HomeMy Public PortalAbout04-18-2019 Minutes PB Joint Public HearingAssistant Town Manager/Planning Director Margaret Hauth
101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278
919-296-9471 | margaret.hauth@hillsboroughnc.gov
www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 1 of 12
Minutes
Joint Public Hearing
Hillsborough Board of Commissioners and Planning Board
7 p.m. April 18, 2019
Town Hall Annex Board Meeting Room, 105 E. Corbin St.
Present:
Board of Commissioners — Mayor Tom Stevens and commissioners Mark Bell, Kathleen Ferguson, Matt Hughes,
Evelyn Lloyd, and Jenn Weaver
Planning Board — Chair Dan Barker, James Czar, Lisa Frazier, Chris Johnston, Doug Peterson, Jeff Scott, and Toby
Vandemark
Staff — Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Hornik, Public Information Specialist Cheryl
Sadgrove, and Planning Technician Taylor Perschau
1. Call to order and confirmation of quorum
Mayor Tom Stevens called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
2. Agenda changes and approval
There were no additions or changes. The agenda stood as presented.
3. Opening of the public hearing
Stevens opened the public hearing and explained some differences between legislative and quasi-judicial
public hearings. He then turned the gavel over to Planning Board Chair Dan Barker.
4. Rezoning requests
A. Rezoning request from Abacus Partners LLC to rezone 0.77 acres at 505 Latimer St. from Mobile Home Park to
Residential-10 (10,000-square-foot minimum lot size)
Planning Director Margaret Hauth reviewed that this is a rezoning request for a .78-acre parcel at the corner
of Latimer and Nash streets. The parcel appears large enough to be divided into three lots.
Marty Barnes, representing Abacus Partners, addressed the board. Barnes said the mobile homes and cinder
block homes have been removed from the parcel.
Commissioner Kathleen Ferguson asked Barnes what the houses would be like and whether they would be
McMansions.
Barnes said the houses would be roughly 2,200 or 2,400 square feet and would be for sale for around
$300,000 or $350,000, like new houses recently built north of this lot on Nash Street. Barnes noted the new
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 2 of 12
houses on North Nash Street — the Silvestri Properties — have been selling for around $400,000. Barnes said
the style of home he would be building would be similar to those in that they would be two-story, cottage-
style homes.
Lloyd and Barnes had a brief discussion about the comparables for price points.
Lloyd said she is concerned about density. Barnes said five mobile homes and two cinder block homes were
on the property and he is proposing a reduction in density by requesting three single-family homes.
Ferguson said the town wants affordable housing and wants houses to fit in with the neighborhood. She
asked Barnes if he has thought about building duplexes or quads to create housing at more affordable prices.
Barnes said based on how much his company paid for the property, the developers haven’t considered that.
Planning Board Member Lisa Frazier asked what the average home price is in the neighborhood in which this
parcel is located. Barnes said he did not know. Ferguson said it is under $200,000.
Planning Board Member Scott Taylor asked where an existing mobile home resident would live. Barnes said
that resident was assisted in finding another place to live in the community.
Planning Board Member Jenn Sykes asked how a rezoning change to Residential-15 (15,000-square-foot
minimum lot size) could affect the developers’ plans. Barnes said he was not sure and that most of the
property in the neighborhood is zoned Residential-10.
Members of the audience who signed up for this item were invited to speak.
Dorothy Potter Snyder addressed the boards. She said she was speaking for herself and some residents of
Nash Street who could not attend this evening. She said North Nash Street is traditionally an African American
neighborhood and she is concerned that longtime residents can no longer afford to live there because of the
increasing popularity of redeveloping the land on this street. Snyder said she purchased her home in this
neighborhood two years ago for $120,000. She questions the value of building a $350,000 home on a lot that
is only two blocks away from her small cottage.
Snyder said she thinks North Nash Street experiences drama because the east side is within the boundaries of
the Hillsborough Historic District and the west side is not. She said because of that division, the east side has
protections to maintain the character of the surrounding homes and neighborhood and the west side does
not. Snyder does not want sides of houses rather than fronts to face Nash Street because the character of the
neighborhood is such that people sit on their front porches and talk. Snyder said six people on her street have
told her that if a road is to be created for these houses, the current residents would like to have a say in the
naming of the road. She said the name “Whitted” was a suggestion.
Barbara Chavious addressed the board. She said she and her husband, Ken Chavious, have lived at 401 N.
Nash St. for 40 years. She said Nash Street has changed over the years and some changes have been
improvements and others have threatened the ability of long-term neighbors to stay in their homes. She said
she agrees with Snyder’s comments. She also said she is wondering whether three lots zoned Residential-10
could each have four attached residential dwellings, or quads, built upon them. Hauth answered that multiple
units each require 10,000 square feet, so the developers could choose to create three individual lots and build
three individual houses or leave it as one parcel and build a triplex.
Ken Chavious addressed the board. He said the prices these new houses would sell for are not comparable
with anything any of the residents of the neighborhood would get for selling their houses. He is concerned
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 3 of 12
that tax assessments would rise. He said there is a lot of history on that street. He would like not to be pushed
out. He is against this rezoning.
Jim Harrington addressed the board. He lives on West Tryon Street. He said he is a Native American from a
family that did not have much money when he was growing up. His question is: What would be the
alternative to what the developers are proposing to do? He thinks three homes with porches on that land
would be attractive. He is wondering whether the best use of the property is to leave cinder block homes
empty for the good memories they provide some people. He is not opposed to what is being offered and
wants the new homes to be in the character of the neighborhood.
Barker noted that this item is only an application for rezoning. He asked Hauth whether there are any checks
and balances on the style of the homes. Hauth said if the parcel was rezoned, then the creation of up to four
lots is either exempt or a minor subdivision. There is no design standard or design review.
Barker asked Barnes if he wished to address any of the speakers’ concerns. Barnes said he understands there
is no design review required, but it would not be in the developers’ best interest to design a home that did
not fit with the neighborhood. The homes would be built in the Craftsman style with rocking chairs and ceiling
fans on front porches. He would be happy to submit building plans so that neighbors could see what would be
built, even though that is not required.
Planning Board Member Doug Peterson asked about the orientation of the houses. Barnes said two homes
would face Nash Street. The third home would be in the back corner, possibly at an angle to Nash Street.
Barnes added that it could be possible to center the third home between the two other new homes, only
placed farther back on the lot.
Stevens said that the board members take all the comments they have heard to heart and that this is an
important community conversation. He said there are no tools about specifying price points. It is essentially
illegal for the Board of Commissioners to consider that. The only question before the Board of Commissioners
is whether to leave the parcel zoned for only mobile homes or to zone it to allow the smallest homes, which is
what is requested. He said the ideas that the speakers shared are important, but this is not a development
proposal. Rather, it is a simple rezoning request. The developer could do anything that the zoning allows by
right.
Barker said any promises made tonight about price point or style are nonbinding. The town does not have an
enforcement tool for either.
Sykes said if the Board of Commissioners rejects the request, then the landowner cannot put forth the same
request again for another year. Hauth confirmed that is true.
Ferguson said she appreciates the decision points. This is her neighborhood. Gentrification happens by
starting at the ends and then creeping into the middle. She is concerned about gentrification in this
neighborhood, and that is why she asked Barnes to look at alternatives. She said this side of Nash Street is not
part of the Historic District and has its own comps.
Barnes said that before purchasing the property, he spoke to the one remaining mobile home resident on the
property. He said he would not have pursued purchasing the property if the resident had not expressed a
willingness to relocate. Barnes said the mobile home resident was able to relocate to a more modern mobile
home with heating and air conditioning.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 4 of 12
Barnes said the mayor is correct that the developers are under no legal obligation to build at a certain price
point or in a certain style. Barnes said he may want to come before this board again with another project
some day and does not want to sell a bill of goods. Barnes offered to place a historical marker on the site and
let the neighborhood choose the name on the marker.
Snyder mentioned a neighboring retaining wall was damaged when one of the cinder block houses was
demolished. Barnes took note of that and said he would have the wall fixed.
Commissioner Matt Hughes said that he grew up three blocks west of this parcel and that it sounds like
Barnes is taking what people say to heart.
Sykes checked and staff confirmed that people can send comments to the Planning Board and Board of
Commissioners because this is not a quasi-judicial public hearing item.
Motion: Sykes moved to close the public hearing on this item. Hughes seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
5. Special Use Permit modification requests
A. Elfin’s Pond ― To consider seven waivers to accommodate the development of the community building and
pool
Hauth reviewed the site plan that was approved and the requested waivers.
Peter Bellantoni was sworn in. Bellantoni is a consulting engineer with Pennoni, representing the developer.
Bellantoni said the waivers and changes to the site plan were attempts to create a more residential driveway
for the clubhouse and pool and to try to keep some of the trees. He said emergency services had been
consulted to make sure emergency vehicles could get in and out of a narrowed driveway. He said the
developer does not want to draw attention to the clubhouse but rather have it feel like part of the residential
community. Bellantoni said out of 25 residents polled, 25 said they did not want the existing tot lot. He said
there would be pool lighting sufficient for swimming at night but just minimal security lighting.
Hughes said he is concerned that teenagers would be at risk with minimal lighting if they jumped the fence to
swim in the pool at night. He asked about security measures. Bellantoni said the pool would be closed off with
a gate and there would be residences in close proximity.
Hughes said some clubhouses are rented out. Therefore, there could be nighttime use. Bellantoni said there
would be standard wall-mounted lights around the building. Ferguson said it is a darker lot with the trees. She
could not visualize the foot candles. Bellantoni pointed out that there are streetlights along the road which
will also light this area.
Stevens said that he is hearing Bellantoni say the developer wants the exterior of the clubhouse lit like a
residence rather than like a commercial building. Bellantoni agreed.
Barker invited members of the audience to speak.
Diane Martin, who lives at 121 Elfin Blvd., addressed the boards. She asked how high the fence around the
swimming pool would be. Bellantoni said it has to be at least 4 feet tall. Martin thinks higher would be
something to consider for security reasons. She expressed concern about children gaining access to the pool
area without an adult. Bellantoni said he would share the recommendation for a higher fence.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 5 of 12
Joélle Miller, who lives in the Elfin’s Pond neighborhood, addressed the boards. She said the straw poll among
the residents seems to have happened a long time ago; there are more than 25 residents. She received an
email a couple of days ago about the tot lot. Miller asked if the pond would be accessible for children because
she wants to be sure there is an area set aside where children can play. She said there are a lot of children
living in the neighborhood. There are a lot of people who have grandchildren visit. The neighborhood is not
designated as a 55-plus community. Miller also said she appreciates the request for softer residential lighting.
Bryan Hilley, who lives in Elfin’s Pond, addressed the board. He said the pool would be located directly across
from his residence and he would appreciate softer lighting. He wanted to know how many parking spaces
would be created for the clubhouse and pool, and he wondered whether there would be traffic issues with
cars backing out of those spaces while people are driving through the neighborhood. Bellantoni said there
would be a total of 14 spaces in two locations. He did not think the parking spaces would create traffic issues.
Commissioner Mark Bell wondered if there are concerns of people backing into the street. Bellatoni said the
developer tried to design the location of the parking spaces so they would not be too close to intersections.
Bell said landscaping on either side of the parking area could obstruct a driver’s view. Bellantoni said no
landscaping was proposed to flank the parking spaces.
Hughes asked Bellantoni for clarification on when the straw poll was conducted and whether it was related to
the email Miller had received earlier in the week. Bellantoni said he did not have more information. Miller
said the email informed her that the decision to remove the tot lot had already been made. Hughes expressed
interest in knowing what the full community’s feedback would be regarding the removal of the tot lot.
When asked about closing the public hearing, Town Attorney Bob Hornik advised that the public hearing
would need to remain open if the boards wished to receive the community feedback.
There was brief discussion about the location of a play area for children. Bellantoni indicated an area on the
site plan that Hauth said was a backup location for a dumpster in case the neighborhood decided to install a
dumpster instead of using rollout carts. She advised that preserving the location is important. Moving the tot
lot to the dumpster location would be another modification, Hauth said.
Bellantoni wondered if a solution to the tot lot location could be made informally. Hauth said such decisions
cannot be made while standing at a podium during a public hearing. The town attorney confirmed it would be
appropriate to leave the public hearing open until the Planning Board meeting, at which time the survey
results regarding the tot lot could be shared and an alternative location for the tot lot could be submitted. The
public hearing could be closed at the Planning Board meeting without the commissioners being present. It
was also clarified that the tot lot discussion needs to take place during the public hearing because the tot lot
was approved as part of the Special Use Permit.
Barker asked Bellantoni whether he wished to keep the public hearing open to May 16. Bellantoni said he
preferred to close the public hearing and move forward. Barker asked Bellantoni whether he could provide
the tot lot information next month. Bellantoni said he could provide the tot lot survey and an alternative
location for the tot lot. Hauth said the decisions on the modifications to the Special Use Permit could still
move forward on schedule with the public hearing kept open until May 16.
Hornik advised keeping the public hearing open with narrow specifications.
Motion: Peterson moved to leave the hearing open for purposes of gathering information on the tot lot survey
and with the intention of closing the public hearing at the May 16 Planning Board meeting. Sykes
seconded.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 6 of 12
Vote: Unanimous
B. 515 North Churton ― To consider 12 waivers for field changes during construction
Hauth reviewed the approved site plan and the list of changes (modifications and waivers) from the approved
plans.
Hauth explained residents have already moved in because the developer met the ordinance requirement for
the issuance of a temporary occupancy certificate. She noted that other issues have to be resolved with the
Historic District Commission. She said that although those commission comments are included in the board
packet, they are not relevant to this discussion. Bell added that some of the items the Board of
Commissioners is considering, the commission will also consider.
Jim Parker, Randy Hall and Mike Parker were sworn in. Jim Parker, the applicant and developer, addressed the
board. He said this has been large, complicated project that began several years ago. He said he has worked
with town staff throughout this process. He summarized his justifications for each of the waiver requests:
Regarding the first waiver, which is about keeping four parking spaces at Sinclair Station that had been
approved for removal, Jim Parker said the developer had self-imposed removal of those four spaces to lower
the amount of impervious surface. Toward the end of the project, the developer decided it would be nice to
keep the four spaces because they were existing. Parker assured the boards that calculations indicate the
stormwater controls can handle the additional impervious space. He said a waiver had been granted for
landscaping the buffer between the condominiums and the single-family homes, but the four spaces do not
cover the entire property to the west or north. The island was proposed by the developer to remove some
pavement. Now the developer proposes meeting the buffer requirement by placing a 6-foot opaque fence
along the boundary. A partial 4-foot fence is in place now as part of a former project at the Sinclair Station
intended to screen the parking.
Regarding Waiver 2, the developer is proposing to not plant a shade tree in the landscaped island because
four or five large crepe myrtles are planted along the buffer.
Regarding Waiver 3, the developer is asking to not build a landscaped island because the developer prefers to
keep the four parking spaces.
Regarding Waiver 4, the developer is proposing a 6-foot fence instead of a 4-foot fence.
Regarding Waiver 5 about minimum light levels, Parker said the developer is meeting the half-foot candle
requirement on the interior walkways other than at the handicamp ramp in front and intends to add
additional lighting there.
Regarding Waiver 6 about the light intensities not to exceed 15 foot-candles, he said the more intense lighting
is under the porte cochere and at the dumpster. He said the light at the dumpster has been shielded.
Regarding Waiver 7, Parker said there is no light trespassing off the property that is more than 0.2 foot
candles, so the waiver is not needed.
Regarding Waiver 8, Parker said the water meters, the backflow preventers and the transformer were always
indicated to be located in front of the building on the plans that were reviewed by the Technical Review
Committee and the Historic District Commission. Parker said the backflow preventers were shifted more to
the center of the building because there was a fire hydrant that staff wanted added in the right of way. The
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 7 of 12
location of these utilities made connecting the water cause little impact to surrounding neighbors. Parker said
staff requires hot boxes to be located in the right of way and to be located above grade. They can be put in
vaults, but the Town of Hillsborough does not allow backflow preventers to be in a vault. Parker said
landscaping cannot be planted in front of the meter because it is in the right of way. He said the transformer
has always been indicated on plans to be located in front of the building a little bit more to the north. When
installing the base or pad, Duke Energy said the transformer could not be located in a slightly different area
than its current location because the grade would be too low. Parker said he has a notarized statement from
the Duke Energy person who was on site when the location was determined. He said that Allen Knight owned
the land and was the development attendant and that Knight had no choice about locations when it was time
to install the utilities. Parker said it was not the development team’s thought to just place utilities and not say
anything. He said the utility boxes are located within 15 to 20 feet of where they were planned on all the
plans from the beginning.
Regarding Waiver 9, Parker said five street trees were required. One was a pecan on the southeast corner at
the driveway. During installation of stormwater outlets, the root system of the tree was damaged and the
tree will die from that damage. An arborist recommended removal of the tree. The developer would like to
plant another street tree similar to the other five or make a payment in lieu.
Regarding Waiver 10, Parker said regarding the translucent decal signage on the doors, there are two sets of
double doors. Parker’s reasoning for this waiver is that each of the four doors has a decal and none of them
faces the right of way.
When asked, Parker explained that the Technical Review Committee is a group of town, county and utility
company technical staff reviewing the plans.
Mike Parker, attorney with the applicant, addressed the board. He said that because this is a quasi-judicial
public hearing, he wanted to be sure the affidavit was submitted as part of the record. Also, he wants to make
sure that testimony given on this hearing item is relevant.
Barker asked for audience comments.
Kim Richardson was sworn in and addressed the board. Richardson said she sent a list of concerns to Summit
Design and Engineering, which is the company that employs Jim Parker, and to the owner of the property
before the condominiums were built. Light and noise were some of her concerns. Her property is one over
from the house that borders this property to the west. She received two emails from David Cates, who was
working for Summit at that time. She read that emails, which indicated that the developer would remove the
four parking spaces on the western border and provide more landscaping. Richardson said Cates’ explanations
for eliminating the four spaces do not match Parker’s explanation. All the neighbors opposed the 515 North
project, Richardson said. Summit met with neighbors several times. She said Summit promised the landscaped
island. The lights and parking area are an eyesore. The four spaces existed prior to the building, but other
spaces were built specifically for this project. She also said one of her neighbors could attest that there is a lot
of trash along the western border. Summit has installed a large landscaped border to the south of the
property but nothing to the north. She thinks a similar border should be planted to the north. Also, the wood
fence Summit is proposing will deteriorate in a few years, she said. Richardson said the developer should
remove the four spaces it offered to remove to get the project approved. She added that the developer could
gain at least two more spaces by using the former dumpster area at Sinclair Station. She said she doesn’t feel
quite as strongly about the other waivers requested. However, she said granting waivers sends a message to
this developer and others that they can do what they want, then ask for a waiver and the town will grant it.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 8 of 12
Alex Marsh was sworn in. Marsh said she agrees with Richardson. Her house is next to the development. The
development is a bit of an eyesore. She said she tried to sell her bordering house from July through February;
and although many people booked a showing, about half did not come inside the house. Several potential
buyers noted that the neighboring development was off-putting. She said she did not even receive a low-ball
offer. Marsh said the parking at the Sinclair Station is now used at night for residents. She would like to see
the border installed that was part of the original plan. She also would like the proposed 6-foot fence to be
extended to include her property if landscaping is omitted.
Sherry Appel, who lives at 115 W. Orange St., was sworn in. Appel said she has a significant view of the
property. She shared a photo taken from her property of the parking lot lighting at night. She said the
cumulative effect of all the lights should be considered. She does not want to see additional lighting.
Regarding the parking, she and other neighbors met with the developer at the Sinclair Station before the
condominiums were built and the developer said the four parking spaces would be replaced with a
landscaped island. Neighbors were concerned about impervious surface and runoff. She said regarding the
tree, it should be replaced somewhere on the property because the edifice of the structure is so
overwhelming. Any additional impervious surface is going to create more stormwater problems for two or
three neighboring properties, Appel said. A fence does not create a true buffer. She would like something that
holds the soil and blocks the light and edifice. Appel said the trees that have been planted on the property
have not been correctly mulched, so she is not certain they will survive.
Candice Cobb, who owns 108 W. Orange St., was sworn in. She noted she has an adjoining property line and
serves on the Historic District Commission, so she has excused herself from the commission’s discussions of
this project. She said she has a stormwater runoff problem caused by this property. She said Cates had
assured her the stormwater problems would be improved, but the runoff has become more of a problem. She
does not want the board to grant the waivers.
Alan Appel, who lives at 115 W. Orange St., was sworn in. He referred to the photograph that his wife had
shared and asked Jim Parker whether there was any construction lighting left on site that would help explain
the brightness at night. Parker said no and the lighting that is there is to meet code. Appel said he does not
want more light required outdoors on site. Barker said the Planning Board is talking about revisions to the
town’s outdoor light standards, but future revisions would not apply to this project.
Mark Alexander, who lives at 110 W. Orange St., was sworn in. Alexander said the stormwater from the two
parking lots (for the condominiums and the Sinclair Station) drain into two drains, with an outlet on North
Churton Street and another outlet that discharges onto his property and Cobb’s property. He said he called
Jim Parker at some point about it and Parker had told him that when the project was complete, there
certainly would be no more water draining toward his property than there had been before the project was
built. Alexander said that has not yet happened. He thinks replacing four parking spots with green space
would help. Water has been diverted into this one spot, which has created a ditch along Cobb’s property, and
clay is being carried by the stormwater into the town sewer system, Alexander said.
Jim Parker said there was an outlet pipe in the basin or riprap dam. He said he told Alexander there would be
grass and a proposed gazebo, but he never said the pipe would be taken out. Parker said we have to design
stormwater measures in accordance with state rules and have to reduce the discharge flow of stormwater to
what it was before the project was built. Parker said that has been accomplished. Parker said he has been on
site several times in the past month and has looked at the drainage way; it was clean. He said there was
stormwater in it, but it had rained very hard. He said it looked good.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 9 of 12
Regarding lighting, Parker said the plans were approved and the lighting was installed to meet code. He said it
is a lot of light and it stands out. Code has to be met in the parking areas, on the sidewalks, and at the exit
doors to each unit. He would like it to be less lit, but the ordinance requires more than he prefers.
Parker said four parking spaces will not change the neighboring residents’ view of the parking lot. He would
be glad to build a 6-foot fence and extend it to include bordering Marsh’s property.
Regarding the email from Cates to Richardson, Parker said the island was placed in the approved plans at the
developer’s suggestion and was not originally a requirement. He said the island would not do anything to
block the view of two-thirds of the building. He said the homeowners association for the condos will make
sure litter is removed and will be required to maintain the landscaping. He said the comments about trash are
not fair because it is technically still a construction site.
Parker said the developer had held several meetings with the neighbors. As a result, the developer lowered
the building 3 to 5 feet and moved the building closer to North Churton Street. He added that he understands
the neighbors’ concerns and that if he lived in their houses, he would probably be saying the same things.
Regarding Marsh’s request to add fencing along the border of her property, Parker said he would be
amenable to adding the 6-foot fence in exchange for the four parking spaces.
Hauth answered questions from the audience about how the number of parking spaces required was
calculated and how the condominium shares parking spaces with Sinclair Station.
Randy Hall with Summit explained there are two places stormwater is directed. He explained that stormwater
cannot be released any more quickly than it was before the additional impervious surface was added. He said
Summit would take care of any offsite stormwater issues.
Alexander said that his understanding from Hillsborough Stormwater and Environmental Services Manager
Terry Hackett is that the terra system addresses the filtering of the stormwater but not the quantity.
Alexander said after 2 inches of rain, the system overflows. He said only a trickle of stormwater is being
directed to North Churton Street while the majority of the stormwater is being directed to the back of the
site. Hall said usually the Stormwater and Environmental Services Division contacts Summit if there is a
problem.
Planning Board Member Toby Vandemark raised concern that a wooden fence would deteriorate quickly. Jim
Parker said a fence made with pressure-treated wood that would be maintained by the homeowners
association could be installed in exchange for permission to keep four parking spaces. Vandemark was
reminded that the Historic District Commission would not permit a plastic fence.
Lloyd said the existing fence behind the Sinclair Station looks bad and she sympathizes with the speakers. She
reminded Jim Parker that she voted against the project. She asked Parker to do something to improve
conditions for the neighboring properties. She said she sympathizes with Marsh who stated she could not sell
her house.
Sykes asked about replacing the dead pecan tree. There was a suggestion to plant a border of evergreens to
replace the 24-inch diameter pecan tree. Hauth said she would want to see a plan from a landscape architect
that indicates the trees could be successful if planted in a border.
Planning Board Member Jeff Scott said he is an architect and the utility boxes located in front of the building
are not OK. He said the transformer is the first thing a driver sees when traveling toward the intersection of
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 10 of 12
North Churton Street and U.S. 70. Scott asked whether the town needs to amend ordinances to avoid this
situation in the future. Jim Parker said if the ordinance had required the transformer to be located in the back
of the building and the backflow preventers to be located in a vault, those utility boxes would not be where
they are.
Ferguson said she agrees with Lloyd.
Motion: Sykes moved to close the public hearing. Hughes seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
6. Annexation and zoning requests
A. MSAT LLC ― To annex 2.32 acres at 1990 N.C. 86 S. and zone the property High Intensity Commercial. The site
is developed with a retail sales and motor vehicle fuel station (Sheetz)
Hauth reviewed the request and noted James Gerhart, who works for Sheetz, was present to answer any
questions.
Hauth answered a question about a pump station by explaining that it is located on a neighboring parcel and
that there have been no talks of changing the town’s agreement with regard to the pump station.
Hazel Lunsford was sworn in and addressed the board. She said her home is located across N.C. 86 from this
property and she was concerned she would be annexed.
The town attorney explained that it is virtually impossible for a local government to annex property against
the property owner’s will. There’s no proposal to annex her property. It was also explained to Lunsford that
the property owner of Sheetz voluntarily requested annexation.
Motion: Sykes moved to close the public hearing. Hughes seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
B. Paliouras Enterprises LLC ― To annex approximately 25 acres in the southeast quadrant of the Interstate
85/N.C. 86 interchange and zone the property Entranceway Special Use. The applicant has submitted a master
plan to establish general parameters for future site development
Hauth said it is just a coincidence that this property owner is requesting annexation at the same time as the
owner of the neighboring Sheetz parcel. The property owner has submitted a basic master plan detailing uses
on the site, lot layout and a road network. Everything indicated is allowed in the district. The lots are a little
smaller than the district minimum. No additional driveways are proposed for N.C. 86. Each parcel would be
subject to the Special Use Permit. A plan without a lot of detail gives the town flexibility, Hauth said.
Tim Smith, a civil engineer with Summit Design and Engineering, addressed the board. Smith said businesses
are interested in relocating to this property. Specifically, a car dealership is interested. He said some
businesses only need a 1-acre lot, but some of the small lots may be changed to accommodate a business’s
needs. Smith said that the master plan concept includes a diverse mix of retail, high-quality architecture and
landscaping. He noted there is a wide power line easement along Interstate 85; therefore, the buffer
requirements might be difficult to meet. He said the request includes development standards and relief from
a 50% maximum limit on impervious surfaces.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 11 of 12
Hornik acknowledged that any mention of prospective occupants would not be binding. Ferguson asked Smith
if the property owner has considered businesses like pharma. Nick Paliouras said any business that is
interested is welcome.
Scott asked if the retention pond to the northwest was sized only to handle stormwater from Sheetz. Smith
said his firm would check whether there was any additional capacity and is also planning to install other
stormwater devices.
When asked, Hauth reminded the board that it cannot grant a waiver with a master plan.
There was brief discussion of where a proposed feeder road would connect with N.C. 10.
Motion: Vandemark moved to close the public hearing. Sykes seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
7. Text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance:
A. Section 3.14.12 to create standards for allowing occupancy of projects/sites when they are incomplete with
financial guarantees
Hauth reviewed that developers of apartments and townhouses can get temporary occupancy certificates
before a project is finished, but there have been requests for the town to issue similar temporary certificates
of occupancy for commercial projects. Before there is a commercial property owner urgently requesting this
flexibility, staff decided it would be a good idea to have language in the ordinance and guidance for staff on
when this flexibility could be allowed. She said the circumstances creating the delay in completing the project
have to be outside the applicant’s control. As phases are completed, the town would release most of the
bonded guarantee but would keep a small portion in case a buffer fails and additional landscaping needs to be
installed.
B. Section 5.2.43 and Section 6.18.7 to remove mention of changeable message signs from restaurant standards
and add a general restriction on changeable message signs that applies to all uses
Hauth reviewed that changeable message signs became attached in the ordinance to restaurants only. This
would also clarify that LED and video boards are prohibited, too. It does not apply to menus or sandwich
boards.
C. Section 6.11.6 and Section 6.18.9.5 to add language allowing low intensity string lights or fixtures in certain
circumstances and update the limitation of lighting signs to allow for this lighting use
Hauth said there have been a number of requests for low-intensity string lights for vibrancy and night activity.
D. Section 6.18.7 and Section 9.2 to establish a general restriction on off-premise signage and change the
definition of "sign, outdoor advertising" to "sign, off-premise"
Hauth said off-premise signs have traditionally been prohibited and were accidentally omitted. This
amendment would correct that omission.
E. Section 9.2 to add a definition for "restaurant, convenience" delete doctor and dental offices from the
definition of "personal service business" update "sign, neon" to "sign, illuminated tubing" and remove
definitions for three defined sign types that are not regulated in the ordinance
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 12 of 12
Hauth reviewed the proposed changes.
Mo
8. Close public hearing
Motion: Frazier moved to close the public hearing on the text amendments. Vandemark seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
9. Adjournment
Motion: Barker moved to adjourn at 10:31 p.m.
Vote: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Hauth
Secretary