykes thinks it will naturally happen, especially if the commercial development fits with walking through there. She is wondering whether some light should be placed to make it safer. Chair Barker said there’s a natural slope there so he doesn’t think a desired path will form there. Michael Birch, representing the applicant, said what the board is discussing matches the applicants concerns: the liability and safety concerns as these trails go around the playground and pool. Also, there are increased maintenance costs if it’s used by additional people. Also, it’s longer to go through the site than to go down Waterstone Drive. The applicant’s preference is to keep it fully private. There was some discussion among board members about the trail not being desirable and perhaps putting a split-rail fence across the road bed to direct walkers south, but that would potentially reduce the applicant’s recreational points. Having a stubbed trail piques interests in people to discover what is beyond the edge of the trail. There was a recommendation to make up the points in some other way. This board acknowledged that a concern had been raised about cul-de-sacs but a couple of members spoke up in favor of cul-de-sacs. There was discussion of the gray area of whether sidewalks are public. Ms. Eckert urged that sidewalks be open to everyone. Mr. Hornik said Forest Ridge allowed public access through to get to the Riverwalk and Corbin Woods allowed public access to get to US 70. There was question of whether legally the public can establish an easement by use. Mr. Birch said the developer doesn’t plan to put up obstructions to the sidewalks. The HOA has the ability to post signs. The two examples of Mr. Hornik are acknowledging what would otherwise be a heavily traveled public walkway anyway. This is a one-way in and one-way out street with a cul- de-sac. We recognize the HOA has the ability to put up signs in the future, Mr. Birch said. Several board members pushed back that it would create the feeling of a gated community. Mr. Czar said Planning Board Minutes August 18, 2016 Page 3 of 3 he felt it was reasonable for the HOA to acknowledge that it doesn’t want to be liable for users of the sidewalk. Ms. Morris said she understands Ms. Eckert’s concerns but thinks it’s out of this board’s control. The board expressed desire to more actively promote the idea of allowing sidewalks to be open despite the roads being private. Ryan Akers, civil engineer with McAdams, said common access easements covers the roads and sidewalks and he can’t imagine a sign going up that would tell people they can’t walk on the sidewalks. Mr. Hornik advised that this board recommend that the developer consider requiring that the HOA documents prohibit gates or signs prohibiting people from using the sidewalks. MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to recommend that the project go forward with the stipulation that the restrictive covenants of the HOA include language to the effect of not having any kind of prohibition on people walking through the neighborhood and language banning gates and signage to prevent walkthrough traffic. Ms. Sykes seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #7: Discussion of housekeeping text amendments for potential discussion at October public hearing The board discussed the first amendment with edits. The board agreed to send the edited amendment and the rest of the amendments to public hearing. MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to send the amendments as discussed to public hearing. Ms. Frazier seconded. VOTE: Unanimous When the question was raised by board members regarding a potential development in West Hillsborough, Ms. Hauth and Mr. Hornik advised the board that once an application is filed for a development, board members cannot attend neighborhood meetings regarding the potential development. Before there is an application submitted, it’s ok to attend. ITEM #8: Adjourn MOTION: Ms. Morris moved to adjourn at 8:34 p.m. Ms. Vandemark seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Hauth Secretary