HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-15-2017 Minutes PB Regular MeetingPB Minutes
6/15/2017
Page 1 of 4
Minutes
Hillsborough Planning Board
7 p.m. June 15, 2017
Town Barn, 101 E. Orange St.
Present: Dan Barker, Toby Vandemark, Rick Brewer, Janie Morris, Doug Peterson, Jennifer Sykes, and
Chris Wehrman
Staff: Planning Director Margaret Hauth and Town Attorney Kevin Hornik
ITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum
Mr. Barker called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Ms. Hauth confirmed the presence of a quorum.
ITEM #2: Consideration of additions or changes to the agenda
Ms. Hauth informed the board that the Board of Commissioners had approved everything the
Planning Board had recommended and had granted the parking waiver for Habitat for Humanity
of Orange County, which the Planning Board had not recommended. She reported the Board of
Commissioners had engaged in lengthy discussion about the parking requirements for accessory
dwelling units and that the board was disappointed to hear it is not legal for the town to require
that the primary or accessory dwelling unit be occupied by the owner of the property.
ITEM #3: Approval of minutes from the May 18, 2017, meeting
MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved approval of the May minutes. Ms. Morris seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
ITEM #4: Amendments to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
Ms. Hauth said the flood maps have been updated and the Town of Hillsborough has until
November to refer to the new information to remain in the flood insurance program. Ms. Hauth
added that she does not think there are significant changes. She said she is planning to directly
mail notice to property owners in the flood plain and place an advertisement in the newspaper.
MOTION: Mr. Peterson moved to send the amendments to the Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance to public hearing in July. Ms. Vandemark seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
ITEM #5: Discussion of possible text amendments for July public hearing
Residential density yield
Ms. Hauth informed the board that it came to her attention that the language regarding this topic
in the Unified Development Ordinance needed to be amended when another jurisdiction called to
ask about the interpretation of this ordinance. Ms. Hauth suggested changing the title of Section
9.1.4 to read “Dwelling unit yield” rather than “Gross residential density measurement.” She
explained the intention was to provide the calculation for the yield of lots and not the density.
MOTION: Mr. Brewer moved to recommend that the Board of Commissioners send this
amendment to the July public hearing. Ms. Vandemark seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
PB Minutes
6/15/2017
Page 2 of 4
Minor changes and modifications
Ms. Hauth said she would like better language to make it clearer when modifications to special
use permits or conditional use permits need review from the board that approved the permit.
Also, the current language does not make it clear when another public hearing should be called
due to a modification.
Ms. Hauth referred to a chart she created for reference and included in the agenda packet. The
chart indicates modifications to special use and conditional use permits and whether a public
hearing was held due to the modification. She suggested the proposed text amendment on pages
7 and 8 of the agenda packet that states changes consistent with the original approval would
constitute a minor change. The amendment also states that a modification would be constituted
by a change to a specific condition imposed during the approval of the special use permit or by a
change that expands upon an approved waiver or requests a new waiver. The proposed language
also explains what constitutes a substantial change of use or rearrangement of uses. It also allows
for the planning director to recommend a public hearing for any reason due to minor changes.
Ms. Hauth gave examples of what might constitute a substantial change and what might not. For
instance, modifying the area of a large warehouse on a large piece of land by 20 percent may not
be significant, but enlarging an office building by 20 percent may be significant because of the
increase in employees and parking needs.
She answered a board member’s question affirmatively that the Hillsborough Board of
Commissioners can decide to send anything to public hearing. Ms. Sykes said that is important.
Mr. Hornik suggested adding definitions for “significant” and “substantial.”
Ms. Hauth asked the board to talk about whether to use both words.
When asked, Ms. Hauth affirmed that conditional use permit modifications go before the Board
of Adjustment and that special use permit modifications go before the Board of Commissioners
because those boards would have approved the original permits.
MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to send the amendment to public hearing. Ms. Morris
seconded.
Discussion: Ms. Hauth asked for discussion on whether to use both “significant” and
“substantial” in the amendment language. Mr. Brewer said “substantial” is addressed in the third
bulleted point of the amended language and “significant” in the first two bulleted points. Mr.
Barker added that “significant” is poorly defined and poorly quantified.
Ms. Hauth asked the board whether she should replace “significant” with “substantial” in the
first bulleted point. Ms. Vandemark said “significant” indicates it is important and “substantial”
refers to the size. Ms. Sykes gave an example of a change to a building not being substantial in
terms of size but yet significant in terms of orientation and feel from the street. Ms. Hauth
summarized that significant changes have more to do with the character and less to do with the
numbers. Ms. Hauth said she can craft language that defines significant changes as those
affecting the character.
VOTE: Unanimous
PB Minutes
6/15/2017
Page 3 of 4
ITEM #6: Discussion of other text amendment possibilities for prioritization
Ms. Hauth referred to a list on Page 12 of the agenda packet. Ms. Hauth explained that the Parks
and Recreation Board would like the Planning Board to work on modifying the recreation points
to incentivize some recreational opportunities. For instance, the town does not have enough
basketball courts so those facilities could be worth more points. Ms. Hauth said some
neighboring jurisdictions no longer use the point system but instead collect money from
developers and then build parks. She does not think Hillsborough is in a position to do that for
every development.
Regarding lighting, Ms. Hauth informed the board that Duke Energy has offered to provide town
staff with technical guidance. She will report to the Planning Board when she knows more.
Ms. Hauth mentioned that some buffer items are on the list, generated from recent buffer waiver
requests.
Regarding tree protection and retention, planning staff is asking the Planning Board to create an
alternative to percentages.
Ms. Hauth added that the topic steep slopes is on the list because waivers on the topic have been
requested frequently. Perhaps the Unified Development Ordinance language should specify
natural steep slopes rather than those made by man, she said.
Ms. Hauth noted the agenda packet includes a list of waiver requests on four commercial sites.
Also on the list is fixture height. Commercial developers ask for a waiver from the requirement
to have a lower light fixture because the standard Duke Energy light poles are 25 feet tall.
Ms. Hauth said the Parks and Recreation Board would like the revised recreation points to be on
the agenda for the October public hearing.
Mr. Barker asked the Planning Board to prioritize the list. Ms. Vandemark suggested starting
with the recreation points. Mr. Barker said steep slope waivers and excessive parking waivers
frequently come before the Board of Adjustment. He said he thinks designers make extra waiver
requests when they know they have to go before the Board of Adjustment for at least one waiver.
Ms. Hauth said if the board was ready to strike the language about pervious parking spaces, the
board could vote this evening to send that change to the July public hearing. The Planning Board
could require more data before granting any waivers for extra parking spaces and remove the
provision for pervious parking spaces.
Mr. Barker said he would like staff to be able to approve extra parking spaces when needed. Ms.
Hauth said staff is not allowed to have discretion. Mr. Barker suggested putting language in the
amendment to discourage extra parking, like requiring the parking to be an electric charging
station. Ms. Sykes agreed with wanting to make it difficult to add parking spaces above what is
allowed. Ms. Hauth suggested the board could remove the language about pervious parking
PB Minutes
6/15/2017
Page 4 of 4
spaces and add language to say modified parking standards shall be accompanied with clear
justification. Ms. Hauth pointed out that the board has been uncomfortable when an applicant has
requested less parking than what is required as well. If they want reduced parking, the board also
wants to see data to be sure that an applicant truly does not need the parking.
Ms. Hauth suggested the parking space language and the lighting fixture height amendment
could be sent to the July public hearing. Mr. Barker said the height of the light should be easy to
get by simply phrasing that the Duke standard for lights is allowed. He said he has concerns
about striking the pervious parking language absolutely. He asked if the board should make
obtaining extra parking a pain or a pain only if the applicant wants to add 20 percent more
parking or 10 more spaces. Ms. Hauth said the board could discuss parking further and send an
amendment to the October public hearing.
MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to send the lighting standard amendment allowing 25-foot
poles to public hearing in July. Ms. Morris seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
Mr. Barker asked if there is anything else to send to public hearing in July. Ms. Hauth asked if
the board is ready to let go of any of the steep slope requirements. She is not necessarily
recommending that. Ms. Hauth and Mr. Brewer agreed the Planning Board should spend more
time on the proposal before sending it to public hearing.
Ms. Hauth informed the board that there are two development proposals for the July public
hearing. One is the first phase for the Gatewood property next to Walgreens, which will include
2 restaurants. The second development is on Brownville Street in what has been a laundromat
and a church behind The Village Diner. The applicant is submitting a neighborhood special use
rezoning and permit application for an artist studio and apartment to rent out.
ITEM #7: Adjourn
MOTION: Mr. Brewer moved to adjourn at 7:49 p.m. Ms. Sykes seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Hauth
Secretary