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