HomeMy Public PortalAbout11-15-2018 Minutes PB Regular MeetingPage 1 of 5
Minutes
Hillsborough Planning Board
7 p.m. Nov. 15, 2018
Board Meeting Room, 105 E. Corbin St.
Present: Chair Dan Barker, James Czar, Lisa Frazier, Chris Johnston, Doug Peterson, Jeff Scott, Jenn Sykes and Chris
Wehrman
Absent: Alyse Polly and Toby Vandemark
Staff: Senior Planner Tom King, Public Information Specialist Cheryl Sadgrove and Town Attorney Bob Hornik
1. Call to order and confirmation of a quorum
Chair Dan Barker called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Senior Planner Tom King confirmed the presence of a
quorum.
2. Agenda changes and approval
The agenda stood as presented.
3. 2019 meeting schedule approval
The 2019 meeting schedule was considered for approval.
Motion: Member James Czar moved to approve the meeting schedule. Member Doug Peterson seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
4. Minutes review and approval
Minutes from the regular meeting on Sept. 20 and joint public hearing on Oct. 18 were considered for approval.
Motion: Member Chris Johnston moved to approve both sets of minutes with corrections. Member Lisa
Frazier seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Changes: Public Space Manager Stephanie Trueblood was not present at the Oct. 18 joint public hearing.
Town Attorney Kevin Hornik was present at the Sept. 20 regular meeting, and Town Attorney Bob
Hornik was present at the Oct. 18 joint public hearing.
5. Recommendations to Board of Commissioners for October public hearing items:
A. Future Land Use Plan amendment and rezoning request from Orange County impacting approximately 4 acres
on U.S. 70 West.
King reviewed that this request was due to a land swap between the county and a neighboring property owner.
He noted there was no testimony at the public hearing. King said the parties were present if the board had
questions.
Motion: Peterson moved to recommend that the Board of Commissioners approve the request. Member
Jeff Scott seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Page 2 of 5
B. Future Land Use Plan amendment and rezoning request impacting 7.16 acres at the intersection of Valley
Forge Road and N.C. 86.
Czar said he preferred to be excused from this item because his wife submitted the request. Bob Hornik said that
Czar should be excused if he did not feel comfortable participating in this discussion. He noted what was needed
was a vote excusing Czar and not a recusal.
Motion: Frazier moved to excuse Czar. Member Jenn Sykes seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
King reviewed that the properties involved were Leland Little Auctions and a neighboring property owner. The
property owners are working together to get a single zoning district at the corner of Valley Forge Road and N.C.
86.
Motion: Sykes moved to recommend that the Board of Commissioners approve the request. Scott
seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Czar rejoined the Planning Board.
C. Amendment of Unified Development Ordinance sections 6.15.3, 6.15.8 and 6.15.9 regulating how recreation
fees in lieu and land dedications are reviewed and approved during the development process.
King reviewed that staff is not finding value added by having the Parks and Recreation Board review the
recreation points in recreational plans for developments. Most of these recreation facilities are available only to
the residents of the development. An amendment in this section would also give the permit-issuing authority the
ability to accept payment in lieu rather sending the payment in lieu decision to the Board of Commissioners for
approval.
There were no questions or concerns.
Motion: Czar moved to recommend that the Board of Commissioners approve the amendments. Sykes
seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
D. Amendment to Section 6 to remove 6.19, steep slope provisions
King said the intent was to prevent mass grading. What ends up happening is smaller 1- and 2-acre projects that
have areas of steep slopes cannot be built upon without a waiver from this ordinance. He added that some of the
steep slopes are manmade piles of dirt from the development of neighboring parcels, but the ordinance does not
specify that the restrictions do not apply to such manmade piles.
Barker said that many projects have come before the Board of Adjustment and that the Board of Adjustment
grants the waiver from the steep slopes ordinance.
Czar said the the level of widespread grading approved for the Collins Ridge development is OK. The only place he
can think of wanting to control steep slope grading is at the strip mine if that were ever to close and someone
wanted to develop it.
Sykes advocated for changing the threshold at which the steep slopes ordinance would apply because she has
concerns that removing the ordinance could create more flat developments.
Page 3 of 5
Barker said the problem with having the ordinance is that it triggers a Board of Adjustment review. Instead of
requesting the one waiver from the steep slopes ordinance, developers then request multiple waivers because
they have to go before the Board of Adjustment anyway.
Czar advocated for removing the ordinance completely.
There was discussion of whether the Planning Board felt confident that it would eventually craft language
regarding a higher threshold later if it removed the ordinance now. Several members said they didn’t think they
would get to it on the worklist.
Scott said he did not have a strong opinion because he has worked professionally in Asheville where slopes are
much steeper and where there have been mudslides and ecological implications to grading steep slopes. King said
most planning guidance says do your best to protect steeper slopes, and there are other ways to do that.
Sykes suggested maybe language saying, “use best practices to maintain steep slopes.”
Motion: Czar moved to recommend that this section be deleted from the Unified Development Ordinance.
Member Chris Wehrman seconded.
Vote: 6-2 (nays were Sykes and Barker)
E. Section 5.1.7 to modify uses permitted in non-residential districts
There was discussion of modifying the research facility intense description. Czar said it is too stringent and instead
the limit should be Biosafety Level 2. There was discussion of the smells associated with deceased small animals in
a dumpster outside a facility. After further discussion, Czar suggested leaving the language as it is written.
Peterson suggested writing into the language specifying BioSafety Level 3, 4 or 5 laboratories shall be considered
research facility, intense.
Hornik proposed adding to the description of research facility, intense: “Facility containing a lab categorized by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as BioSafety Level 2 or above shall be considered a
research facility, intense.” He noted the language may undergo a little wordsmithing before the
public hearing.
King asked if the board had discussed the unintended consequences outlined in the staff report for this agenda
item regarding the cells in the permitted uses table under Central Commercial, General Commercial or High
Intensity Commercial that have a residential component. The board agreed to eliminate the changes that would
have the unintended consequences outlined in the staff report.
Motion: Peterson moved to recommend the Board of Commissioners approve the amended table with the
additional sentence crafted under “research facility, intense” and not change the highlighted cells
under Central Commercial, General Commercial or High Intensity Commercial that have a
residential component. Sykes seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
6. Discussion
A. Unified Development Ordinance amendments to the permitted use table impacting attached dwelling units
and mobile home parks
King said currently, mobile homes are not even allowed in mobile home parks. This came up recently when
someone came to Town Hall to talk about expanding his mobile home park. King explained that the way the
ordinance is written now, a Conditional Use Permit or Special Use Permit is still required to expand a mobile home
Page 4 of 5
park or to create one even if the property is already zoned to allow it. He explained the amendments would
permit expanding a mobile home park if one already exists and building multi-family housing if the property is
already zoned for multi-family dwellings.
Czar said the ordinance was written the way it was because a few people on the Planning Board wanted to know
more about those types of projects before they were permitted to be built or expanded. He said the question was
whether the Planning Board still wants additional information. Peterson said yes.
King said there are 10 parcels in the town’s planning jurisdiction zoned for mobile home parks. All have been in
existence more than 20 years. One is no longer going to be one because the land was acquired by the state. Only
four have more than six spaces. Each of those could be developed. Only one does not have expansion possibility.
He said the person who is interested in expanding could add 10 spaces.
There was some discussion that the Planning Board had been interested in tightening standards on mobile home
parks a couple of years ago and had not been successful because restrictions would have been unenforceable.
Hornik confirmed there are minimal housing standards. He added that the Board of Commissioners has expressed
an interest in keeping a stock of affordable housing and that mobile homes are a potential source of affordable
housing.
Peterson said so often these affordable homes are not up to standard and suggested the town consider how to
redevelop the land for permanent affordable housing. Several people noted that significant public funds are
needed to do that.
There was discussion that it may not serve the public to require a public hearing for the expansion of a mobile
home park when the Board of Commissioners would be intending to approve it. There would be some members
of the public who would likely speak up against expanding the mobile home park, but the parcel would already be
zoned for it and the board would want the additional affordable housing.
Sykes expressed concerns about safety standards for mobile homes. Hornik said any new mobile homes have to
meet code. Peterson pointed out that sometimes people rent a space in a mobile home park and then bring in old
mobile homes that do not meet minimal housing standards.
Barker said connecting to a utility triggers inspections.
Motion: Czar moved to send the amendments to public hearing. Johnston seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
B. Amendment to Unified Development Ordinance Section 6.13.10 regarding off-street loading for additional
uses
Czar explained that off-street loading spaces are currently only required for retail uses. This was realized during
discussions with the developers who plan to renovate the Colonial Inn. King noted that Planning Director
Margaret Hauth has provided model language which the town may want to borrow in crafting this amendment.
Wehrman left at 8:30 p.m.
Czar said he does not think there is any practical way to require an off-street loading area in the downtown. Such
a requirement could hinder any development in the downtown area.
Page 5 of 5
Peterson said he would like to see situations where a loading zone is a loading zone for a certain amount of time.
He and Sykes suggested making on-street loading zones additional parking spaces except during posted delivery
times.
There was a reminder that this agenda item was about off-street loading zones.
The Planning Board agreed there should be a public hearing on this topic and added it should be tied with
allowing parking in the zones when there are not deliveries.
Czar asked if the Planning Board can send this item forward to public hearing without a draft amendment.
King said he and Economic Development Planner Shannan Campbell can provide a draft amendment for the public
hearing. That draft can be rewritten after the public hearing.
There was brief discussion that other types of businesses like medical offices or research facilities may have a
need for off-street loading and may not have a requirement currently to provide such spaces.
Czar advocated for exempting the Central Commercial district, which would cover downtown and South Nash
Street.
Motion: Czar moved to forward the amendment to public hearing with the changes suggested by the
Planning Board, which included exempting the Central Commercial and General Commercial
districts. Sykes seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
7. Updates
King reported:
The Board of Commissioners had discussed widening the sidewalk on West King Street in front of the Colonial
Inn to the standards of both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. A requirement of the Special Use Permit was that the applicant come back to discuss the
sidewalk. The board accepted the proposal the applicant put forward.
The Board of Commissioners planned to further discuss the location of a new loading zone near the Colonial
Inn at its December meeting.
The Board of Commissioners did not meet for a work session in November.
8. Adjournment
Motion: Wehrman moved to adjourn at 9:04 p.m. There was no second.
Vote: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Hauth
Secretary