HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-17-2018 Minutes PB Regular MeetingPB minutes
5/17/18
Page 1 of 5
Minutes
Hillsborough Planning Board
7 p.m. May 17, 2018
Town Barn, 101 E. Orange St.
Present: Chair Dan Barker, James Czar, Lisa Frazier, Chris Johnston, Jenn Sykes and Chris Wehrman
Staff: Planning Director Margaret Hauth and Town Attorney Bob Hornik
Item 1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum.
Chair Dan Barker called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Planning Director Margaret Hauth confirmed
the presence of a quorum.
Item 2: Consideration of additions or changes to the agenda
Hauth added Item 8a regarding defining density for attached units in the neighborhood business
special use district. She noted this was just for discussion.
Item 3: Approval of minutes from March 2018 regular meeting and April 2018 joint public hearing
Motion: Sykes moved to approve both sets of minutes as submitted. Czar seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Item 4: Recommendation to Board of Commissioners regarding a rezoning request from Douglas
Peterson to rezone 1.33 acres at 1215 Eno St. from residential -20 to residential-10. OC PIN 9864-34-
7300
Hauth noted Rob Frescoln was present this evening. Hauth reviewed that the lot fronts on Eno Street.
It is adjacent to residential-10 zoning on the east side. Lots to the west and north are zoned
residential-20. Residential-10 is expected in an urban neighborhood designation. She reviewed that
people spoke on this item at the public hearing, raising different issues. Hauth said the town had paid
for traffic counts on Eno Street in 2015 and the 1,000 trips a day was well below the capacity of the
street. While those who live on the street may notice 10 additional trips generated by these houses,
adding 10 trips does not add a meaningful mathematical difference. Also, she has asked stormwater
management to look at Eno Street.
Frescoln said he is here to answer questions. The trailer has been removed. The weeds and grass have
been cut. The evergreen cedar is entwined with another tree, and he and Peterson are attempting to
save both trees. A central drive does not make sense to them and would have to be a nonpermeable
surface.
Czar said he does not have a problem with the proposed plan. The parcels nearly meet the residential-
20 size requirements, except for the width of road frontage.
PB minutes
5/17/18
Page 2 of 5
Sykes said the neighborhood is going through transition and change and is worried about it. She lives
in the neighborhood and thinks the proposal is consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Eno
Street is not really a thoroughfare at that end.
Frazier said she did not see the proposal having a negative impact. Johnston said he thinks all the
concerns have been addressed and there have not been many concerns.
Motion: Czar moved to recommend to the Board of Commissioners that the rezoning request
be approved. Sykes seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Item 5: Recommendation to the Board of Commissioners regarding a rezoning request and special
use permit request from Landmark Management Partners LLC to rezone .26 acres at 401 N. Churton
St. from residential-20 to neighborhood business special use. This includes a special use permit
application to convert the existing structure to four attached dwelling units. OC PIN 9874 -08-3136
Hauth noted that the agenda packet included comments from the Historic District Comm ission. She
would characterize the commission’s comments or concerns as benign, noting that the commission
may prefer asphalt instead of gravel for the parking spaces and will review the changes to the façade.
Hauth noted that the applicant, Nathan Robinson, was present this evening and could answer
questions of clarity but no new information. She also noted that the third waiver request, regarding
density, references language in the Unified Development Ordinance that was probably not intended.
Johnston asked if Robinson had spoken after the public hearing with the folks at the Burwell School
Historic Site who were concerned about being able to see the trash and recycling recep tacles
belonging to the condos. Robinson said that he had and that the Burwell School representatives had
asked to continue using his parking lot. He said he would do his best to hide the receptacle lids, but
the completed project would be better than what visitors at the Burwell School look at now when
they view this property. Johnston asked what does it mean that the Burwell School will continue to
use his parking area. Robinson said visitors to the Burwell School could use unassigned parking spaces
at the condos.
Sykes asked why the Historic District Commission prefers asphalt for the parking area. Hauth
answered the preference is because gravel washes into the street. Robinson said that Environmental
Services and Stormwater Manager Terry Hackett had indicated that gravel was not preferred for
stormwater control. Robinson said he was willing to use asphalt.
Wehrman said he would like to reduce some of the parking. Robinson said he prefers to hold on to 10
spaces because the town had already previously approved the 10 spaces and the Burwell School is
interested in the overflow parking. Wehrman said he would like the parking reduced if there are three
condos instead of four and asked Robinson if he would be willing to agree to six parking spaces if
there are only three condos. Czar noted the parking gets close to North Churton Street on the site
plan. Robinson said the reason the parking is pushed so close to North Churton Street is that he was
required to reserve space at the west end for a line of containers as if garbage and recycling are
collected on the same day.
PB minutes
5/17/18
Page 3 of 5
Hauth suggested the Planning Board could leave it flexible, scaled to the number of dwelling units,
two per unit and allowing for visitors spaces. Johnston said it sounds like the applicant would scale it
anyway. Czar said he couldn’t see taking spaces away when the property already has permission to
have 10 spaces. Wehrman said the use has changed.
Town Attorney Bob Hornik clarified that the property has an encroachment agreement with the town
to have the spaces in the right of way. He added that the Planning Board and the Board of
Commissioners have the authority to specify two spaces per unit or whatever they wish and if the
property owner does not meet the wishes of those boards, then the boards can deny the rezoning
request.
Regarding the waiver regarding 10,000-square-foot minimum area, Hauth said she strongly believes
the language is an error in the Unified Development Ordinance and that there is not a designation on
minimum lot size in the neighborhood special use permit. The writers of that section did not take the
extra step of stating how many attached units one can have on a lot that is zoned neighborhood
special use. The 10,000 square feet was the minimum lot size and did not mean the minimum area for
the dwelling unit.
Regarding the second waiver, which was about Type A buffering, Hauth said the property owner
cannot comply along West Union Street because the parking is located there. No one argued against
granting it.
Regarding the third waiver on sidewalks, walkways and street trees, Hauth said there is not enough
room and there are overhead lines. Board members expressed no concerns with granting this waiver.
It was noted that a tree could not be planted between the receptacles and the Burwell School because
there is an overhead powerline. The landscaping plan on second page adds a tree. Robinson said he
plans to add another tree on the west side of Union Street.
Wehrman said he would like the parking spaces capped at two per unit. Czar said two per unit plus an
accessible spot. Robinson said he would like to slide the parking to the west. Johnston said he did not
want to constrain the parking in writing. The applicant saves money by reducing the parking. Hauth
said staff can approve a 10-percent change in parking, so that is probably one space. Sykes said
requiring two parking spaces per unit follows what the town has required for apartment complexes
and encourages less paving. Robinson expressed concern that limiting the parking may make the
condos harder for him to sell.
There was discussion of whether the property owner would be required to build a handicap -accessible
parking space because the condos would be privately owned. When asked, Hauth said the town
requires two parking spaces per unit for smaller apartment complexes and fewer spaces for large
apartment complexes. Czar said if there was a disabled potential purchaser of a condo, then one
parking space could be turned into a handicap accessible space. Frazier said she thinks there should
be more spaces than two per unit to accommodate someone coming to provide services to an older
person in a home. Sykes reiterated she would like to see two spaces per condo to minimize
impervious surface. Johnston said it sounds like the applicant had enough spots and he is struggling to
PB minutes
5/17/18
Page 4 of 5
see how this applies to precedent. Hornik and Sykes said it is not precedent setting. There was brief
discussion that gravel is not impervious.
Motion: Johnston moved to recommend granting the waivers as discussed and approving the
rezoning and special use permit as requested. Frazier seconded.
Vote: 4-2 (Sykes and Wehrman due to the parking)
Item 6: Discussion requested by a Planning Board member regarding a potential amendment to the
permitted use table to remove detention facility as a permitted use in the economic development
district.
Hauth said shortly after the public hearing, Czar talked with her about this request and she did not
have anything to add to her written staff report on the matter. Czar said economic development
districts should promote economic growth. UNC Healthcare had to abandon a building and move
away from a detention facility in town. He thinks there are very tangible, easily observable examples
inside the town of detention facilities negatively impacting economic development. Barker asked Czar
whether he is proposing to remove the uses or require a special use permit for them. Czar said there
are certain uses that are entirely inappropriate in the economic development district. Barker said a
detention facility is going to get a visitor per two or three inmates every month. Sometimes every
week.
Czar the detention facility is a detriment to the town and it is time to make the town’s entranceways
nicer. He noted that studies showing positive development in areas with detention centers is for rural,
undeveloped areas. Sykes agreed with Czar, adding that Lorton, Virginia, is an example of that. Czar
added that Loretto, Pennsylvania, is another example of a depressed economic area with a detention
facility. Sykes said there are better things the town can do to promote economic development than
to have a detention facility.
Barker asked whether this concern is about the detention facility alone or about county yards. Czar
answered it is about county yards, too. They are a detriment to economic development. We have
tangible examples in town, he said.
Johnston asked what would be the outcome if the detention center becomes nonconforming. Czar
said eventually the county would want to make improvements. Others said the facility would be
grandfathered and it wouldn’t change what has been approved. Hauth said the county would file
before the board moves through with a text amendment.
Hauth said the county had a need. The economic development district gave the county the uses
permitted by right. She does not think the county representatives actively testified that the detention
facility and public works yard would be great for U.S. 70. That was not the driving use behind the
request. The county needed affordable water and sewer.
Czar said the error in the Unified Development Ordinance is allowing a detention facility by right.
Hauth said “maintenance yard” was added to the permitted use table to address the county yard.
Barker said economic development district is the name of the district and it does not mean that it
generates economic development. Hauth suggested merging that zoning with business park district.
PB minutes
5/17/18
Page 5 of 5
The board agreed to look next month at consolidating nonresidential districts and determining which
uses should be allowed by right.
Item 7: Potential text amendment to provide guidance on granting waivers.
Hauth said this text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance affects the Board of
Adjustment more than the Planning Board. With recent changes in state law, there was a desire to
provide guidance to the Board of Adjustment as it is considering waivers, which may help the town if a
Board of Adjustment decision is appealed.
Hornik noted most of the language is lifted from the statute. Barker said the amendment could refer
to the statute. Hornik agreed, so that the Unified Development Ordinance would not have to be
amended every time the statute language changed.
Motion: Czar moved to send it to public hearing in July. Wehrman seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Item 8: Potential text amendment to update requirements for electronic gaming.
Barker and Sykes suggested covering all legal games of chance in the proposed amendment to the
Unified Development Ordinance. Hauth said she would bring it before the board next month with
revisions to include a broader scope.
Item 8a:
Hauth said neighborhood business special use district does not have density defined for attached
units. The ordinance does not allow attached units in the condensed central commercial d istrict. She
would like to bring the Planning Board draft language next month that addresses that mistake , and
she proposes a density limit for neighborhood special use and central commercial zone.
Regarding the possibility of having two nights of joint public hearings in July, Hauth said it looked like
only one night would be needed. The Planning Board decided to meet July 18 to work on text
amendments but decided to wait until the June meeting to vote on that extra meeting.
Barker noted that a discussion item was needed on future agendas to allow for updates.
Item 9: Adjourn
Motion: Frazier moved to adjourn at 8:28 p.m.
Vote: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Hauth
Secretary