HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-09-20 Agenda Regular MeetingHuman Resources Director/Town Clerk Katherine Cathey
101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278
919-296-9441 | katherine.cathey@hillsboroughnc.gov
www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov
Board of Commissioners Agenda | 1 of 2
Agenda
Board of Commissioners
7 p.m. March 9, 2020
Town Hall Annex Board Meeting Room, 105 E. Corbin St.
Compliance with the American with Disabilities Act interpreter services and/or special sound equipment is
available on request. If you are disabled and need assistance with reasonable accommodations, call the Town
Clerk’s Office at 919-296-9441.
Please use the bookmark feature to navigate and view the item attachments.
1.Public charge
The Hillsborough Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Hillsborough its respect. The board asks
citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner with the board and with fellow citizens. At
any time should any member of the board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the mayor or the
mayor’s designee will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal
control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the mayor or the mayor’s designee will recess the meeting until
such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed.
2.Audience comments not related to the printed agenda
3.Agenda changes and approval
4.Public hearing
A.Public hearing to solicit public comment on Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) financing for
Eno River Academy to acquire ownership of their school campus
5.Appointments
A.Tourism Board – Appoint Cathleen Turner (Alliance Seat)
6.Items for decision — consent agenda
A.Minutes
1.Joint public hearing Jan. 16, 2020
2.Regular meeting Feb. 10, 2020
3.Work session Feb. 24, 2020
B.Miscellaneous budget amendments and transfers
C.Petition from P.M. Dubbeling requesting an amendment to the Water and Sewer Management, Planning
and Boundary Agreement to allow water service to property on Bayberry Drive in Chapel Hill
D.Consistency statement and ordinance amending Sections 5 and Section 6 of the UDO to establish
standards and requirements for attached dwellings in the Central Commercial district
E.Consistency statement and ordinance amending Section 6.5 of the UDO to modify and clarify land use
buffer requirements
F.Encroachment Agreement at 102-106 W. Union St. for mailboxes at newly constructed condominiums
Board of Commissioners Agenda | 2 of 2
G. Encroachment Agreement for three bus shelters at Faucette Mill/Cornelius Street, N. Churton Street at
Hillsborough Police Department, and Hwy 86 at Hampton Point
H. Construction Contract with Smith-Rowe, LLC to perform the West Fork Eno Reservoir Road Improvements
Project
I. Delinquent food and beverage penalties due from Beau Catering, Hot Tin Roof and Tacos Los Altos
J. Public Access Channel and Operations Contract
7. Items for decision — regular agenda
A. Ordinance annexing 313 Odie Street
B. Resolution amending the Hillsborough Future Land Use Plan and Map as requested by the neighborhood
bounded by West King Street, West Hill Avenue South, the railroad, and the western city limits
C. Resolution modifying the Special Use Permit for Hampton Pointe Shopping Center to develop an outparcel
at 623 Hampton Pointe Blvd
D. Resolution in Support of City of Durham Teer Quarry Project
E. Noise ordinance discussion continuation
F. Town Logo/Branding Refresh Project
G. Letter of interest from Habitat for Humanity related to an annexation inquiry for a parcel immediately
east of the Meadowlands
H. Preparations for State of the Town Address
8. Updates
A. Board members
B. Town manager
C. Staff (written departmental reports are included in the agenda packet)
9. Adjournment
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 9, 2020
Department: Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
4.A
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Public hearing to solicit public comment on Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) financing for Eno River
Academy to acquire ownership of their school campus
Attachment(s):
1. Request
2. Map
3. Draft resolution
Brief Summary:
The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) provides a funding mechanism for non-profits to acquire
properties. It requires a public hearing and authorizing resolution from the local government where the property is
located. We received this request from a law firm assisting Eno River Academy.
Action Requested:
Conduct public hearing and vote to approve the resolution if so inclined.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
Board members may remember the request in 2018 to call a similar hearing to authorize a bond sale to allow new
ownership of Gateway Village apartments. We have received the attached request from a law firm assisting the Eno
River Academy to purchase their campus on NC 57. The funding source is the same and requires the same hearing
and authorization from the town board. The town has no obligation related to the bond debt.
Financial Impacts:
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
From:Bennett, Reed L.
To:Egan, Andrew D.; Margaret Hauth
Cc:Lisa Bair; David R. Hostetler, Esq.; Paul Jasin (paul@spfmuni.com); Lowry, Jacob S.; Potente, Joe
Subject:RE: Eno River Charter Academy
Date:Tuesday, February 11, 2020 5:20:32 PM
Attachments:Local TEFRA Notice for the Town of Hillsborough, North Carolina - Eno River Academy (NC), PFA 2020.docx
Local TEFRA Approval Resolution for the Town of Hillsborough, North Carolina - Eno River Academy (NC), PFA
2020.doc
Margaret,
I apologize for the delay, but attached are the latest drafts of the local TEFRA Documents for Eno
River Academy (Notice and Approval Resolution). Please review the attached and let us know of any
comments or questions.
We would like to get the attached TEFRA Notice for Eno River published during the last week in
February (ideally February 26th or 27th), so your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly
appreciated.
Thank you again for your help!
Thanks,
Reed Bennett
Reed L. Bennett | Attorney | Kutak Rock LLP
303 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2750, Atlanta, GA 30308-3201
D (404) 222-4691 | O (404) 222-4600
reed.bennett@KutakRock.com |
From: Egan, Andrew D.
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:52 AM
To: Margaret Hauth <Margaret.Hauth@hillsboroughnc.gov>
Cc: Lisa Bair <lbair@enoriveracademy.org>; David R. Hostetler, Esq. <hos@hoslaw.com>; Paul Jasin
(paul@spfmuni.com) <paul@spfmuni.com>; Lowry, Jacob S. <Jacob.Lowry@KutakRock.com>;
Bennett, Reed L. <Reed.Bennett@KutakRock.com>
Subject: RE: Eno River Charter Academy
Margaret, just wanted to circle back. We will have you drafts of the notice and resolution later
today. We are confirming one item with the newspaper. I am copying a few other folks from our
finance team, just FYI, including Lisa Bair from the school. Thanks again for chatting last week and
we will follow up shortly with the documentation
Take care,
Andrew
Andrew D. Egan
Partner
Kutak Rock LLP
303 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2750
Atlanta, GA 30308
andrew.egan@kutakrock.com
p: 404.222.4688 f: 404.222.4654
From: Margaret Hauth <Margaret.Hauth@hillsboroughnc.gov>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 2:46 PM
To: Egan, Andrew D. <Andrew.Egan@KutakRock.com>
Subject: RE: Eno River Charter Academy
Andrew,
Thanks for calling! I’ll be happy to help as things move forward.
Thanks for passing my greeting along to Michelle.
Margaret
Margaret A. Hauth, AICP
Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager
919.296.9471
Margaret.hauth@hillsboroughnc.gov
Pursuant to NCGC Chapter 132, Public Records, this electronic mail message and any attachments hereto, as well as
any electronic mail message(s) that may be sent in response to it ‘may’ be considered public record and as such are
subject to request and review by anyone at any time.
From: Egan, Andrew D. <Andrew.Egan@KutakRock.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 1:28 PM
To: Margaret Hauth <Margaret.Hauth@hillsboroughnc.gov>
Subject: Eno River Charter Academy
Margaret, thanks for chatting earlier. I will be in touch shortly with the TEFRA materials similar to
what were done for the Gateway Village transaction. I told Michelle you said hello and we all
laughed. Take care and talk soon!
Andrew
Andrew D. Egan
Partner
Kutak Rock LLP
303 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2750
Atlanta, GA 30308
andrew.egan@kutakrock.com
p: 404.222.4688 f: 404.222.4654
This E-mail message is confidential, is intended only for the named recipients above and may contain
information that is privileged, attorney work product or otherwise protected by applicable law. If
you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at 402-346-6000 and delete this E-
mail message. Thank you.
Ora nge C oun ty
Feb rua ry 18 , 20 20
0 0.0 8 0.160.04 mi
0 0.1 0.20.0 5 km
1:4,80 0
987 50 704 16PIN:HI LL S BOR OU GH C H ARTER L LCOWNER 1 :
W/S N C 5 7 P11 5/16 3LEGAL DESC :
613 0/28 1DEED REF:
2
BL DG _VAL UE:
$1,46 8,00 0LAND VALU E:
$0USE VAL U E:$9,42 9,30 0TOTAL VAL UE:
34.34 ASIZE:BU ILDING C OU N T:
$7,96 1,30 0OWNER 2 :
AD DRESS 1:
AD DRESS 2:
432 1 MED IC AL PAR K DR
ST E 1 00
CI TY:DU RH AM
STAT E, ZI P:NC 277 04
RATEC OD E:23
DATE SOL D:5/31/2 016
BL DG SQ FT:659 68
YEAR BU ILT:201 6
This map con tain s parc els prepa red fo r t he inv ent ory o f real prop ert y w ithi n O range C ounty, an d i s co mp iled fr om reco rded dee d, plat s, and other pub lic record s and dat a. U se rs of this ma p a re h ereby notifie d t hat the af ore me ntio nedpublic primary in formation s ourc es sho uld be co nsu lted f or ve rifi cat ion of the information c ontained on t his map. The cou nty and its mapping c ompan ies ass ume n o le gal respons ibili ty for t he info rma tio n o n this map .
4840-4265-8739.3
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY OF ITS CHARTER SCHOOL REVENUE BONDS (ENO RIVER
ACADEMY PROJECT), SERIES 2020 IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $23,000,000
WHEREAS, Eno River Academy Holdings, Inc. (the “Borrower”), a North Carolina non-profit
corporation, has requested that the Public Finance Authority, a public authority existing under the laws of
the State of Wisconsin (the “Authority”), issue its Charter School Revenue Bonds (Eno River Academy
Project), Series 2020, in one or more series (the “Bonds”), in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$23,000,000, and loan the proceeds thereof to the Borrower, for the following purposes of, among other
things: (a) financing the acquisition of existing educational facilities located at 1100 and 1212 NC Highway
57 North, Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278, consisting of multiple buildings, athletic fields and related
facilities and improvements on an approximately 35-acre campus (collectively, the “Facility”); (b) funding
certain capital improvements to the Facility; (c) funding any required reserve funds for the Bonds; and (d)
paying certain costs of issuing of the Bonds (collectively, the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Facility will be owned by the Borrower and leased to A Public School of Choice,
Inc., d/b/a “Eno River Academy” (the “School”), a North Carolina nonprofit corporation and an
organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
“Code”), for use and operation as a public charter school; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, prior to their issuance, the Bonds are required
to be approved by the “applicable elected representative” of a governmental unit having jurisdiction over
the area in which the Project is or will be located, after a public hearing held following reasonable public
notice; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to laws under which the Authority was formed, prior to their issuance, bonds
issued by the Authority must be approved by the governing body or highest ranking executive or
administrator of the political jurisdiction within whose boundaries the Project is or will be located; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners (the “Board”) of the Town of Hillsborough, North
Carolina (the “Town”) is the “applicable elected representative” of the Town under the Code for the Project
located within the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested that the Board approve the Authority's issuance of the
Bonds and the financing and refinancing of the Project located within the Town in order to satisfy the
requirements of Section 147(f) of the Code; and
WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested that the Board approve the financing and refinancing of
the Project and the issuance of the Bonds in order to satisfy the requirements of Section 4 of the Amended
and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the Public Finance Authority, dated as of
September 28, 2010 (the “Joint Exercise Agreement”), and Section 66.0304(11)(a) of the Wisconsin
Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the notice of a public hearing regarding the issuance of the Bonds was published on
February [___], 2020, in The Durham Herald-Sun, a newspaper of general circulation in Orange County,
North Carolina where the Town is located; and
WHEREAS, the Board has this day held a public hearing regarding the Authority’s issuance of the
Bonds and the financing and refinancing of the Project, as evidenced by the Certificate and Summary of
Public Hearing attached hereto as Exhibit A, and now desires to approve the Authority’s issuance of the
Bonds and the financing and refinancing of the Project in accordance with the Code; and
4840-4265-8739.3
WHEREAS, the Bonds shall not be deemed to constitute a debt of the Town or a pledge of the
faith and credit of the Town, but shall be special limited obligations of the Authority payable solely from
the loan repayments to be made by the Borrower to the Authority, and shall contain on the face thereof a
statement to the effect that the Town has no liability whatsoever for the repayment of the Bonds, and that
neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Town is pledged to the payment of the principal of
or interest on the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that approval of the issuance of the Bonds is to satisfy the
requirements of the Code and of the Authority, and shall in no event constitute an endorsement of the Bonds,
the Project or the creditworthiness of the Borrower, nor shall such approval in any event be construed to
obligate the Town for the payment of the principal of or premium or interest on the Bonds or for the
performance of any pledge, mortgage or obligation or agreement of any kind whatsoever which may be
undertaken by the Authority, or to constitute the Bonds or any of the agreements or obligations of the
Authority an indebtedness of the Town, within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory provision
whatsoever.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Hillsborough, as follows:
Section 1. The Board hereby approves the Authority's issuance of the Bonds in an aggregate
principal amount not to exceed $23,000,000 and the financing or refinancing of the Project.
Section 2. The Town has no responsibility for the payment of the principal of or interest on
the Bonds or for any costs incurred by the Borrower with respect to the Bonds or the Project, and the Bonds
do not constitute a debt or pledge of the faith and credit of the Town. The approval of the issuance of the
Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness
of the Borrower or the School, the feasibility of the Project or the credit quality of the Bonds.
Section 3. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds contained in this resolution is
independent of any other approval or approvals by the Board that may be required in connection with the
Project (the “Additional Approvals”), and nothing contained in this resolution shall be construed to imply
that any such Additional Approvals will be granted or to bind the Town in any way with respect to any
Additional Approvals.
Section 4. This resolution is effective immediately upon its adoption.
Adopted this ___ day of March, 2020.
By:
Name:
Title:
ATTEST:
Name:
Title:
4840-4265-8739.3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ss:
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
I, Katherine Cathey, Town Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Hillsborough,
North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of so much of the
proceedings of the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Hillsborough, North Carolina, at a regular
meeting, which was duly called and assembled, held on March 9, 2020, , as it relates to the adoption of a
resolution entitled “RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY OF ITS CHARTER SCHOOL REVENUE BONDS (ENO RIVER ACADEMY
PROJECT) SERIES 2020 IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$23,000,000” and the holding of a public hearing related thereto, and that said proceedings will be recorded
in the minutes of the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Hillsborough, North Carolina.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Town of Hillsborough, North Carolina, this the ___ day of
March, 2020.
___________________________________
Katherine Cathey
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
Town of Hillsborough, North Carolina
(SEAL)
4840-4265-8739.3
EXHIBIT A
Certificate and Summary
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Hillsborough, North
Carolina, hereby certifies:
1. Notice of a public hearing (the “Hearing”) to be held on March 9, 2020, with respect to the
issuance of Bonds by the Public Finance Authority (the “Authority”) for the benefit of Eno River Academy
Holdings, Inc., was published on February [___], 2020, in The Durham Herald-Sun. A copy of the Affidavit
of Publication of such notice is attached hereto.
2. The presiding officer of the Hearing was ________________.
3. The following is a list of the names and addresses of all persons who spoke at the Hearing:
4. The following is a summary of the oral comments made at the Hearing:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, my hand and the seal of the Town of Hillsborough, this ___ day of
March, 2020.
____________________________________
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
Town of Hillsborough, North Carolina
[SEAL]
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 9, 2020
Department: Econ Dev/Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
5.A
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Economic Development Planner, Shannan Campbell
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Tourism Board - Appoint Cathleen Turner (Alliance Seat)
Attachment(s):
1.Tourism Board Application
Brief Summary:
At the Feb. 3, 2020 Tourism Board meeting, the Tourism Board considered the nomination from the Alliance for
Historic Hillsborough’s Board for the seat formerly occupied by Jeff Strickler. The Tourism Board interviewed Ms.
Turner and voted unanimously to appoint her to the vacant seat.
Action Requested:
Appoint Cathleen Turner as an Alliance for Historic Hillsborough representative on the Tourism Board with term
expiring 3/09/2022.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
None
Financial Impacts:
None
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
None
Advisory Board Application
If you are a Town of Hillsborough resident and willing to volunteer your time and expertise to your community, please
complete this form. Volunteers for the Parks and Recreation Board must be at least 13 years old, and volunteers for all
other boards must be at least 18 years old.
Name:
Cathleen Turner
Home address:
205 W. Margaret Lane
Home phone number:
919-417-7401
Work phone number:
919-401-8540
Email address:
catdturner@gmail.com
Place of employment:
Preservation NC
Job title:
Regional Director
Birth date:
Feb. 4, 1965
Gender:
Female
Ethnic origin:
Caucasian
Boards you would be willing to serve on:
First choice — Tourism Board
Reasons for wanting to serve:
I was involved in the development of the tourism program in Hillsborough early on including the implementation of the
grants program along with several programs and events that continue to be enjoyed. I support the evolution of programs
so that they may continue to be relevant to our community and the needs and interests of visitors. I will be representing
the AHH on the board. I also serve on the Arts Council.
Have you served or are you currently serving on a town board? If so, which ones and when?
I have served on the Historic District Commission, the Parks and Rec Board, Occaneechee Mountain Park Committee,
and several small area planning task forces including Churton Street Improvement Plan, the Downtown Improvement
Plan, and Vision 2020.
Relevant work, volunteer or educational experience:
I work with communities across the state to develop sustainable economic development programs primarily through the
preservation and rehabilitation of historic and underutilized properties. In my capacity as the first Executive Director of
the Alliance for Historic Hillsborough, I assisted in the development of the Town's tourism program including
revitalization of the downtown commercial district, renewing funding and tourism programming at local public historic
sites, creating or assisting with the development of events and programs attractive to visitors and residents,
development of the visitors center and marketing program, etc.
How are you connected to Hillsborough (live, work, play, shop, own property)?
I have lived in Hillsborough since 1994 and own a home in the Historic District (just around the corner from the
Colonial Inn).
Have you reviewed the Vision 2030 plan, and what are your thoughts about it?
I have read the Vision 2030 Plan and think it is a concise yet comprehensive, community-centered, document that
focuses on preserving and sustaining the best of Hillsborough while recognizing areas of improvement and how best to
embrace change.
Have you reviewed other town documents (budget, strategy map, small area plans), and what are your thoughts
about them?
Some.
What challenges do you see the town facing that could be addressed by the board or boards on which you wish
to serve?
It is paramount that we remain mindful of what attracts visitors and residents to Hillsborough. Unlike other
communities our size, we are fortunate to have a funding source that can support (and launch) a broad array of sites and
programs that make our community a great place to visit and live.
How you heard about this opportunity:
Current volunteer
Agreement:
3 I have been advised that I am committing to attend the volunteer board's regular meetings. Attendance at the regular
meetings shall be considered a prerequisite for maintaining membership on the board. The Board of Commissioners
may declare a vacancy on the board because of non-attendance.
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 9, 2020
Department: Administration
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
6.A
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Cathey, Human Resources Director/Town Clerk
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Minutes
Attachment(s):
1. Joint public hearing Jan. 16, 2020
2. Regular meeting Feb. 10, 2020
3. Work session Feb. 24, 2020
Brief Summary:
None
Action Requested:
Approve minutes of the Board of Commissioners regular meeting Feb. 10, 2020 and the Board of Commissioners
work session Feb. 24, 2020.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
None
Financial Impacts:
None
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
Approve minutes as presented.
Assistant 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 6
Minutes
Joint Public Hearing
Planning Board and Board of Commissioners
7 p.m. Jan. 16, 2020
Town Hall Annex Board Meeting Room, 105 E. Corbin St.
Present:
Board of Commissioners — Mayor Jenn Weaver and commissioners, Robb English, Kathleen Ferguson and Evelyn
Lloyd
Planning Board — Chair Dan Barker, Oliver Child-Lanning, Lisa Frazier, Chris Johnston, Alyse Polly, Jeff Scott and
Jenn Sykes
Staff — Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Hornik and Public Information Specialist Cheryl
Sadgrove
1. Call to order and confirmation of quorum
Mayor Jenn Weaver called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
2. Agenda changes and approval
Planning Director Margaret Hauth said that business owners in Daniel Boone Square had asked that Item 7B
be continued until the April public hearing because they are unable to attend this evening. Hauth said staff
has not had much opportunity to engage with the Hillsborough/Orange County Chamber of Commerce to
invite business owners to speak about electronic message signs at this hearing.
3. Opening of the public hearing
Planning Board Chair Dan Barker opened the public hearing.
4. Annexation request:
A. A request from Dante Bowman to annex 0.23 acres at 313 Odie St. The parcel is presently zoned Residential-
10, and no zoning change is proposed.
Hauth reviewed the request. No one wished to speak about this item.
Motion: Planning Board Member Jenn Sykes moved to close the public hearing on this item. Commissioner
Kathleen Ferguson seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
5. Future Land Use Plan amendment
A. Amendment to the description of the Small Lot Residential designation to remove Residential-10 as an
expected zoning classification and amendment to the map to change the designation of the area bounded by
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 2 of 6
West King Street, West Hill Avenue South, the railroad, and the western city limits from Urban Neighborhood
to Small Lot Residential
Hauth reviewed the amendments, which were requested by residents of the affected area. She noted that the
agenda packet contained two emails expressing general support for the amendment and that two others
contained questions and all emails would be included in the next meeting packets.
Barker noted that there have been two rezoning requests in this area in the last year or so.
Sykes said she wanted someone to state for the record the sale price of the resulting subdivided smaller lots.
Sykes said one new house on a recently subdivided lot in this area is for sale for $495,000. She provided the
listing to staff to share with all members.
Upon Weaver’s request, Hauth quickly reviewed that if a lot is zoned Residential-15 and is at least 30,000
square feet, a duplex can be built on it. If a lot is at least 40,000 square feet, four attached houses can be built
on it. She said the amendments would have no impact on accessory dwelling units.
Hauth reviewed that the applicants for these amendments are residents Arlo Brown and Chris Richmond.
Arlo Brown, who lives on Murray Street in the impacted area, addressed the board. He said he has spoken
against subdividing lots by rezoning from Residential-15 to Residential-10 in this area. He said the first
recently subdivided smaller lot with a new house was listed for $415,000 and sold for $410,000. The next new
house on a smaller parcel is listed for sale at $495,000. He said that such subdivision of lots does not lead to
more affordable housing and that increasing a developer’s profit is not a good reason to allow rezoning to
Residential-10. He pointed out that the amendments would put this land in line with a neighboring area that
includes Rex Drive. Brown has spoken with a lot of people in his neighborhood and believes there is fairly
broad support for the amendments. He pointed out that the amendments do not prohibit a change in zoning
to increase density later.
Planning Board Member Chris Johnston asked Brown what he thought would be a good reason for allowing a
lot to be subdivided into 10,000-square-foot lots.
Brown answered that good reasons would include: affordable housing, green building, and making room for a
family member to have an adjacent home. He said increasing a developer’s profits is not a good reason.
Chris Richmond addressed the board. He canvassed the neighborhood three afternoons the previous week.
He believes he knocked on all 88 doors in the neighborhood. He likes the neighborhood the way it is. He does
not want Residential-10 to be an expected density. He said that 58 people signed the petition he created in
support of the amendments and that not everyone was home when he knocked on doors to ask for
signatures. He believes even more residents are in support. For instance, Brown had not signed his petition.
He said seven people declined to sign the petition. Two were hard no’s. The other five either said they did not
like signing petitions or wanted to come to the meeting first. Richmond said the frequent rezoning from
Residential-15 to Residential-10 was only creating more density and higher home prices. He left a copy of the
petition for the record. Barker asked for the map as well.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 3 of 6
Lloyd commended Richmond for putting a lot of time into talking with his neighbors and getting the petition
signed.
Rick Leone addressed the board. He lives to the east of the impacted area. He said Residential-10 zoning is
more common where he lives. Over the last two years, he has attended neighborhood meetings and his
impression is that his neighbors do not mind having Residential-10 zoning and respect the wishes of this
impacted area to maintain Residential-15 zoning. He believes changing the amendments would help drive
more development and density in his neighborhood. Leone said at a previous meeting he heard the question:
“Is it appropriate to make a density change because the neighborhood requests it, knowing other
neighborhoods may want it as well?” Leone believes this processing of receiving an application from a
neighborhood and hearing from the neighborhood is appropriate. If another neighborhood has the same issue
and meets and comes to consensus, then those neighbors can come to the board. Leone does not think this
area can truly sustain Residential-10 development. He added that the Future Land Use Plan can always change
in 10 or 20 years.
Barker asked for only those with a new opinion or new information to speak.
Lucy Wilson said she thought it mattered that each resident express an opinion at the hearing.
Weaver suggested that residents in agreement with Brown and Richmond say that they are in agreement.
Wilson said she agrees with Brown and Richmond.
Zach McKinley on Riley Street said he does not have a strong opinion. He is a homebuilder. He asked some
questions about the implications of the amendments.
Hauth answered that if the amendments are approved and someone wanted to file a request for Residential-
10 zoning, then the applicant would have to bring a more robust application before this board. If neighbors
came out to say they were against the rezoning, then it would be easier than it is now for the board to say no.
There were two applications last year about which the neighbors were concerned, but the board members did
not feel they had enough information to deny the rezoning requests because the Future Land Use Plan
designates this area as Residential-10. The amendments would strengthen the board’s ability to say no. Hauth
added that although other neighborhoods could request a similar zoning change, it is generally difficult to get
most neighbors in agreement as the applicants have done in this neighborhood.
Weaver said part of good government is to help the people know what to expect in different parts of town. In
theory, the board should not just willy-nilly go for or against anything. The Future Land Use Plan is not a hard
commitment but a philosophical commitment.
Dara Lane, of 122 Murray St., addressed the board. She said she has rented a house in Hillsborough for three
years and is concerned that the recent subdivision of lots is increasing home prices so much that she will
never be able to afford to buy a house here.
Barker asked for a show of hands of those in support of the amendments. He counted 30-40 hands.
Barker asked for a show of hands of those against the amendments. There was none.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 4 of 6
Motion: Sykes moved to close the public hearing for this item. Ferguson seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
6. Special Use Permit request
A. Request from Mavis Tire to modify the original shopping center Special Use Permit to develop an outparcel at
623 Hampton Pointe Blvd.
Hauth reviewed that this outparcel is located in front of The Home Depot. She noted that the site plan was
reversed in the packet and that those who wished to speak on this item needed to be sworn in.
Hauth was sworn in.
Will Swearingen and Wyatt Bone were sworn in.
Swearingen, with Bohler Engineering, addressed the board. He reviewed that the request is for a modification
to the Special Use Permit and for three waivers. He also reviewed the project narrative.
Waiver 1
Waiver 1 is regarding Subsection 6.10.3.7, which states that a 5-foot landscaped area be installed between
the building and the parking lot.
Swearingen said the applicant is requesting the waiver because there are site constraints prohibiting the
parking lot from being pushed far enough away from the building to create the 5-foot landscaped area and
build a sidewalk. Also, adding this landscaping strip would shift the proposed drive aisle so that it would not
line up with the existing drive aisle for The Home Depot.
Waiver 2
Waiver 2 is regarding Subsection 6.10.3.8, which states that the parking lot should have a minimum 10-foot
setback area.
Swearingen said the applicant needs the waiver because there is an existing parking aisle along the southern
property line.
Hauth added that the applicant would have to change the drive aisle on someone else’s property to meet the
requirement.
Waiver 3
Waiver 3 is regarding Subsection 6.13.9.10, which states that a waiver is required if the applicant wishes to
have more spaces than allowed under the minimum parking standards.
Swearingen said the site already has 38 spaces and the plan is to reduce that number to 28.
Barker asked if the spaces are only proposed to be reduced to 28 because that is the cheapest option.
Swearingen said no, 28 spaces are proposed because that is what Mavis Tire needs.
Barker asked what the applicant would do if this waiver was not granted. Swearingen answered that the
applicant would further reduce the number of parking spaces to comply.
Barker and Planning Board Member Alyse Polly expressed an interest in reducing the number of parking
spaces and increasing the amount of grass or landscaping.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 5 of 6
Swearingen said reducing the spaces to 28 makes the outparcel better than its current condition. Bone said
the bushes and trees that will be planted by the applicant once the building is built will further improve the lot
from its existing condition.
Planning Board Member Jeff Scott asked whether there is an agreement to build a concrete pad for the
dumpster across the property line. Bone said the agreement is in process and will be in place soon.
No one in the audience wished to speak about this item.
Motion: Ferguson moved to close the public hearing for this item. Sykes seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
7. Text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance
A. Section 5 and Section 6 — Establish standards and requirements for attached dwellings in the Central
Commercial district
Hauth reviewed that the town had received an application from local property owners interested in building
attached housing in the Central Commercial zone. She said the problem is that although Subsection 5.2.10.5 is
in the ordinance, the permitted use table does not indicate that attached dwellings are permittable in the
Central Commercial district. A single residential unit above commercial is allowed.
The request is to allow up to 19 dwelling units by right. The development of 20 or more units would require a
Special Use Permit.
Lloyd said she would like more details of what the property owners are planning. Hauth said these
amendments would apply everywhere so the discussion would stay at the conceptual level.
Sykes asked if someone with questions could email those questions to Hauth after this public hearing. The
town attorney answered yes.
Hauth reviewed that the Central Commercial district includes downtown Hillsborough, the West End and
town buildings but not the Orange County Detention Center and Orange County Justice Facility.
Jenn Truman with Matthew Konar Architect addressed the board. She said she and the architectural firm she
works for has been working with the property owners. There are similar projects in Sanford, Smithfield,
Raleigh and Durham. She summarized that the applicant was asking for the draft text amendments to enable
a project to move forward in Hillsborough. She said that everyone realizes there are significant differences
between converting an old building and building a new one. She said that typically when housing prices rise,
towns see the return of the historic typology of people living above commercial spaces. Allowing more than
one residential unit above commercial space should create less expensive residential units than only allowing
one.
Ferguson thinks the residential units above commercial would impact the types of commercial that would
occupy the first floor.
Truman said Hillsborough has a fairly vibrant retail, coffee shop and restaurant environment now. She thinks
adding residential to the mix supports what the town has. She said allowing residences above commercial
would enable a return to the historic character of people living and having eyes on the street in town. The
alternative use of the space upstairs is offices.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 6 of 6
Ferguson said she wants to know what Hillsborough wants to be as a town 50 to 60 years from now.
Johnston asked what is currently above the shops downtown. Hauth answered offices and artist galleries.
There are no elevators in the buildings, so the upstairs uses tend to be those with low foot traffic. She added
that about 20 of the 71 lots in the Central Commercial district have second stories. Johnston asked if allowing
attached residential units upstairs would decrease the overall amount of available commercial space. Hauth
said it could. It’s the tradeoff of residential instead of an artist gallery or radio station. Truman said the
applicant is in full support of having nonresidential use on the ground floor, even if the building is new. Barker
summarized that if the police station was redeveloped, it could have 16 apartments above some commercial.
When asked, Hauth said developers of such apartments would be required to provide 1.2 parking spaces per
unit. It would be difficult to fit in around 20 parking spaces. Truman added that there are also height
limitations.
Motion: Sykes moved to close the public hearing for this item. Ferguson seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
B. Section 6.18 — Allow electronic message signs in multi-tenant developments with 10 or more tenants
Motion: Johnston moved to continue the public hearing for this item to April 16. Sykes seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
C. Section 6.5 — Modify and clarify land use buffer requirements
Hauth said land use buffer requirements are often the subject of waiver requests. The modification and
clarification would enable a developer to choose to put more land in a buffer or to plant to a denser standard
in a narrower buffer. The drawings in the packet reflect different ways to meet the standard.
Barker wondered if there are cost differences between the options. Hauth answered that she had not priced
out the options.
Motion: Sykes moved to close the public hearing for this item. Ferguson seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
7. Close public hearing
Motion: Johnston moved to close the public hearing overall. Ferguson seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
8. Adjournment
Motion: Ferguson moved to adjourn at 8:35 p.m.
Vote: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Hauth
Secretary
Minutes
Board of Commissioners
7 p.m. Feb. 10, 2020
Town Hall Annex Board Meeting Room, 105 E. Corbin St.
Present: Mayor Jenn Weaver and commissioners Mark Bell, Robb English, Kathleen Ferguson, Matt
Hughes, and Evelyn Lloyd
Staff: Human Resources Director/Town Clerk Katherine Cathey, Assistant to the Town Manager/Deputy
Budget Director Jen Della Valle, Assistant Town Manager/Planning Director Margaret Hauth,
Public Works Director Ken Hines, Town Attorney Bob Hornik, Town Manager Eric Peterson, Public
Information Specialist Cheryl Sadgrove, Finance Director Daphna Schwartz and Utilities Director
Marie Strandwitz
Opening of the workshop
Mayor Jenn Weaver opened the workshop at 7:02 p.m.
1.Public Charge
Weaver called attention to the public charge.
2.Audience comments not related to the printed agenda
There was none.
3.Agenda changes and approval
Weaver noted the noise ordinance discussion would be delayed to a future meeting.
Motion: Commissioner Kathleen Ferguson moved approval of the amended agenda. Commissioner Mark
Bell seconded.
Vote: The motion carried upon a unanimous vote of 4-0.
4.Presentations
A.Review of Fiscal Year 2019 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and independent audit report
Finance Director Daphna Schwartz noted the report’s digital copy was in the agenda packet and hard copies
would be mailed. Schwartz introduced Veronica Butler, a senior associate at Dixon Hughes Goodman LLP.
Butler reviewed the audit report. She noted that the town’s audit had been issued an unmodified or clean
opinion on Jan. 10. The previous year’s report again received excellence in financial reporting. She reviewed a
handout with the board that summarized the audit report.
Town Manager Eric Peterson said the Hillsborough Financial Services Department was doing a phenomenal
job.
B.Annual report from the Partnership to End Homelessness and discussion of funding gapsDRAFT Feb. 10, 2020
Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting
Approved: ____________________
Page 1 of 5
Partnership to End Homelessness Coordinator Corey Root gave an overview of the partnership’s annual report
and funding gaps. She presented a request to phase in higher annual funding from Orange County and the
towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough over the next three years.
5. Items for decision — consent agenda
A. Minutes
1. Regular meeting Jan. 13, 2020
2. Work session Jan. 27, 2020
B. Miscellaneous budget amendments and transfers
C. City of Durham request to support additional withdrawal from the Eno under certain conditions
Motion: Commissioner Matt Hughes moved to approve the items on the consent agenda. Ferguson
seconded.
Vote: The motion carried upon a unanimous vote of 5-0.
6. Items for decision — regular agenda
A. Continuation of noise ordinance discussion
B. City of Durham Teer Quarry Watershed Protection Effort
Utilities Director Marie Strandwitz shared that the City of Durham is requesting the Town of Hillsborough’s
support of the city using Teer Quarry reservoir as a permanent water source. Durham’s changes to the quarry
would expand the watershed protection area. If approved by the state, it would obligate the town to place
approximately 30 homes in Hillsborough’s Forest Ridge neighborhood into a protected watershed zoning
district.
Planning Director Margaret Hauth shared maps of the affected area and noted that the homes in Forest Ridge
are already built, so they would be pre-existing if watershed protection regulations were put into place.
Sydney Miller, water resources manager for the City of Durham, introduced himself to the board. He did not
offer specifics about what the protection regulations would mean for affected homeowners. He said it would
take about two years for the watershed protection regulations to be put in place.
Michael Barrett, a Forest Ridge resident, said that this would affect his property. He asked whether he would
be permitted to rebuild his home if a tornado demolished it. No one offered answers. Another Forest Ridge
resident did not give his name but also expressed concern about how his property would be affected.
The board expressed general support for Durham using the quarry as a permanent water supply and decided
to not take formal action until it received more information on what the watershed protection regulations
would mean for affected property owners.
C. Proposed Water and Sewer Boundary Area adjustments
Hauth shared five possible adjustments to the water and sewer services boundary that she had been holding
until an amendment was planned for the interlocal agreement among the towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and
Hillsborough, Orange County and Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) regarding the boundary.
She reviewed the five options. The board then discussed them.
DRAFTFeb. 10, 2020
Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting
Approved: ____________________
Page 2 of 5
The first option was a staff proposal to remove an arm of service from the boundary area farthest to the east.
Bell asked how that might affect potential future development, acknowledging that the next item on the
agenda was a development proposal for this area. Hauth said it is not uncommon for people to have water
service and be outside the water and sewer boundary.
The second option was to remove from the boundary an area along St. Mary’s and Baldwin roads, outside the
Churton Grove neighborhood, that would be impacted by the proposed watershed protection area. The board
expressed approval for removing this area.
The third option was to adjust a boundary line on a parcel west of Old N.C. 86 south to Davis Road. The board
expressed agreement.
The fourth option was to amend the boundary to follow parcel lines east of Old N.C. 86 and south of
Waterstone Drive. This is a technical adjustment to snap two askew boundary lines together. The board
expressed approval.
The fifth option was to adjust the boundary to include an area east of N.C. 86, including Surety Storage and
Duke Forest land. Strandwitz added that it was not yet determined whether sewer lines in this area would
need a pumping station. Weaver noted the board was not expressing interest in this request.
D. Letter of interest in annexation regarding approximately 9 acres on U.S. 70-A East (east of Meadowlands)
Tim Smith with Summit Design and Engineering addressed the board. Smith discussed the letter of interest in
annexation he had sent to the board. He proposes to build 64 affordable townhomes near the Orange County
Sportsplex. The project would extend the sidewalk that was installed alongside the fieldhouse and field during
the recent expansion at the Sportsplex.
Smith said Orange County Habitat for Humanity is interested in the project. He noted that the parcel could be
affected by proposed changes to the water and sewer boundary agreement and requested to be
grandfathered in.
Board members noted that Habitat usually has a representative present at board meetings when discussing a
new project. Some members added that there would be less board interest if the proposed townhomes were
not part of an affordable housing project.
The town manager advised the board not to approve the project unless it is truly affordable. He also reminded
them to think of sewer capacity at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The Forest Ridge resident who did not identify himself for Item 6B said he would not want people walking
through his neighborhood or accessing the trail that connects to the Historic Occoneechee Speedway Trail
behind his neighborhood. The trail connector is on property owned by his homeowners association, he added.
Hauth clarified that all sidewalks in Forest Ridge will be public once the developer finishes building and
transfers ownership of the roads to the town. Board members expressed an expectation that the trails would
be public, too, and asked Hauth to check whether there is a record of a public access easement or agreement
for the trail on Forest Ridge property.
Board members requested communication from Orange County Habitat for Humanity that the organization is
interested in the project. It was suggested that Smith contact another organization such as CASA if Habitat is
not interested in the project. DRAFTFeb. 10, 2020
Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting
Approved: ____________________
Page 3 of 5
The board asked staff to prepare a financial analysis of the project and to confirm the participation of an
affordable housing partner.
E. Discussion of Unified Development Ordinance and process changes needed by January 2021 to match
updated enabling legislation
Hauth played a video for the board titled, “What is Chapter 160D.” She explained the state will no longer be
allowing special use zoning with a Special Use Permit. Instead, the town can either institute general zoning
with a Special Use Permit or conditional zoning.
Hauth noted the board’s requests for examples to help them understand the difference between the two
options. She will bring those examples to a future meeting.
F. 2020 Board of Commissioners meeting calendar amendment
The board agreed to start the budget retreat at 9 a.m. March 23, with breakfast at 8:30 a.m.
Motion: Hughes moved to approve the meeting calendar amendment. Ferguson seconded.
Vote: The motion carried upon a unanimous vote of 5-0.
G. Hot topics for work session Feb. 24, 2020
The board reviewed the main items for the Feb. 24 work session, including a possible discussion with the
redevelopers of Daniel Boone Village, next steps in creating a sustainability plan, a possible budget retreat
preview, and a brief presentation from Orange County Community Remembrance Coalition.
7. Updates
A. Board members
Board members reported on the boards and committees on which they serve.
B. Town manager
There was no comment.
C. Staff (written departmental reports are included in the agenda packet)
Strandwitz reported that recent rainfall had replenished the reservoir and a proclamation would soon be
signed to end voluntary water restrictions.
Schwartz mentioned she would be putting out a request for bids for audit services.
8. Adjournment
Motion: Ferguson moved to adjourn at 9:58 p.m. Commissioner Robb English seconded.
Vote: The motion carried upon a unanimous vote of 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Katherine M. Cathey
Town Clerk DRAFTFeb. 10, 2020
Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting
Approved: ____________________
Page 4 of 5
BUDGET CHANGES REPORT
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
FY 2019-2020
DATES: 02/10/2020 TO 02/10/2020
REFERENCE NUMBER DATE BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET
ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDEDCHANGE
USER
10-00-9990-5300-000 CONTINGENCY
02/10/2020 250,000.00 -5,000.00To cover census related expenses 16475 52,122.00EBRADFORD
02/10/2020 250,000.00 -5,000.00Hist Dist Design Guidelines Update Match 16479 47,122.00EBRADFORD
02/10/2020 250,000.00 -1,500.00To cover budget planning retreat facilitato 16481 45,622.00JDELLAVAL
02/10/2020 250,000.00 -25,000.00Match for Eno Mtn to NC86 Road Feasibi 16488 20,622.00EBRADFORD
02/10/2020 250,000.00 -9,028.00To cover AR online module 16490 11,594.00EBRADFORD
10-10-4100-5300-570 MISCELLANEOUS
02/10/2020 4,500.00 1,500.00To cover budget planning retreat facilitato 16482 4,956.00JDELLAVAL
10-10-4200-5300-451 C.S./PRINTING
02/10/2020 2,694.00 1,600.00To cover census related W/S bill inserts 16476 4,294.00EBRADFORD
10-10-4200-5300-570 MISCELLANEOUS
02/10/2020 9,248.00 3,400.00To cover census related expenses 16477 23,204.00EBRADFORD
10-10-4400-5300-458 DATA PROCESSING SERVICES
02/10/2020 0.00 9,028.00To cover AR online module 16489 9,028.00EBRADFORD
10-10-4900-5300-453 C.S./ENG REVIEW
02/10/2020 0.00 25,000.00Match for Eno Mtn to NC86 Road Feasibi 16487 25,000.00EBRADFORD
10-10-4900-5300-570 MISCELLANEOUS
02/10/2020 5,500.00 5,000.00Hist Dist Design Guidelines Update Match 16478 10,500.00EBRADFORD
10-10-6610-5100-020 SALARIES
02/10/2020 84,345.00 -1,725.00To cover travel allowance 16469 82,620.00EBRADFORD
10-10-6610-5300-140 TRAVEL/VEHICLE ALLOTMENT
02/10/2020 0.00 1,725.00To cover travel allowance 16470 1,725.00EBRADFORD
30-80-8120-5300-150 MAINTENANCE - PLANT & EQUIPMENT
02/10/2020 57,300.00 18,000.00To cover flocc motors, drives & chemical 16474 76,291.00JDELLAVAL
30-80-8120-5300-550 ALUM SLUDGE REMOVAL
02/10/2020 80,000.00 -18,000.00To cover flocc motors, drives & chemical 16473 80,000.00JDELLAVAL
47-20-5100-5700-000 CONTINGENCY
02/10/2020 0.00 -10,000.00To cover change order 16471 15,000.00EBRADFORD
47-20-5100-5700-720 CONSTRUCTION
02/10/2020 0.00 10,000.00To cover change order 16472 200,000.00EBRADFORD
72-00-4900-3301-001 RESTRICTED REV- MPO
02/10/2020 0.00 99,500.00To cover Eno Mtn to NC86 Road Feasibil 16485 99,500.00EBRADFORD
72-10-4900-5300-351 MUNICIPAL PLANNING ORGANIZATION
02/10/2020 0.00 99,500.00To cover Eno Mtn to NC86 Road Feasibil 16486 99,500.00EBRADFORD
199,000.00
EBRADFORD 2:47:26PM02/05/2020
fl142r03
Page 1 of 1
GF
Contingency
Governing
Body
Admin.
Admin.
Accounting
Accounting
Accounting
Information
Services
Information
Services
Water
Treatment
Plant
Water
Treatment
PlantPub Safety
Building
Pub Safety
Building
Restricted
Revenues
Restricted
Revenues
APPROVED: 5/0
DATE: 2/10/20
VERIFIED: ___________________________________DRAFTFeb. 10, 2020
Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting
Approved: ____________________
Page 5 of 5
Minutes
Board of Commissioners
7 p.m. Feb. 24, 2020
Town Hall Annex Board Meeting Room, 105 E. Corbin St.
Present: Mayor Jenn Weaver and commissioners Mark Bell, Robb English, Kathleen Ferguson, Matt
Hughes, and Evelyn Lloyd
Staff: Economic Development Planner Shannan Campbell, Human Resources Director/Town Clerk
Katherine Cathey, Assistant to the Town Manager/Deputy Budget Director Jen Della Valle,
Assistant Town Manager/Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Hornik, Town
Manager Eric Peterson, Public Information Specialist Cheryl Sadgrove, Public Space Manager
Stephanie Trueblood, and Public Information Officer Catherine Wright
Opening of the workshop
Mayor Jenn Weaver opened the work session at 7 p.m. with a quorum of three commissioners present.
1.Public Charge
Weaver did not read the public charge.
2.Agenda changes and approval
Motion: Commissioner Kathleen Ferguson moved to approve the agenda as presented. Commissioner
Matt Hughes seconded.
Vote: The motion carried upon a unanimous vote of 3-0.
3.Items for decision — consent agenda
A.Schedule public hearing at March 9 meeting to solicit public comment on Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility
Act (TEFRA) financing for the Eno River Academy to acquire ownership of its school campus on N.C. 57
B.Miscellaneous budget amendments and transfers
Motion: Hughes moved to approve the items on the consent agenda. Ferguson seconded.
Vote: The motion carried upon a unanimous vote of 3-0.
4.In-depth discussions and topics
A.Updates and discussion with developers of Collins Ridge and Daniel Boone Village redevelopment
Weaver reminded everyone that this discussion was to be at a high level to gauge the board’s interest in the
developer’s ideas.
Planning Director Margaret Hauth reminded everyone that this was not an official submittal and not a public
hearing. She reviewed that there were four questions the developers hoped the board would answer and that
staff had provided feedback on each question in the packet.DRAFTFeb. 24, 2020
Board of Commissioners Work Session
Approved: ____________________
Page 1 of 5
Marion Uter of Criteria Development said the second question was whether the board would consider
permitting apartments to be built over retail space on the Daniel Boone Village property. Uter said the retail
space would be built without waiting for tenants to commit to leasing the space. The second floor would be a
residential parking garage. The third and fourth floors would be apartments. He proposed 384 apartments.
Uter said there is interest in the hotel sites and some interest in some medical office space.
Ferguson said she would like to see a large employer, such as a pharmaceutical research company or LabCorp.
Uter explained that those interested in building office or lab space for a large company would choose land
that is less expensive than land in Hillsborough.
Commissioner Mark Bell said that a developer building in the Waterstone neighborhood had told the board
there was not a market for residential units over retail.
Uter said it is successful in some places and not in others. He believes it will work in Hillsborough.
Bell also asked if the town would be losing opportunities for commercial space by building residential on top.
Hauth answered the former Daniel Boone Village shopping center had 75,000 square feet of commercial
space and Uter is proposing 224,000 square feet. Hauth said the Spinnaker Strategies report, a study the town
paid for to forecast commercial and retail needs in town, said that not much new retail space would be
needed in Hillsborough because current commercial space could be redeveloped to a higher density, which is
what Uter is proposing.
Bell said he did not want the town’s mix of commercial and residential tax base to get out of balance. Uter
answered that he does not think the redevelopment of the Daniel Boone Village property would change the
town’s balance.
Board members recalled that there had been three-bedroom apartments proposed for the Collins Ridge
development and expressed some concern that the apartments proposed over the retail space would be one-
and two-bedroom units.
When asked whether the apartments would be luxury apartments, Uter said that the typical rental price for
mid-level apartments in this area is $1 per square foot, which translates to $1,200 per month. He said the
apartments cannot be built for less to lower the rental price.
Uter said the townhomes would likely cost around $200,000. He said no one can compete with Hardin, a
company that builds townhomes which retail in this area for around that price. He said the townhomes would
not be high-end units.
Uter said he would prefer to keep the apartments in the location indicated on the approved master plan for
the Collins Ridge development and build apartments over retail space in the Daniel Boone Village
redevelopment. He said he needs the apartments over the retail spaces to create the demand for the retail
uses. He added that apartments over retail has worked very well in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and in Chapel
Hill.
Uter added that the sketch depicting the placement of such mixed-use buildings was not how he envisioned
the buildings to be designed. He would propose more green space and better connection between buildings.
He mentioned the buildings in Fort Lauderdale have connecting decks.
DRAFTFeb. 24, 2020
Board of Commissioners Work Session
Approved: ____________________
Page 2 of 5
When asked, Uter said he has tried several times to attract a grocery store to the development and has had
no one accept. He said he talked with builders of Publix and Harris Teeter stores.
Uter said that the financing for the proposed mixed-use buildings would be based on the apartments, which
would free him to be flexible about the rent for retail spaces. This could attract new businesses and
entrepreneurs to lease the retail spaces.
Board members expressed interest in this proposal.
Bell asked Uter about progress in moving the colonial-era house located on the commercial property. Uter
said the house would not be demolished.
The board then talked about the CASA project, which would be in the second phase of development on the
Collins Ridge property. Uter had earlier noted that the apartments to be built by CASA on the Collins Ridge
property are proposed to be moved closer to the town’s future train station and to the existing Food Lion
grocery store in the Daniel Boone Square shopping center.
Jess Brandes, a project manager for CASA, said the sooner the developer can tell her the specifics of the land
set aside for the CASA apartments, the better. She explained two types of federal funding for which CASA
could apply for the apartments. Her preference is to apply for the 4% tax credit option, which causes rent to
be higher than with the 9% tax credit option but is generally approved faster. She explained that potential
residents in the lowest income bracket would need a housing voucher to be able to afford the rent under the
4% tax credit option. She said it would take about 18 months to get the money for the project once the
application is made. A dozen units would be set aside with a preference for veterans. She added that 10% of
units would be set aside for adults with disabilities, which is part of the state’s efforts to remove adults with
disabilities from nursing homes.
Hauth said the existing master plan for Collins Ridge is likely enough for CASA to move forward with its
application.
The board decided that it would formally hear Uter’s modifications to Phase 1 of the Collins Ridge
development and plans for Phase 2 at the joint public hearing in April.
The board discussed that the third question posed by Uter is whether the town is interested in selling any of
its 20 acres near the train station. The train station requires 2 to 3 acres.
Uter said he is interested in building more houses on that land. He said he has not studied the feasibility or
cost of building a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Interstate 85, but he would be interested in exploring that to
connect with the 12.5 acres that he owns on that side of the interstate. He added that the land would not be
for houses but maybe ball fields.
Board members said they were not interested in selling him town land for houses. Several board members
expressed interest in the connection over the interstate.
B. Next steps for the Comprehensive/Sustainability Plan
Public Space Manager Stephanie Trueblood reviewed the presentation available in the agenda packet. She
noted that the plan would establish long-range goals and objectives for growth in town but also immediate,
short-term and mid-term targets. She and Economic Development Planner Shannan Campbell will be the plan
managers and will bring their ideas to the management team.
DRAFTFeb. 24, 2020
Board of Commissioners Work Session
Approved: ____________________
Page 3 of 5
Trueblood added that the plan would take two years. She noted it would be helpful if the board could give
approval for her to put together documentation needed for a request for bids for a consultant to help guide
the project.
Town Manager Eric Peterson suggested that the board could consider giving that preliminary approval at the
budget retreat.
C. Town logo/branding refresh project
Campbell reviewed the logo presentation available in the agenda packet.
Several board members said they like the town seal and look forward to being able to use it more frequently
now that it is digitized.
The commissioners expressed a preference for the clock logo and asked to see variations of it. English said he
also likes the Riverwalk logo. Weaver expressed a preference for the Riverwalk logo. It was noted that the
Riverwalk bridge near Weaver Street Market has a straight top railing rather than the curved railing depicted
in the draft logo.
D. Budget planning retreat update
The town manager shared that there will not be a detailed draft budget presented at the retreat.
5. Other business
None.
6. Committee updates and reports
Board members reported on the boards and committees on which they serve.
7. Adjournment
Motion: Ferguson moved to adjourn at 9:44 p.m. Hughes seconded.
Vote: The motion carried upon a unanimous vote of 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Katherine M. Cathey
Town Clerk DRAFTFeb. 24, 2020
Board of Commissioners Work Session
Approved: ____________________
Page 4 of 5
BUDGET CHANGES REPORT
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
FY 2019-2020
DATES: 02/24/2020 TO 02/24/2020
REFERENCE NUMBER DATE BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET
ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDEDCHANGE
USER
30-80-8200-5300-321 SUPPLIES - CHEMICALS
02/24/2020 5,000.00 -2,500.00To cover WW Collection - Misc overages 16503 2,500.00JDELLAVAL
30-80-8200-5300-570 MISCELLANEOUS
02/24/2020 4,500.00 2,500.00To cover WW Collection - Misc overages 16504 6,650.00JDELLAVAL
30-80-8220-5300-320 CHEMICALS
02/24/2020 91,930.00 -40.00To cover increase in support fees 16505 86,890.00JDELLAVAL
30-80-8220-5300-458 DATA PROCESSING SERVICES
02/24/2020 540.00 40.00To cover increase in support fees 16506 580.00JDELLAVAL
0.00
JDELLAVALLE 11:27:53AM02/18/2020
fl142r03
Page 1 of 1
WW
Collection
WW
Collection
WWTP
WWTP
APPROVED: 5/0
DATE: 2/24/2020
VERIFIED: ___________________________________DRAFTFeb. 24, 2020
Board of Commissioners Work Session
Approved: ____________________
Page 5 of 5
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 9, 2020
Department: Administration - Budget
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing: __________________________
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
6.B
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Bradford, Budget Director
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Miscellaneous budget amendments and transfers
Attachment(s):
1. Description and explanation for budget amendments and transfers
Brief Summary:
To adjust budgeted revenues and expenditures, where needed, due to changes that have occurred since budget
adoption.
Action Requested:
Consider approving budget amendments and transfers.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
N/A
Financial Impacts:
As indicated by each budget amendment.
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
To approve the attached list of budget amendments.
BUDGET CHANGES REPORT
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
FY 2019-2020
DATES: 03/09/2020 TO 03/09/2020
REFERENCE NUMBER DATE BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET
ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDEDCHANGE
USER
10-00-9990-5300-000 CONTINGENCY
03/09/2020 250,000.00 -2,200.00Bang the Table and ScreenCloud subscrip 16525 9,394.00JDELLAVAL
10-10-4200-5300-080 TRAINING/CONF./CONV.
03/09/2020 15,890.00 1,500.00Process improvement training 16518 17,390.00JDELLAVAL
10-10-4200-5300-081 TRAINING-HILLS.UNIV.PROGRAM
03/09/2020 6,000.00 -1,500.00Process improvement training 16517 4,500.00JDELLAVAL
10-10-4200-5300-113 LICENSE FEES
03/09/2020 14,375.00 2,200.00Bang the Table and ScreenCloud subscrip 16526 17,075.00JDELLAVAL
10-10-4200-5300-330 DEPARTMENTAL SUPPLIES
03/09/2020 2,000.00 -50.00To cover Amazon fire stick purchase 16527 1,950.00JDELLAVAL
10-10-4200-5300-338 SUPPLIES - DATA PROCESSING
03/09/2020 0.00 50.00To cover Amazon fire stick purchase 16528 50.00JDELLAVAL
10-30-5800-5300-330 DEPARTMENTAL SUPPLIES
03/09/2020 700.00 800.00To cover account overages 16515 1,500.00EBRADFORD
10-30-5800-5300-450 LANDFILL FEES
03/09/2020 84,000.00 -800.00To cover account overages 16516 83,200.00EBRADFORD
10-50-6250-5300-080 TRAINING/CONF/CONV
03/09/2020 1,000.00 625.00To cover Economic Development training 16531 1,625.00JDELLAVAL
10-50-6250-5300-570 MISCELLANEOUS
03/09/2020 900.00 -625.00To cover Economic Development training 16530 275.00JDELLAVAL
30-80-7220-5300-080 TRAINING/CONF./CONV.
03/09/2020 7,400.00 600.00Distribute expenses associated w/ new pos 16510 8,000.00JDELLAVAL
30-80-7220-5300-310 GASOLINE
03/09/2020 1,815.00 700.00Distribute expenses associated w/ new pos 16513 2,515.00JDELLAVAL
30-80-7220-5300-320 SUPPLIES - OFFICE
03/09/2020 750.00 200.00Distribute expenses associated w/ new pos 16511 950.00JDELLAVAL
30-80-7220-5300-330 SUPPLIES - DEPARTMENTAL
03/09/2020 500.00 500.00Distribute expenses associated w/ new pos 16512 2,300.00JDELLAVAL
30-80-7220-5300-338 SUPPLIES - DATA PROCESSING
03/09/2020 100.00 2,200.00Distribute expenses associated w/ new pos 16509 2,300.00JDELLAVAL
30-80-7220-5300-530 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
03/09/2020 5,700.00 300.00Distribute expenses associated w/ new pos 16514 6,000.00JDELLAVAL
30-80-7220-5300-600 PERSONNEL EXPANSION - OP COSTS
03/09/2020 4,750.00 -4,500.00Distribute expenses associated w/ new pos 16508 250.00JDELLAVAL
30-80-8140-5700-740 CAPITAL - VEHICLES
03/09/2020 7,500.00 4,010.00Increased vehicle costs for util maint tech 16533 11,510.00JDELLAVAL
30-80-8200-5700-740 CAPITAL - VEHICLES
03/09/2020 22,500.00 12,031.00Increased vehicle costs for util maint tech 16534 59,058.00JDELLAVAL
30-80-9990-5300-000 CONTINGENCY
03/09/2020 400,000.00 -16,041.00Increased vehicle costs for util maint tech 16532 312,668.00JDELLAVAL
67-70-3980-3980-300 LOAN PROCEEDS
03/09/2020 0.00 -764,500.00To adjust project budget 16519 3,271,000.00JDELLAVAL
67-80-8130-5700-000 CONTINGENCY
EBRADFORD 11:45:15AM03/03/2020
fl142r03
Page 1 of 2
GF Contingency
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Solid
Waste
Solid
Waste
Economic
Development
Economic
Development
Utilities
Administration
Utilities
Administration
Utilities
Administration
Utilities
Administration
Utilities
Administration
Utilities
Administration
Utilities
Administration
Water
Distribution
WW
Collection
WSF
Contingency
WFER -
Road Proj.
WFER -
Road Proj.
BUDGET CHANGES REPORT
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
FY 2019-2020
DATES: 03/09/2020 TO 03/09/2020
REFERENCE NUMBER DATE BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET
ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDEDCHANGE
USER
03/09/2020 0.00 -255,921.00To adjust project budget 16520 244,079.00JDELLAVAL
67-80-8130-5700-045 DESIGN
03/09/2020 0.00 -530,000.00To adjust project budget 16521 150,000.00JDELLAVAL
67-80-8130-5700-570 MISCELLANEOUS
03/09/2020 0.00 70,630.00To adjust project budget 16522 120,630.00JDELLAVAL
67-80-8130-5700-719 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
03/09/2020 0.00 110,000.00To adjust project budget 16523 310,000.00JDELLAVAL
67-80-8130-5700-720 CONSTRUCTION
03/09/2020 0.00 -159,209.00To adjust project budget 16524 2,440,791.00JDELLAVAL
-1,529,000.00
EBRADFORD 11:45:15AM03/03/2020
fl142r03
Page 2 of 2
WFER -
Road Proj.
WFER -
Road Proj.
WFER -
Road Proj.
WFER -
Road Proj.
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 9, 2020
Department: Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
6.C
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Petition from P.M. Dubbeling requesting an amendment to the Water and Sewer Management, Planning and
Boundary Agreement to allow water service to property on Bayberry Drive in Chapel Hill
Attachment(s):
1.Request documentation
Brief Summary:
The Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement impacts the ability of this property owner to
receive services from OWASA. All parties to the agreement have been approached to process an amendment. The
agreement has no mechanism allowing for individuals to request amendments. Staff from the jurisdictions will be
meeting on March 5 to discuss this request and determine next steps.
Action Requested:
Receive request.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
See above.
Financial Impacts:
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
Staff recommends taking no action beyond receiving the request. We are determining how to handle this type of
request among all of the parties to the Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement.
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 9, 2020
Department: Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing: Jan. 16, 2020
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
6.D
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Consistency statement and ordinance amending Section 5 and Section 6 of the UDO to establish standards and
requirements for attached dwellings in the Central Commercial district
Attachment(s):
1.Draft Planning Board minutes - February
2.Draft consistency statement
3.Draft amending ordinance
Brief Summary:
These amendments were discussed at the January public hearing at the request of an applicant. They discovered the
conflict in the ordinance of text allowing downtown residential when it wasn’t shown as permitted in the use table. The
new language provides different requirements for renovation of existing space and the construction of new space.
The Planning Board recommended approval by a 6-1 vote. Chris Johnston voted against the request, concerned
that the amendments opened the door too far for residential downtown.
Action Requested:
Consider adopting the consistency statement that the amendment IS consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
adopt the ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
See above.
Financial Impacts:
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
Assistant 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 2
Draft Minutes
Planning Board
7 p.m. Feb. 25, 2020
Town Hall Annex Board Meeting Room, 105 E. Corbin St.
Present
Board: Chair Dan Barker, Lisa Frazier, Chris Johnston, Alyse Polly, Jeff Scott, Jenn Sykes and Scott Taylor
Staff: Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Hornik and Public Information Specialist
Cheryl Sadgrove
Guests: Commissioner Matt Hughes and Will Swearingen
A. Text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance
1. Section 5 and Section 6 — Establish standards and requirements for attached dwellings in the Central
Commercial district
Hauth reviewed that the town had received an application from local property owners interested in building
attached housing in the Central Commercial zone. She said the problem is that although Subsection 5.2.10.5 is
in the ordinance, the permitted use table does not indicate that attached dwellings are permittable in the
Central Commercial district. A single residential unit above commercial is allowed.
The request is to allow up to 19 dwelling units by right. The development of 20 or more units would require a
Special Use Permit.
Hauth reviewed that this opens the door for residential units on upper floors downtown.
The board talked about second-story spaces currently being used for storage or art galleries. The board talked
about a drawback being a reduction in commercial space. Hauth said there aren’t elevators in the buildings,
which limits the commercial value of those spaces. The board discussed the possibility that residents might
move in and then complain about the noise of living in a commercial district.
Member Jeff Scott asked about the parking. Hauth said it is assumed that the resident leaves in the morning
and comes back after business hours. The town does not patrol parking. The parking requirement is only for
new construction.
Sykes said she talked with business owners and residents about this. She said the proposal did not seem to
concern anyone.
Barker noted the board did not have concerns.
Johnston said he does not feel good about this because it changes the availability of commercial space and
because residents would take parking spaces that customers and patrons use.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 2 of 2
Sykes said she is not sold on it either but thought the board could create another amendment later if this
arrangement causes problems.
Scott said those upstairs spaces are not really used. Having residents up there increases traffic during all times
of day. It creates more activity.
Johnston said there would then be less art gallery space for the Last Fridays Art Walk.
Sykes pointed out that there are law offices which operate 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. upstairs, too.
Frazier said she grew up in a small town in the northern part of the country where this was very common and
not a problem.
Motion: Sykes moved to recommend approval of these amendments. Taylor seconded.
Vote: 6-1 (nay, Johnston)
Town Board’s Statement per N.C. Gen. Stat. 160A-383
The Town of Hills borough Town Board has received and reviewed the application of
_FPP 128 LLC_ to amend the Town of Hillsborough Unified Development Ordinance as
follows (insert general description of proposed amendment):
Sections 5 and Section 6 of the UDO to clarify standards and requirements for attached
dwellings in the Central Commercial district
The Hillsborough Town Board has determined that the proposed action is consistent with the
Town of Hillsborough’s comprehensive plan, and the Town Board’s proposed action on the
amendment is reasonable and in the public interest for the following reason(s):
The ordinance previously included language allowing attached housing in the Central
Commercial district, but it was outdated, didn’t reflect the difference between
renovating existing space or building new, and was not reflected in the permitted use
table. These modifications are consistent with town interests to ensure a vibrant
commercial core.
Adopted by the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners this _9th day of _March_, 2020.
_____________ _________
Katherine M. Cathey, Town Clerk
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 5.2.10.1, Categories of Attached Dwellings, of the Unified Development
Ordinance is amended to read as follows:
This Ordinance hereby establishes the following attached dwelling use
types:
(a) Attached Dwellings Up to 4 Units;
(b) Attached Dwellings 5-19 Units; and
(c) Attached Dwellings 20+ Units.
The review and approval process for these uses are specified in tables
5.1.6, Use Table for Residential Districts, and 5.1.7, Use table for Non-
Residential districts, for each zoning district.
Section 2. Section 5.2.10.5.a(c) is replaced to read as follows:
(c) An existing building in the CC zone may renovate existing gross
floor area into attached dwellings when:
i. The ground floor area is used for non-residential uses and
access to the dwelling(s).
ii. The conversion does not require an addition of enclosed
building area other than creating access from the ground
level, if necessary.
iii. Applicant provides construction drawings verifying there is
adequate water, sewer, and solid waste collection service to
the property to comply with paragraphs e, f, g, h, and k in
Section 5.2.10.2 above and all other applicable town and
building codes. The requirements in Section 5.2.10.2a, b, c ,
d ,i , j, l, and m, Section 5.2.10.3, and Section 5.2.10.4 do not
apply to these units.
Section 3. Section 5.2.10.5.a(d) is added as follows:
(d) New buildings in the CC zone may be constructed for attached dwellings
when:
i. The ground floor area of all buildings(s) is used for non-
residential uses and access to the dwelling(s).
ii. Off-street parking is provided at a rate of 1.2 spaces per
dwelling unit.
iii. Applicant provides a site plan and construction drawings
verifying compliance with the relevant requirements of
Section 5.2.10.2 and all other applicable town and building
codes.
iv. The requirements in Section 5.2.10.3 and Section 5.2.10.4
apply to any site containing twenty or more dwelling units
v. The requirements of Section 6.10, Landscaping (Parking Lot),
apply to parking and vehicle accommodation areas proposed
to be constructed or modified as part of the project.
Section 4. Section 5.1.7, Use table for non-residential districts, is amended to show Dwelling:
attached (1-4 units) and Dwelling: attached (5-19 units) as permitted by right in the
Central Commercial Zoning district and Dwelling: attached (20+ units) as a special
use in the Central Commercial district.
Section 5. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed.
Section 6. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and
was duly adopted this 9th day of March, 2020.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent or Excused:
Katherine M. Cathey, Town Clerk
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 9, 2020
Department: Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing: Jan. 16, 2020
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
6.E
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Consistency statement and ordinance amending Section 6.5 of the UDO to modify and clarify land use buffer
requirements
Attachment(s):
1. Draft consistency statement
2. Draft amending ordinance
Brief Summary:
This section is a significant re-write of the buffer requirements. It provides flexibility by allowing different ways for an
applicant to achieve compliance. The new language also introduces flexibility that should limit the need for waiver
requests while still protecting from unintended impacts. This was discussed at the January public hearing without
public comment. The drawings will be incorporated into the Administrative Manual. The Planning Board unanimously
recommended approval of this amendment.
Action Requested:
Consider adopting the consistency statement that the amendment IS consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
adopt the ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
See above.
Financial Impacts:
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
Town Board’s Statement per N.C. Gen. Stat. 160A-383
The Town of Hills borough Town Board has received and reviewed the application of
_planning staff_ to amend the Town of Hillsborough Unified Development Ordinance as follows
(insert general description of proposed amendment):
Amend Section 6.5, Buffers, to update the language, provide performance options, and align
requirements with actual practices. Drawings of the performance options will be added to the
Administrative Manual.
The Hillsborough Town Board has determined that the proposed action is consistent with the
Town of Hillsborough’s comprehensive plan, and the Town Board’s proposed action on the
amendment is reasonable and in the public interest for the following reason(s):
These amendments help align the town’s desired outcomes and development regulations, thereby
providing more accurate information and streamlining processes.
Adopted by the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners this _9th day of _March_, 2020.
_____________ _________
Katherine M. Cathey, Town Clerk
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 6.5, Buffers is hereby amended by replacing sections 6.5.2 – 6.5.8 to read
as follows:
6.5.2 APPLICABILITY
a) Buffers will generally be established at the earliest review phase (for example: lot
creation), once uses and densities are proposed in accordance with applicable
regulations. However, a buffer standard may be amended prior to the issuance of a
Zoning Compliance Permit subsequent to any changes including but not limited to
zoning classification or development adjacent to the subject parcel.
b) This Subsection applies to any of the following, except where exempted by Sub-
paragraph c) below:
1) The construction or erection of any new building or structure for which a Zoning
Compliance Permit, Conditional or Special Use Permit, or Site Plan approval is
required; or
2) Any enlargement exceeding 5,000 square feet or 25% in area, whichever is less, of
the gross floor area an existing building for which a development approval is
required; or
3) Any construction of a new parking lot or expansion of an existing parking lot OR
establishment or expansion of an accessory use not involving a structure by more
than 2,000 square feet or 10% in area, whichever is greater.
c) This Subsection does not apply to the following situations:
1) Single-family dwelling units and mobile/manufactured homes on existing lots of
record;
2) Agricultural uses;
3) Non-residential uses that abut other non-residential uses in the same zoning
district;
4) Interior finish work or remodeling in a portion of a building unless the work results
in an increase as described in 6.5.2.b.2 or 6.5.2.b.3 above;
5) Any use, building or structure for which only a change of use is requested, and
which use does not increase the gross floor area of the existing building.
6.5.3 LOCATION OF BUFFERS
Buffers shall be located on commonly held open space or the outer perimeter of a lot or
parcel, extending to the lot or parcel boundary line. Buffers shall not be located on any
portion of an existing or dedicated public or private street or right-of-way.
6.5.4 BUFFER DESCRIPTIONS AND STANDARDS
6.5.4.1 The following tables describe four types of buffer (A, B, C, and D) and different
width, plant density, and structure combinations which meet the standard. Buffer
requirements are stated in terms of the width of the buffer and the number of
plant units required per 100 linear feet of buffer. The requirements of a specific
buffer may be satisfied by any of the types provided. The type and quantity of
plant materials required by each buffer type are specified in this Section. Specific
species allowed and prohibited are listed in the Administrative Manual by size.
Table 6.5.4.1: Standards for Type A Buffers
Buffer Type Required Buffer
Width
Minimum # Plantings Required Per 100
Linear Feet of Buffer
Structure Type
& Height
Required
A1
10 Feet
Large Trees 1
Not Required Small Trees or Large Shrubs 2
Mid-size or Small Shrubs 4
A2
15 Feet
Large Trees 0
Not Required Small Trees or Large Shrubs 3
Mid-size or Small Shrubs 4
A3
20 Feet
Large Trees 0
Not Required Small Trees or Large Shrubs 5
Mid-size or Small Shrubs 0
Table 6.5.4.2: Standards for Type B Buffers
Buffer Type Required Buffer
Width
Minimum # Plantings Required Per
100 Linear Feet of Buffer
Structure Type
& Height
Required
B1
15 Feet
Large Trees 3
8-foot Fence Small Trees or Large Shrubs 0
Mid-size or Small Shrubs 0
B2
20 Feet
Large Trees 2
6-foot Fence Small Trees or Large Shrubs 4
Mid-size or Small Shrubs 0
B3
25 Feet
Large Trees 3
Not Required Small Trees or Large Shrubs 4
Mid-size or Small Shrubs 0
B4
30 Feet
Large Trees 3
Not Required Small Trees or Large Shrubs 0
Mid-size or Small Shrubs 16
B5 Large Trees 2
Table 6.5.4.3: Standards for Type C Buffers
Buffer Type Required Buffer
Width
Minimum # Plantings Required Per 100
Linear Feet of Buffer
Structure Type
& Height
Required
C1
25 Feet
Large Trees 3 8-foot Masonry
Wall or
stockade fence
Small Trees or Large Shrubs 6
Mid-size or Small Shrubs 0
C2
30 Feet
Large Trees 3 6-foot Masonry
Wall or
stockade fence
Small Trees or Large Shrubs 2
Mid-size or Small Shrubs 10
C3
40 Feet
Large Trees 3 5-foot Earthen
Berm Small Trees or Large Shrubs 7
Mid-size or Small Shrubs 12
C4
50 Feet
Large Trees 5 4-foot Earthen
Berm Small Trees or Large Shrubs 5
Mid-size or Small Shrubs 14
C5
60 Feet
Large Trees 4
Not Required Small Trees or Large Shrubs 7
Mid-size or Small Shrubs 34
Walls may be brick, concrete, concrete block with stucco finish, masonry, stone or a
combination of these materials.
At least 50% of the shrubs for Type C buffers shall be evergreen, based on the number of
plants required in the table.
Berms shall have a slope not greater than the slope created in 3 horizontal feet with a 1-foot
vertical rise. The surface of the berm that is not planted with trees and shrubs shall be covered
with grass, perennial ground cover, vines, and woody and herbaceous perennials, with mulch.
Grass or other coverings shall be maintained in conformance with applicable Town of
Hillsborough codes.
40 Feet Small Trees or Large Shrubs 2 Not Required
Mid-size or Small Shrubs 10
Fences in the Type B buffer shall be wood, metal, brick, masonry, or stone and are not
required to be opaque. Acceptable styles include picket, post and rail, alternating board,
stockade, and pierced or open block. The use of chain link with vinyl slats, vinyl,
galvanized or sheet metal are not acceptable.
At least 50% of the shrubs for Type B buffers shall be evergreen, based on the number of
plants required in the table
Table 6.5.4.4: Standards for Type D Buffers
Buffer Type Required Buffer
Width
Minimum # Plantings Required Per 100
Linear Feet of Buffer
Structure Type
& Height
Required
D1
100 Feet
Large Trees 8 5-foot Earthen
Berm Small Trees or Large Shrubs 13
Mid-size or Small Shrubs 34
D2
100 Feet
Large Trees 12
Not Required Small Trees or Large Shrubs 10
Mid-size or Small Shrubs 20
D3 100 Feet Large Evergreen Trees 20
Berms shall have a slope not greater than the slope created in 3 horizontal feet with a 1-foot
vertical rise. The surface of the berm that is not planted with trees and shrubs shall be covered
with grass, perennial ground cover, vines, and woody and herbaceous perennials, with mulch.
Grass or other coverings shall be maintained in conformance with applicable Town of
Hillsborough codes.
6.5.5. SPECIAL CASES AND CONSIDERATIONS
6.5.5.1. Where existing or proposed overhead electric lines exist, small trees may
be substituted for large trees.
6.5.5.2. If the development on the adjoining use is existing, planned or deed
restricted for solar access, understory trees may be substituted for canopy
trees where canopy trees would destroy solar access.
6.5.5.3. Any existing plant material which otherwise satisfies the requirements of
this Section may be counted toward satisfying all such requirements.
6.5.5.4. The exact placement of required plants and structures shall be the decision
of each user except that the following requirements shall be satisfied:
6.5.5.4.1. Evergreen plant materials shall be planted in clusters rather than
singly in order to maximize their chances of survival.
6.5.5.4.2. When a masonry wall is a component of the buffer, a planting area
at least 5 feet wide containing 15% of the total plant requirements shall
be located between the masonry wall and the higher intensity class use.
These plants shall be chosen to provide species and sizes to reduce noise
in conjunction with the wall.
6.5.5.4.3. All buffer areas shall be seeded with lawn or other non-invasive
ground cover unless ground cover is already established.
6.5.6. PLANT MATERIAL AND STRUCTURE SUBSTITUTIONS
6.5.6.1. In Type B and C buffers, evergreen trees may be substituted for deciduous
trees of the same size category without limitation.
6.5.6.2. In Type A buffers, evergreen trees of the same size category may be
substituted as follows:
6.5.6.2.1. up to a maximum of 50% of the total number of the deciduous large
trees otherwise required.
6.5.6.2.2. without limitation for required deciduous small trees.
6.5.6.3. In all buffers, evergreen shrubs may be substituted for deciduous shrubs
without limitation.
6.5.6.4. The following structures are equivalent and may be used interchangeably:
Structure Equivalent
6-foot Fence 4-foot Earthen Berm
8-foot Fence 5-foot Earthen Berm
6-foot Masonry Wall 6-foot Earthen Berm
8-foot Masonry Wall 4-foot Berm with 6-foot Masonry Wall
4-foot Earthen Berm 6-foot Wood Stockade Fence
5-foot Earthen Berm 8-foot Wood Stockade Fence
6.5.7. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES BASED ON ADJACENT CONDITIONS
6.5.7.1. Where the buffer required between a land use and vacant land turns out
to be greater than that buffer which is required between the first use and the
subsequently developed use, the subsequent use may provide one-half (.5) of
the required buffer. The existing use may expand its use into the original buffer
area, provided the resulting total buffer between the two uses meets the buffer
requirements of Table 6.5.9.
6.5.7.2. When a parcel to be developed is adjacent to an Interstate or railroad right
of way, a 100-foot undisturbed buffer shall be provided along the adjacent
property line, regardless of the requirement in Table 6.5.9. This buffer shall be
planted to meet the standard of a Type D buffer if the existing vegetation does
not meet that standard.
Exceptions to this requirement are as follows:
a) If an existing public road separates the parcel where development is
proposed from an Interstate or railroad right of way, no buffer shall be
required. This section applies to constructed public roads, regardless of
where the road right of way exists in relation to the railroad or Interstate
right of way.
b) If the applicant property is the redevelopment of an existing parcel with
a platted land use buffer from a previous development code, the
maintenance of that previously required buffer shall be taken to satisfy
the Type D buffer.
c) If the applicant property is of an existing single-family parcel where a land
use buffer was not shown on the recorded plat creating the parcel, the
Type D buffer will not be required.
6.5.7.3. When a non-residential parcel is adjacent to a street classified as arterial
or collector, no buffer shall be required along the street frontage, regardless of
the requirement in Table 6.5.9, unless modified by the permit-issuing authority.
6.5.7 USE AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN BUFFERS
6.5.7.1 Buffers shall not contain any development, impervious surfaces or site features
that do not function to meet the standards of this Subsection unless otherwise
allowed.
6.5.7.2. Fences not required to satisfy buffer requirements may be placed in buffers
provided that no canopy tree is removed and damage to existing vegetation is
minimized.
6.5.7.3. Utility corridors are not permitted in buffers unless no reasonable alternative
exists. Crossings at angles between 60 and 90 degrees are acceptable where
necessary. Utilities may only run coincident or parallel with a required buffer if:
6.5.7.3.1. the utility is installed on the development side of the buffer
6.5.7.3.2. the buffer can meet the required performance standards even with
the planting limitations associated with the utility easement
6.5.7.3.3. no canopy trees within the buffer must be removed to install the
utility.
6.5.7.4. Stormwater control mechanisms are discouraged from being located in buffers
unless mandated by the natural topography. Such installations may locate within
a required buffer if the buffer can meet the required width and planting densities
for the required buffer type between the stormwater control mechanism and the
adjoining use triggering the buffer.
6.5.7.5. A buffer may be used for passive recreation and contain pedestrian trails provided
that:
6.5.7.5.1. no canopy trees are eliminated,
6.5.7.5.2. the total width of the buffer is maintained, and
6.5.7.5.3. the required buffer standards (width, plantings, and fences) are
met between the trail and the adjoining use triggering the buffer.
6.5.7.6. In no event shall playfields, swimming pools, tennis courts and other active
recreation areas, storage of materials, parking or structures (except for necessary
utility boxes and equipment) be allowed in buffers.
6.5.8 OWNERSHIP OF BUFFERS
6.5.8.1 No required buffer in a residential development shall be included within any
single-family lot or be wholly owned (in fee simple absolute) by the owner of an
individual residential building lot zoned for residential uses. Buffers in residential
developments shall be owned by a homeowner’s association or other entity
charged with its preservation and the preservation of existing landscaping. Buffers
may be collocated in areas designated as open space are required in Section 6.12
of this ordinance.
6.5.8.2 The required buffer for a non-residential or multi-family site may be owned by a
property owner’s association or by the property owner.
Section 2. Section 6.5.8, Maintenance of Buffers, is renumbered to 6.5.9. Cross-references to
this section throughout the ordinance are also corrected.
Section 3. Section 6.5.9, Table: Required Buffers, is renumbered to 6.5.10. Cross-references
to this section throughout the ordinance are also corrected.
Section 4. Section 6.5.10, South Churton Non-Residential Buffer, is renumbered to 6.5.11.
Cross-references to this section throughout the ordinance are also corrected.
Section 5. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed.
Section 6. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and
was duly adopted this 9th day of March, 2020.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent or Excused:
Katherine M. Cathey, Town Clerk
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 9, 2020
Department: Public Works
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
6.F
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Hines, Public Works Director
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Encroachment agreement for mailboxes located at 102, 104 and 106 West Union Street
Attachment(s):
1. Encroachment agreement and Exhibit A
Brief Summary:
Union Street Condo Development, LLC requests an encroachment agreement to install and maintain 3 mailboxes
mounted on a single post (see Exhibit A) in the public right-of-way at newly constructed condos located on West
Union Street.
Action Requested:
Approve/disapprove installation of the mailboxes.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
The United States Postal Service requires the mailboxes to be located next to the roadway.
Financial Impacts:
None
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
None
North VICINITY MAPSITEE UNION STW UNION STW ORANGE STN CHURTON STE ORANGEN CAMERON STE CORBIN STW CORBIN STCEDAR STMCADAMS RDUS 70 EN0
20'
40'Calculated PointSee Indicated Detail/NoteFound Iron Pin/PipePower PoleStop SignSign PostMeasurement End PointOver HangO.H.Overhead Power Line[OHP]Housing Development OverlayHDONeighborhood Bus. Spc. UseNBSUSidewalkS/WDrivewayDWYPower PolePPScreeningSCRWideWSquare FeetSqFtElectric MeterEMConcreteCONCExistingEXISTProposedPROPParking SpacePKG SPCA/C DisconnectD/CCold WaterCWGrade CleanoutGCOBack Flow Valve11488 SqFtPPPPPPPPFIP 1" PIPEFIP NAILFIP 1" PIPEFIP 1/2" RODPPPPMAILPRIVACY FENCINGPRIVACY FENCINGPRIVACY FENCINGSHEDPORCHHOUSEPORCHLOT22.14'19.81'
S0°39'49"E66.00'
N0°05'48"E 69.78'S89°55'24"E 163.84'S0°39'49"E 70.06'10.1'N89°49'34"W 164.77'10'-13__16"9'-11"
N O R T H C H U R T O N S T R E E T
4.5' W. SIDEWALK EMCO
NTR
OL CO
RNERHOUSE
6 6 ' P U B L IC R /W 1.0' O.H.12' W. GRASS & GRAVELMIXED DRIVEWAY(PER PB 77 PG 91)NBSU Setback LineNBSU Setback LineRight Of WayRight Of WayRight Of Way
Right Of Way
Right Of Way
DB 6413 PG 315
WOOD RAIL FENCE Right Of WayNEUSE RIVER BASINPROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN HILLSBOROUGH HISTORICAL DISTRICTUSGS MONUMENT "JACK"N20°49'18"W 2467.97'(CALC. FROM PB 77 PG 91)CONTROL CORNERWEST UNION STREET[OHP]
[OHP][OHP][OHP][OHP][OHP][OHP][OHP][OHP][OHP]NBSU SETBACKS:OWNER(S) OF RECORD:COVERED/OPEN SPACE:LEGENDZONING: R-20/HDOU S H W Y 7 0
N C H W Y 8 6 D/C4.7' W. S/WNBSU Setback Line(GREATER THAN10' REQUIRED)[OHP](10 SPCS: 10 REG)OFF-STREET ASPHALT PARKINGPROPOSED 4' CONC. S/WSEE TABLE 2[OHP](PER PB 77 PG 91)66' PUBLIC R/W4' WALKWAYEXIST. 8' CONC. S/WEDGE OF PAVEMENTEDGE OF PAVEMENT21HVACHVACHVACPROPOSED 4'CONC. S/W3PROPOSED. 4' CONC. S/WPROPOSED. 8' CONC. S/WSTOPSIGNHISTORICALSIGNSTREETSIGNPROPOSED THREE (3)UNIT CONDOMINIUMBURWELLSCHOOL SIGN12' WIDECONC. DWYENTRANCEGPIN: 9874082201Parcel ID: 9874082201DB 2759 PG 266PB 78 PG 81ZONING: R-20/HDOJENNIFER E MILLERGPIN: 9874083223Parcel ID: 9874083223DB 6288 PG 477ZONING R-20/HDOMHPM HOLDINGS LLCCONCRETEDRIVEWAYLOWER ENOUNPROTECTEDCOVERED SPACE:BUILDING 4464 SqFtPORCHES/STEPS 360 SqFt50% ROOF O.H. 116 SqFtCOVERED SPACE:SHED14 SqFt50% O.H. 9 SqFtTOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH GENERAL NOTES:1) All water and sewer procedures of the Town of Hillsborough will be followed.2) The Hillsborough Fire Chief recommendations will be followed.3) All new utilities will be underground.4) The Zoning Officer will inspect the site before a Certificate of Occupancy isissued.5) Outside storage is prohibited.6) Plant material will be installed per Section 6 of the Unified DevelopmentOrdinance.7) The Zoning Officer will inspect plant material during the second growingseason and substandard material will be replaced by the owner/developer.8) The owner or recipient of the Zoning Permit shall properly maintain theparking, landscaping, lighting, and dumpsters.9) A vested right pursuant to G.S. 160A-385.1 and Section 1.8 of the UnifiedDevelopment Ordinance of the Town of Hillsborough is established as of thedate hereof. Unless terminated at an earlier date, the vested right of the ap-proval shall be valid until ___________________.10) This plan, if approved, will expire if significant meaningful construction hasnot begun by ________________.EXISTING ZONING: NBSU• Front: 20 feet (measured from the street right-of-way of North Churton Street).• Sides: 15 feet (measured from the right-of-way line of West Union Street & the north property line)• Rear: 20 feet (measured from the west property line)Landmark Menagement Partners LLC3025 Ode Turner RoadHillsborough, NC 27278PH. 919.732.5237GPIN: 9874083136Parcel ID: 9874083136DB 6413 PG 3150.26 AcresTOTAL SQFT LOT 1148843.0% COVERED SPACE 494057.0% OPEN SPACE 6548ENCROACHMENT0.82' BLDG1.82' ROOF O.H.3.07' DRIVEWAYENCROACHMENTZONING:R-20/HDOZONING:R-20/HDOEXISTING A/C PAD & D/C(TO BE RETAINED & USED)PROPOSED A/C LOCATIONSWITH 5' HIGH WOODEN SCREENFENCE AND 3' OPENING. (3x)ĕėĔěĎĉĊČĈĔĎċåĆćĘĊēęøôùçåćĆĈĐċđĔĜěĆđěĊEXISTING CULVERTUNDER ROADĊĝĎĘęĎēČåùçåĘĆēĎęĆėĞĘĊĜĊėåđĎēĊĈĚėėĊēęđĞĘĊėěĎēČåęčĎĘåĘĎęĊĊĝĎĘęĎēČåøôùçåĜĆęĊėđĎēĊåĈĚėėĊēęđĞĘĊėěĎēČåęčĎĘåĘĎęĊGARB & RECYCCONTAINER PICK UP AREAWASTE ANDRECYCLING AREATABLE 1PROJECT AREA DATATOTAL LOT 11488TOTAL EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 4728TOTAL EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO BE REMOVED 432TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 667TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AT PROJECT COMPLETION 4963TOTAL AREA DISTURBED 1099TOTAL AREA UNDISTURBED 10389TABLE 2PARKING DATATOTAL NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR PROJECT 62 SPACES REQUIRED PER DWELLING UNITPROJECT PROPOSES A 3 UNIT ATTACHED DWELLINGTOTAL NUMBER OF EXISTING PARKING SPACESTOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACESEXISTINGWINDOW WELL 10 10Creatively Inspired - Technically Executed
License #: P-0339
1110 Navaho Drive, Suite 600
Raleigh, NC 27609
Voice: (919) 322-0115 Fax: (919) 322-0116
www.SummitDE.net
DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICESCERT. NO.52006R EGISTERE
DARCHITECTURALCOMPANYNORTHCAROLI
NA
SUM M I T DESIGN
A
NDENGINEERINGSERVICES,PLLCRALEIGHPROJECT NO.
SHEET NO.
ISSUE DATE
ARCHITECT OF RECORD THIS DRAWING & THE DESIGN INTENT OF THIS INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE IS THE
VESTED PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT & THE ARCHITECTS CONSULTANTS, WHICH ARE
NOT TO BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS OR METHOD WITHOUT
EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. THIS INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE IS
SOLELY & EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING, USING, MAINTAINING,
ALTERING & ADDING TO THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT AT IT'S SPECIFIC LOCATION.
COPYRIGHT 2018
SUMMIT DESIGN AND
ENGINEERING SERVICES
C
18-0146.020
HDC09
02/11/19
BRIAN T. SHEPARD AIA, NCARB, LEED GA
SITE PLAN
UNION STREET CONDOS1/32" = 1'-0"Site PlanRelocate Mailbox per PostmasterEXHIBIT A
102-106 W Union St.
Relocate mailbox to ROW
per USPS Postmaster.
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 9, 2020
Department: Planning/ Public Space
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
6.G
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Trueblood, Public Space Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Encroachment Agreement for three bus shelters at Faucette Mill/Cornelius Street, N. Churton Street at Hillsborough
Police Department, and Hwy 86 at Hampton Point
Attachment(s):
1. Map of locations for bus shelters
2. Three Party Encroachment Agreement
Brief Summary:
To approve a Right-of-Way encroachment agreement for non-utility encroachments on primary and secondary
highways authorizing the Town of Hillsborough to enter into agreement with Orange County, on behalf of Orange
County Public Transportation, and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for the installation of
three bus shelters at existing bus stops.
Action Requested:
Approve encroachment agreement.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
In 2012, the Board of Orange County Commissioners along with the Durham-Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan
Planning Organization and GoTriangle adopted Orange County’s first comprehensive Transit Plan. This Plan was
funded using a newly adopted Article 43 Half-Cent Sales Tax, and it included investments in new and expanded bus
service, bus stop improvements and new capital infrastructure projects such as the Chapel Hill North-South Bus Rapid
Transit Project and the Hillsborough Train Station.
In November 2019, the Board of Orange County Commissioners approved a planning framework to update the
Transit Plan. While the updated Plan will outline transit investment priorities through 2040, there are several existing
bus capital projects, such as bus shelters, that were included in the original plan and are committed projects that
continue to proceed. Orange County Public Transportation (OCPT) bus stop sites that have been targeted for bus
shelters in Hillsborough include:
1. Faucette Mill Rd. at Cornelius Street (US 70)
2. North Churton Street (NC-86) at Hillsborough Police Station
3. New NC 86 South Bound at Home Depot
These stops service more than one OCPT route including Hillsborough Circulator, Orange-Chapel Hill Connector as
well as GoTriangle and Chapel-Hill Transit routes.
An encroachment agreement is necessary for any encroachment into NCDOT Right-of-Way. Since the shelters
discussed here are located within Hillsborough, the encroachment agreement that has been recommended is of a
three-party nature. The NCDOT owns the Right-of-Way, Orange County is the project sponsor, and the town is a
party, as it would take ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the shelters following construction. This effort
has been coordinated among the staffs, including Town of Hillsborough Public Works, Town Public Space Division,
and Orange County departments.
Orange County staff attended the town’s Oct. 14, 2019 board meeting and provided an update on the shelters,
including the plans for ownership and maintenance reflected in the attached agreement. The Orange County Board of
Commissioners will take action on the agreement at its March 10, 2020 meeting via its consent agenda.
The Eclipse-Arch model transit shelter, to be used at the three sites, is made in the USA by Brasco International, is 5’
x 10’, black in color, and is equipped with solar lighting and USB connector. This shelter is on the NCDOT approved
list for shelters in its Right-of-Way, it has been recommended by town staff, approved by the Historic District
Commission, presented to the Town Board of Commissioners for information in October 2019, and matches the
shelter that is planned and currently under construction at the River Park entranceway on Churton Street.
Following authorization of the encroachment agreement, Orange County Asset Management Services (AMS) will
manage the construction of the shelters in coordination with a staff team to also include representatives from the
Town of Hillsborough, Orange County Planning and Inspections Department and OCPT and GoTriangle
representatives. Summer/Fall 2020 is the target date for project completion.
Financial Impacts:
Town of Hillsborough will be responsible for ownership and maintenance of the bus shelters. No additional funding is
needed at this time.
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
None
Attachment 1
Map of Locations for Bus Shelters in Hillsborough and Chapel Hill
Locations:
1. Faucette Mill Rd. at Cornelius Street (US 70);
2. North Churton Street (NC-86) at Hillsborough Police Station;
3. New NC 86 South Bound at Home Depot; and
4. MLK Boulevard at Homestead (Chapel Hill).
Attachment 2
FORM R/W 16.6
Rev. July 1, 1977
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ROUTE SR 1328/US 70 BYP
New NC 86
Churton St/NC 86
PROJECT Orange County Bus
Stop Improvements –
Bus Shelters
COUNTY OF Orange
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
-AND-
THREE PARTY RIGHT OF WAY
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT ON
Orange County PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SYSTEM
-AND-
Town of Hillsborough
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this the day of , 20 20 , by and between the Department
of Transportation, party of the first part; and Orange County
party of the second part; and Town of Hillsborough
party of the third part,
W I T N E S S E T H
THAT WHEREAS, the party of the second part desires to encroach on the right of way of the public road designated as
Route(s) SR1328/US 70 BYP; New NC 86; and Churton
St/NC 86
, located
at Faucette Mill Rd at US 70 BYP (westbound); at Home Depot at New NC 86 (southbound); and at Hillsborough Police Station
at
Churton St/NC 86 (southbound)
with the construction and/or erection of: concrete pads, bus shelters, and associated improvements.
WHEREAS, it is to the material advantage of the party of the second part to effect this encroachment, and the party of
the first part in the exercise of authority conferred upon it by statute, is willing to permit the encroachment within the limits of the
right of way as indicated, subject to the conditions of this agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED that the party of the first part hereby grants to the party of the second part the right
and privilege to make this encroachment as shown on attached plan sheet(s), specifications and special provisions which are
made a part hereof upon the following conditions, to wit:
That the installation, operation, and maintenance of the above described facility will be accomplished in accordance with the party of
the first part’s latest POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCOMMODATING UTILITIES ON HIGHWAY RIGHTS-OF-WAY, and such
revisions and amendments thereto as may be in effect at the date of this agreement. Information as to these policies and procedures
may be obtained from the Division Engineer or State Utility Agent of the party of the first part.
That the said party of the second part binds and obligates himself to install and maintain the encroaching facility in such safe and proper
condition that it will not interfere with or endanger travel upon said highway, nor obstruct nor interfere with the proper maintenance
thereof, to reimburse the party of the first part for the cost incurred for any repairs or maintenance to its roadways and structures
necessary due to installation and existence of the facilities of the party of the second part, and if at any time the party of the first part shall
require the removal of or changes in the location of the said facilities, that the said party of the second part binds himself, his successors
and assigns, to promptly remove or alter the said facilities, in order to conform to the said requirement, without any cost to the party of the
first part.
That the party of the second part agrees to provide during construction and any subsequent maintenance proper signs, signal lights,
flagmen and other warning devices for the protection of traffic in conformance with the latest Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
for Streets and Highways and Amendments or Supplements thereto. Information as to the above rules and regulations may be obtained
from the Division Engineer of the party of the first.
That the party of the second part hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless the party of the first part from all damages and
claims for damage that may arise by reason of the installation and maintenance of this encroachment.
That the party of the second part agrees to restore all areas disturbed during installation and maintenance to the satisfaction of the
Division Engineer of the party of the first part. The party of the second part agrees to exercise every reasonable precaution during
construction and maintenance to prevent eroding of soil; silting or pollution of rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, other water
impoundments, ground surfaces or other property; or pollution of the air. There shall be compliance with applicable rules and regulations
of the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission, and with ordinances
and regulations of various counties, municipalities and other official agencies relating to pollution prevention and control. When any
installation or maintenance operation disturbs the ground surface and existing ground cover, the party of the second part agrees to
remove and replace the sod or otherwise reestablish the grass cover to meet the satisfaction of the Division Engineer of the party of the
first part.
That the party of the second part agrees to assume the actual cost of any inspection of the work considered to be necessary by the
Division Engineer of the party of the first part.
That the party of the second part agrees to have available at the construction site, at all times during construction, a copy of this
agreement showing evidence of approval by the party of the first part. The party of the first part reserves the right to stop all work unless
evidence of approval can be shown.
Provided the work contained in this agreement is being performed on a completed highway open to traffic; the party of the second part
agrees to give written notice to the Division Engineer of the party of the first part when all work contained herein has been completed.
Unless specifically requested by the party of the first part, written notice of completion of work on highway projects under construction will
not be required.
That in the case of noncompliance with the terms of this agreement by the party of the second part, the party of the first part reserves
the right to stop all work until the facility has been brought into compliance or removed from the right of way at no cost to the party of the
first part.
That it is agreed by both parties that this agreement shall become void if actual construction of the work contemplated herein is not
begun within one (1) year from the date of authorization by the party of the first part unless written waiver is secured by the party of the
second part from the party of the first part.
During the performance of this contract, the second party, for itself, its assignees and successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as
the “contractor”), agrees as follows:
a. Compliance with Regulations: The contractor shall comply with the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination in Federally-
assisted programs of the U. S. Department of Transportation, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, as they may be
amended from time to time, (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), which are herein incorporated by reference and
made a part of this contract.
b. Nondiscrimination: The contractor, with regard to the work performed by it during the contract, shall not discriminate on the
grounds of race, color, or national origin in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurements of materials
and leases of equipment. The contractor shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by
Section 21.5 of the Regulations, including employment practices when the contract covers a program set forth in Appendix B
of the Regulations.
c. Solicitations for Subcontracts, including Procurements of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations either by competitive
bidding or negotiation made by the contractor for work to be performed under a subcontract, including procurements of
materials or leases of equipment, each potential subcontractor or supplier shall be notified by the contractor of the
contractor’s obligations under this contract and the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, color, or
national origin.
d. Information and Reports: The contractor shall provide all information and reports required by the Regulations, or directives
issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its
facilities as may be determined by the Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration to be pertinent
to ascertain compliance with such Regulations or directives. Where any information required of a contractor is in the
exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information, the contractor shall so certify to the
Department of Transportation, or the Federal Highway Administration as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts it has
made to obtain the information.
e. Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of the contractor’s noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of this
contract, the Department of Transportation shall impose such contract sanctions as it or the Federal Highway Administration
may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to,
(1) withholding of payments to the contractor under the contract until the contractor complies, and/or
(2) cancellation, termination or suspension of the contract, in whole or in part.
f. Incorporation of Provisions: The contractor shall include the provisions of paragraphs “a” through “f” in every subcontract,
including procurements of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations, or directives issued
pursuant thereto. The contractor shall take such action with respect to any subcontract or procurement as the Department
of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including
sanctions for noncompliance: Provided, however, that, in the event a contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with,
litigation with a subcontractor or supplier as a result of such direction, the contractor may request the Department of
Transportation to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the State, and, in addition, the contractor may request
the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.
That when title to the subject that constitutes the aforesaid encroachment passes from the party of the second part
and vests in the party of the third part, the party of the third part agrees to assume all responsibilities and rights and to
perform all obligations as agreed to herein by the party of the second part.
R/W (166): Party of the Second Part certifies that this agreement is true and accurate copy of the form
R/W (166) incorporating all revisions to date.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties to this agreement has caused the same to be executed the day and
year first above written.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BY:
DIVISION ENGINEER
WITNESS:
ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY
Donna Baker – Clerk to the BOCC Penny Rich - Chair
Second Party
WITNESS:
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
Third Party
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 9, 2020
Department: Utilities
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
6.H
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Marie Strandwitz, Utilities Director
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Construction Contract with Smith-Rowe, LLC to perform the West Fork Eno Reservoir Road Improvements Project
Attachment(s):
1.Contract and Supporting Documents
Brief Summary:
See below.
Action Requested:
Approve the construction contract, authorizing the town manager to sign.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
This contract is for the final component of the West Fork Eno Reservoir (WFER) Phase 2 improvements project. It
involves raising two road elevations and replacing a bridge and culvert on Carr Store and Mill Creek Roads.
Substantial completion is expected by Dec. 15, 2020 (filling the reservoir and roads open) and final completion by
April 15, 2021 (final seeding, demobilization, site restoration). The town has already completed the study, design,
dam reconstruction, site clearing and raising of Efland-Cedar Grove Road. The US Corps of Engineers has extended
the WFER construction permit through July of 2021.
Financial Impacts:
The construction cost is $2,440,790.92. The construction cost and associated construction observation and materials
testing are covered under a recently approved 2020 bond. The total final component of the WFER project, including
contingency and bond financing is $3,271,000.
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
Completing this last part of the project will allow the reservoir to be filled to its new Phase 2 level of 53 feet to provide
an adequate source of water supply to the Hillsborough customers for several years to come.
Elevation/Reconstruction Carr Store, Mill Creek Rd 1 of 6 AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (STIPULATED PRICE)
THIS AGREEMENT is by and between Town of Hillsborough, NC (“Owner”) and
Smith-Rowe, LLC (Mount Airy, NC) (“Contractor”).
Owner and Contractor hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1 – WORK
1.01 Contractor shall complete all Work as specified or indicated in the Contract Documents. The Work is
generally described as follows:
The work includes coordination with the Owner to reconstruct portions of Carr Store Road and Mill Creek
Road in order to raise the profile of the highways as part of the future reservoir expansion project. The work
is being done under permits established as part of the reservoir expansion project, and Contractor must
adhere to the conditions of those permits.
The following basic services are included in this contract: demolition of culverts and pavement; bridge and
culvert construction; highway construction; traffic control (detour); drainage; erosion and sediment control;
embankment armoring; and signs and pavement markings. All this work should be performed in accordance
with the plans and specifications. The project site is located at the northern end of the West Fork Eno
Reservoir, north of the Town of Hillsborough, where Carr Store Road (SR 1004) and Mill Creek Road (SR
1343) intersect.
ARTICLE 2 – THE PROJECT
2.01 The Project for which the Work under the Contract Documents may be the whole or only a part is
generally described as follows:
The work described in Article 1 comprises the entire project.
ARTICLE 3 – ENGINEER
3.01 The Project has been designed by Atkins, which is to act as Owner’s representative, assume all duties
and responsibilities, and have the rights and authority assigned to Engineer in the Contract Documents in
connection with the completion of the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents.
ARTICLE 4 – CONTRACT TIMES
4.01 Time of the Essence
A. All time limits for Milestones, if any, Substantial Completion, and completion and readiness for final
payment as stated in the Contract Documents are of the essence of the Contract.
Elevation/Reconstruction Carr Store, Mill Creek Rd 2 of 6 AGREEMENT
4.02 Days to Achieve Substantial Completion and Final Payment
A. The Work will be substantially completed by December 15, 2020 and completed and ready for final
payment in accordance with Paragraph 15.07 of the General Conditions by April 15, 2021.
Substantially complete means the roads are open for driving and the reservoir water level can be raised
to its new Phase 2 water level of 53 feet.
4.03 Liquidated Damages
A. Contractor and Owner recognize that time is of the essence as stated in Paragraph 4.01 above and that
Owner will suffer financial loss if the Work is not completed within the times specified in Paragraph 4.02
above, plus any extensions thereof allowed in accordance with the General Conditions. The parties also
recognize the delays, expense, and difficulties involved in proving in a legal or arbitration proceeding the
actual loss suffered by Owner if the Work is not completed on time. Accordingly, instead of requiring any
such proof, Owner and Contractor agree that as liquidated damages for delay (but not as a penalty),
Contractor shall pay Owner, One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) for each calendar day that expires after the
time specified in Paragraph 4.02 above for Final Completion until the Work is completed and accepted
by the Owner and Engineer and ready for final payment. See also Project Special Provisions – General.
ARTICLE 5 – CONTRACT PRICE
5.01 Owner shall pay Contractor for completion of the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents an
amount in current funds equal to the sum of the amounts determined pursuant to Paragraphs 5.01.A
below:
A. For all Work, at the prices stated in Contractor’s Bid, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
ARTICLE 6 – PAYMENT PROCEDURES
6.01 Submittal and Processing of Payments
A. Contractor shall submit Applications for Payment in accordance with Article 15 of the General
Conditions.
B. Applications for Payment shall be due to the Engineer on the tenth calendar day of each month during
performance of the work. Should the tenth day fall on a Saturday, Sunday or official holiday, the
Application shall be due on the first workday following.
C. Applications for Payment will be processed by the Engineer and Owner as provided in the General
Conditions.
6.02 Retainage
A. The Owner will retain 5% of any periodic payment due the Contractor as retainage.
B. The Contractor may apply for a reduction in retainage once a minimum of 50% of the Work is complete.
Upon a recommendation, in writing, from the Engineer that the Work is more than 50% complete and is
proceeding satisfactorily, the Owner, with consent of the surety, shall not retain any further retainage
from periodic payments due Contractor if the Contractor continues to perform satisfactorily.
Elevation/Reconstruction Carr Store, Mill Creek Rd 3 of 6 AGREEMENT
C. The Owner may continue to hold the amount retained up to the completion of 50% of the Work,
provided that the amount Owner continues to retain shall be no more than 2.5% of the total project cost.
If at any time, in the opinion of the Owner, the Work is not proceeding in a satisfactory manner, the
Owner may elect to reinstate retainage for each subsequent periodic payment application up to the
maximum amount of 5% of the total project cost. Following 50% completion of the project, the Owner
may withhold additional retainage from subsequent periodic payments, not to exceed 5%, in order to
allow the Owner to retain 2.5% total retainage through the completion of the project.
D. The Owner, with written consent of the surety, shall release to the Contractor all retainage on payments
held by the Owner after the Owner has received a certificate of Substantial Completion from the
Engineer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Owner held retainage following 50% completion of the
Work, the Owner shall continue to retain sufficient funds to secure completion of the project or the
corrections on any Work, such retained funds not to exceed 2.5% of the estimated value of the Work to
be completed or corrected.
E. Upon Substantial Completion, Owner shall pay an amount sufficient to increase total payments to
Contractor to 100 percent of the Work completed, less such amounts as Engineer shall determine in
accordance with Paragraph 15.02.B.5 of the General Conditions and less 200 percent of Engineer’s
estimate of the value of Work to be completed or corrected as shown on the tentative list of items to be
completed or corrected attached to the certificate of Substantial Completion.
6.03 Final Payment
A. Upon final completion and acceptance of the Work in accordance with Paragraph 15.07 of the General
Conditions, Owner shall pay the remainder of the Contract Price as recommended by Engineer as
provided in said Paragraph 15.07.
ARTICLE 7 – INTEREST
7.01 All moneys not paid when due as provided in Article 15 of the General Conditions, and as amended by
the Supplemental Conditions shall bear interest at the rate of one and one-half percent (1.5%) percent
per month.
ARTICLE 8 – CONTRACTOR’S REPRESENTATIONS
8.01 In order to induce Owner to enter into this Agreement, Contractor makes the following representations:
A. Contractor has examined and carefully studied the Contract Documents and the other related data
identified in the Bidding Documents.
B. Contractor has visited the Site and become familiar with and is satisfied as to the general, local, and
Site conditions that may affect cost, progress, and performance of the Work.
C. Contractor is familiar with and is satisfied as to all federal, state, and local Laws and Regulations that
may affect cost, progress, and performance of the Work.
D. Contractor has carefully studied all: (1) reports of explorations and tests of subsurface conditions at or
contiguous to the Site and all drawings of physical conditions relating to existing surface or subsurface
structures at the Site (except Underground Facilities), if any, that have been identified in Paragraph SC-
5.02 of the Supplementary Conditions as containing reliable "technical data," and (2) reports and
Elevation/Reconstruction Carr Store, Mill Creek Rd 4 of 6 AGREEMENT
drawings of Hazardous Environmental Conditions, if any, at the Site that have been identified in
Paragraph SC-5.06 of the Supplementary Conditions as containing reliable "technical data."
E. Contractor has considered the information known to Contractor; information commonly known to
contractors doing business in the locality of the Site; information and observations obtained from visits
to the Site; the Contract Documents; and the Site-related reports and drawings identified in the Contract
Documents, with respect to the effect of such information, observations, and documents on (1) the cost,
progress, and performance of the Work; (2) the means, methods, techniques, sequences, and
procedures of construction to be employed by Contractor, including any specific means, methods,
techniques, sequences, and procedures of construction expressly required by the Contract Documents;
and (3) Contractor’s safety precautions and programs.
F. Based on the information and observations referred to in Paragraph 8.01.E above, Contractor does not
consider that further examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, studies, or data are necessary for
the performance of the Work at the Contract Price, within the Contract Times, and in accordance with
the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents.
G. Contractor is aware of the general nature of work to be performed by Owner and others at the Site that
relates to the Work as indicated in the Contract Documents.
H. Contractor has given Engineer written notice of all conflicts, errors, ambiguities, or discrepancies that
Contractor has discovered in the Contract Documents, and the written resolution thereof by Engineer is
acceptable to Contractor.
I. The Contract Documents are generally sufficient to indicate and convey understanding of all terms and
conditions for performance and furnishing of the Work.
ARTICLE 9 – CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
9.01 Contents
A. The Contract Documents consist of the following:
1. This Agreement
2. Performance bond
3. Payment bond
4. General Conditions
5. Supplementary Conditions
6. NCDOT Project Special Provisions
7. List of Drawing Sheets
8. Addenda (numbers 1 to 4, inclusive).
9. Exhibits to this Agreement (enumerated as follows):
a. Contractor’s Bid with attachments.
b. Documentation submitted by Contractor prior to Notice of Award.
Elevation/Reconstruction Carr Store, Mill Creek Rd 5 of 6 AGREEMENT
10. The following which may be delivered or issued on or after the Effective Date of the Agreement and
are not attached hereto:
c. Notice to Proceed
d. Work Change Directives
e. Change Orders
B. The documents listed in Paragraph 9.01.A are attached to this Agreement (except as expressly noted
otherwise above).
C. There are no Contract Documents other than those listed above in this Article 9.
D. The Contract Documents may only be amended, modified, or supplemented as provided in Paragraph
3.04 of the General Conditions.
ARTICLE 10 – MISCELLANEOUS
10.01 Terms
A. Terms used in this Agreement will have the meanings stated in the General Conditions, Supplementary
Conditions and Special Provisions.
10.02 Assignment of Contract
A. No assignment by a party hereto of any rights under or interests in the Contract will be binding on
another party hereto without the written consent of the party sought to be bound; and, specifically but
without limitation, moneys that may become due and moneys that are due may not be assigned without
such consent (except to the extent that the effect of this restriction may be limited by law), and unless
specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or
discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under the Contract Documents.
10.03 Successors and Assigns
A. Owner and Contractor each binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives to
the other party hereto, its partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives in respect to all
covenants, agreements, and obligations contained in the Contract Documents.
10.04 Severability
A. Any provision or part of the Contract Documents held to be void or unenforceable under any Law or
Regulation shall be deemed stricken, and all remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and binding
upon Owner and Contractor, who agree that the Contract Documents shall be reformed to replace such
stricken provision or part thereof with a valid and enforceable provision that comes as close as possible
to expressing the intention of the stricken provision.
Elevation/Reconstruction Carr Store, Mill Creek Rd 6 of 6 AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Contractor has caused this contract to be signed in its name by
__________________________, its Member/Manager and attested by its Secretary, with due
authority given, and the Town has caused this Contract to be signed in its corporate name by its
Manager and its corporate seal affixed and duly attested by its Town Clerk, by authority of the
Board of Commissioners duly given, all as of the date first written above.
ATTEST:
BY
Secretary President
ATTEST: TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
BY
Town Clerk Town Manager
(SEAL)
Approved as to form and “This instrument has been
legal sufficiency: preaudited in the manner
required by Local Government
Budget and Fiscal Control
Act.”
City Attorney Finance Officer
EXHIBIT A:Town of Hillsborough Elevation/Reconstruction of Carr Store Road and Mill Creek Road
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: _March 9, 2020_______________
Department: __Finance_____________________
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing: ___ _________
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
6.I
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Finance Director, Daphna Schwartz
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Delinquent food and beverage penalties due from Beau Catering, Hot Tin Roof and Tacos Los Altos
Attachment(s):
None
Brief Summary:
Penalties for late filing are $2.00 per day. The town has not received penalties from the following businesses:
Beau Catering - $164.00 (late filing for June, July and September 2019);
Hot Tin Roof - $40.00 (late filing for June 2019); and
Tacos Los Altos - $141.75 (late filing for September, October and November 2019)
All three businesses have received four letters informing them of the penalties due. The next step is for the town’s
attorney to send a letter to each business regarding their delinquency. If the businesses do not pay after receiving a
letter from the town’s attorney, this issue will be brought to the board requesting legal action.
Action Requested:
None currently.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
Stated above.
Financial Impacts:
Stated above.
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 9, 2020
Department: Administration
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
6.J
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Wright, Public Information Officer
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Public Access Channel and Operations Contract
Attachment(s):
1. Contract for the Operation of Public Access Channel
2. Video Programming Distribution excerpt
Brief Summary:
The People’s Channel requests that the town implement a public access channel which the nonprofit corporation
would operate for the town. Under the proposed contract, the town would transfer to the People’s Channel any
Public, Educational and Governmental (PEG) Access Channel funds specifically designated for the public access
channel that Hillsborough would be provided quarterly by the state for the channel’s operation. The People’s Channel
would:
• Maintain the video server and equipment.
• Manage the partnership with Spectrum’s cable division for the channel.
• Handle questions and concerns of the channel’s producers and viewers.
• Schedule, program, and broadcast content for the channel with the same content feed used for the towns of
Carrboro and Chapel Hill’s public access channels, broadcasting content provided by the Town of
Hillsborough and residents and balancing the program schedule among the three towns.
• Provide access to video equipment, green-screen studio, editing software and training free annually for up to
10 town employees and for a fee to community members, using the same rates charged to citizens of other
municipalities partnering with the People’s Channel.
Action Requested:
Approve implementation of a public access channel and the proposed contract with the People’s Channel for the
operation of the channel.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
The town previously operated a governmental access channel, which was ended in Fiscal Year 2019 due to failure of
the equipment, an effort to streamline staff time, and low return seen from use of the channel. The implementation of
a public access channel would require town staff to:
• Annually submit certification of the channel to the state.
• Quarterly transfer funds received from the state for the channel’s operation.
Under the contract, the People’s Channel would not create content for the channel but would broadcast content
provided by the town and by community members.
Additional potential needs for staff time would be:
• Promotion of the channel and broadcast opportunities to the community.
• Creation of content for the channel.
Financial Impacts:
Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-644.44J(b), the state distributes $4 million a year to municipalities for the operation of
public, educational and governmental access channels. The funds are distributed quarterly, with the amount received
dependent on the number of channels. A municipality operating one PEG channel in the first quarter of Fiscal Year
2019 would have received $6,944.44 for the channel’s operation. Under the proposed agreement, the town would
transfer funds designated for the public access channel to the People’s Channel for operation of that channel.
The town can choose not to spend additional resources on creating content for the channel. However, the town has
PEG funds still in reserve from the years it operated a governmental access channel that could be used to create
content for the public access channel. PEG funds may only be used for the operation of the channel, which includes
the creation of content.
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
We see value in:
• Offering the opportunity for the community to have content they create broadcast.
• Having access at no cost to video equipment, green-screen studio, editing software and training for staff.
• Having the opportunity to create content that meets town and tourism goals and is appropriate for the
channel with reserve PEG funds.
Should the partnership require more staff time than anticipated, we would reassess and likely discontinue the
channel, particularly if little return value is seen.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA CONTRACT FOR THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE OPERATION OF
PUBLIC ACCESS
CHANNEL
This Contract is made and entered into by and between the Town of Hillsborough
(“Town”) and The People’s Channel, a North Carolina non-profit corporation
(“Contractor”), for services hereinafter described for the Town of Hillsborough. This
Contract is for the operation of the Town’s public access channel.
WITNESSETH
That for and in consideration of the mutual promises and conditions set forth below,
the Town and Contractor agree:
1. Duties of the Contractor: The Contractor agrees to perform those duties
described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
2. Duties of the Town: The Town shall:
a. Annually, timely prepare and submit to the North Carolina
Department of Revenue the TR-PEG Cable PEG Channel Certification under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-644.44J(b);
b. Upon receipt, pay to Contractor all those PEG-designated funds
specifically designated for the public access channel provided quarterly by the State of North Carolina.
3. Non-Discrimination: The Contractor agrees to administer all functions
pursuant to this Contract without discrimination because of race, creed, sex,
national origin, age, economic status, sexual orientation, gender identity or
gender expression.
4. Federal and State Legal Compliance: The Contractor must be in full
compliance with all applicable federal and state laws, including those on
immigration.
5. Amendment: This Contract may be amended in writing by mutual agreement
of the Town and Contractor.
6. Term and Termination: The Term of this Contract is one (1) year. The
Contract shall automatically renew each year for an additional one (1) year
term unless terminated by a party. Either party may terminate this Contract
at any time by giving the other party thirty (30) days written notice of
termination. In the event of termination, Contractor shall be entitled to be
paid the pro-rated amount of the quarterly payment received by the Town for
the quarter in which termination occurred.
7. Interpretation/Venue: This Contract shall be construed and enforced under the laws of North Carolina. The courts and the authorities of the State of
North Carolina shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all controversies
between the parties which may arise under or in relation to this Contract. In
the event of any dispute between the parties, venue is properly laid in
Orange County, North Carolina for any state court action and in the Middle
District of North Carolina for any federal court action. Contrary to any
provision that may be contained in any exhibit attached hereto, the Town
shall not consent to 1) resolving any dispute by means of arbitration and/or 2)
waiver of a trial by jury.
8. Severability: The parties intend and agree that if any provision of this
Contract or any portion thereof shall be held to be void or otherwise
unenforceable, all other portions of this Contract shall remain in full force
and effect.
9. Assignment: This Contract shall not be assigned without the prior written
consent of the parties.
10. Authority. Each signatory below personally warrants that he or she has the
legal authority to bind the entity on behalf of which he or she is executing this Contract.
11. Entire Agreement: This Contract shall constitute the entire agreement of the
parties and no other warranties, inducements, considerations, promises, or interpretations shall be implied or impressed upon this Contract that are not
expressly addressed herein. All prior agreements, understandings and
discussions are hereby superseded by this Contract.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto cause this Contract to be executed in
their respective names.
THE PEOPLE’S CHANNEL
Carson Riedel, Executive Director
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
Eric Peterson, Town Manager
ATTEST BY TOWN CLERK:
Katherine Cathey, Town Clerk
Town Clerk attests date this the day of , 2020.
Approved as to Form and Authorization
Town Attorney
This instrument has been pre-audited in the manner required by the Local
Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act.
Town Finance Officer Date
EXHIBIT A—DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR
Contractor will:
• Maintain an up-to-date video server and its ancillary components.
• Source, create, schedule, program, and broadcast content for Hillsborough’s
public-access TV channel, including content specifically about
Hillsborough. With regard to content specifically about Hillsborough, this
Contract contains no obligation for Contractor to create or produce Hillsborough-specific content. The Town and its residents are encouraged
to create and produce such content. The Town may, but is not required to,
hire Contractor to create and/or produce Hillsborough-specific content by
separate agreement. Contractor shall consult with Town staff at least one
time each quarter about programming content and preferences. The Town
acknowledges that the same content feed will serve the Town and the
towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and that Contractor must balance the
schedule among the three towns.
• Manage partnership with Spectrum’s cable division for Hillsborough’s public-
access TV channel.
• Attend to the questions and concerns of the Hillsborough public-access TV
channel’s producers and viewers.
• Provide access to high-quality video equipment (including HD/4K cameras,
tripods, mics, cables, headphones, and lights), a green-screen studio in
Chapel Hill, computers, professional editing software, production and post- production training, and broadcasting opportunities to all citizens and staff of
the Town of Hillsborough. Such access shall be free of charge to up to ten (10)
Town staff annually. Any Town staff wishing to access Contractor’s camera
equipment must complete a free group camera certification class provided by
Contractor. Town residents will be offered access at the same costs charged
to citizens of other municipalities served by Contractor. Those costs are
published on Contractor’s website, and they may be changed from time to
time in Contractor’s sole discretion.
Contractor will provide these services in its discretion and subject to time, budgetary,
and facility limitations, but failure to provide services in any quarter shall be a
material breach of this Contract for which the Town may terminate the Contract or
withhold payment in the Town’s discretion.
Distribution Date December 16, 2019 VIDEO PROGRAMMING DISTRIBUTION Deposit Date December 16, 2019
Qtr 07/01/2019 - 09/30/2019
Prefix Local Government
# Of Certified
PEG Channels
Supplemental
PEG Channel
Support
Proportionate
Share of
Distribution
Sales Tax on Video
Programming
Sales Tax on Direct-
to-Home Satellite
Sales Tax on
Telecommunication
Service Total Distribution
County of Alamance 1 6,944.44$ 0.23903%16,288.98$ 14,594.44$ 11,515.24$ 49,343.10$
Village of Alamance 0 -$ 0.00093%63.54$ 56.93$ 44.92$ 165.39$
City of Burlington 1 6,944.44$ 0.49042%33,419.41$ 29,942.79$ 23,625.32$ 93,931.96$
Town of Elon 0 -$ 0.14330%9,765.17$ 8,749.30$ 6,903.33$ 25,417.80$
City of Graham 0 -$ 0.13356%9,101.57$ 8,154.73$ 6,434.21$ 23,690.51$
Town of Green Level 0 -$ 0.01015%691.61$ 619.66$ 488.92$ 1,800.19$
Town of Haw River 0 -$ 0.01859%1,266.65$ 1,134.88$ 895.44$ 3,296.97$
City of Mebane 0 -$ 0.09427%6,423.91$ 5,755.63$ 4,541.28$ 16,720.82$
Town of Ossipee 0 -$ 0.00276%188.25$ 168.67$ 133.08$ 490.00$
Town of Swepsonville 0 -$ 0.00677%461.50$ 413.49$ 326.25$ 1,201.24$
County of Alexander 2 13,888.88$ 0.14769%10,064.47$ 9,017.47$ 7,114.92$ 40,085.74$
Town of Taylorsville 0 -$ 0.04625%3,151.84$ 2,823.95$ 2,228.14$ 8,203.93$
County of Alleghany 3 20,833.32$ 0.01827%1,245.17$ 1,115.64$ 880.26$ 24,074.39$
Town of Sparta 0 -$ 0.01084%738.44$ 661.62$ 522.03$ 1,922.09$
County of Anson 0 -$ 0.03083%2,101.07$ 1,882.49$ 1,485.32$ 5,468.88$
Town of Ansonville 0 -$ 0.00281%191.40$ 171.49$ 135.31$ 498.20$
Town of Lilesville 0 -$ 0.00308%210.08$ 188.23$ 148.51$ 546.82$
Town of McFarlan 0 -$ 0.00000%-$ -$ -$ -$
Town of Morven 0 -$ 0.00093%63.49$ 56.89$ 44.88$ 165.26$
Town of Peachland 0 -$ 0.00087%58.97$ 52.83$ 41.69$ 153.49$
Town of Polkton 0 -$ 0.00211%143.75$ 128.79$ 101.62$ 374.16$
Town of Wadesboro 0 -$ 0.04357%2,969.03$ 2,660.16$ 2,098.91$ 7,728.10$
County of Ashe 0 -$ 0.11355%7,737.76$ 6,932.80$ 5,470.08$ 20,140.64$
Town of Jefferson 0 -$ 0.01243%846.88$ 758.78$ 598.69$ 2,204.35$
Town of Lansing 0 -$ 0.00040%27.36$ 24.52$ 19.35$ 71.23$
Town of West Jefferson 0 -$ 0.00100%68.01$ 60.93$ 48.08$ 177.02$
County of Avery 0 -$ 0.07040%4,797.53$ 4,298.45$ 3,391.54$ 12,487.52$
Town of Banner Elk 0 -$ 0.00903%615.33$ 551.31$ 435.00$ 1,601.64$
Town of Crossnore 0 -$ 0.00077%52.58$ 47.11$ 37.17$ 136.86$
Town of Elk Park 0 -$ 0.00529%360.52$ 323.01$ 254.86$ 938.39$
Village of Grandfather Village 0 -$ 0.00012%7.87$ 7.05$ 5.56$ 20.48$
Town of Newland 0 -$ 0.00586%399.06$ 357.55$ 282.11$ 1,038.72$
Village of Sugar Mountain 0 -$ 0.01067%727.11$ 651.47$ 514.02$ 1,892.60$
Page 1 of 19
Prefix Local Government
# Of Certified
PEG Channels
Supplemental
PEG Channel
Support
Proportionate
Share of
Distribution
Sales Tax on Video
Programming
Sales Tax on Direct-
to-Home Satellite
Sales Tax on
Telecommunication
Service Total Distribution
Town of Taylortown 0 -$ 0.00350%238.30$ 213.51$ 168.46$ 620.27$
Town of Vass 0 -$ 0.00836%569.39$ 510.16$ 402.52$ 1,482.07$
Village of Whispering Pines 0 -$ 0.05692%3,878.81$ 3,475.30$ 2,742.06$ 10,096.17$
County of Nash 3 20,833.32$ 0.14822%10,100.18$ 9,049.46$ 7,140.16$ 47,123.12$
Town of Bailey 0 -$ 0.00079%54.05$ 48.43$ 38.21$ 140.69$
Town of Castalia 0 -$ 0.00061%41.33$ 37.03$ 29.21$ 107.57$
Town of Dortches 0 -$ 0.00086%58.60$ 52.50$ 41.43$ 152.53$
Town of Middlesex 0 -$ 0.00090%61.41$ 55.02$ 43.41$ 159.84$
Town of Momeyer 0 -$ 0.00100%68.31$ 61.20$ 48.29$ 177.80$
Town of Nashville 1 6,944.44$ 0.06207%4,229.52$ 3,789.52$ 2,989.99$ 17,953.47$
Town of Red Oak 0 -$ 0.01747%1,190.40$ 1,066.56$ 841.53$ 3,098.49$
City of Rocky Mount 3 20,833.32$ 0.53489%36,450.18$ 32,658.27$ 25,767.87$ 115,709.64$
Town of Sharpsburg 0 -$ 0.01457%992.66$ 889.39$ 701.74$ 2,583.79$
Town of Spring Hope 1 6,944.44$ 0.00544%370.43$ 331.90$ 261.87$ 7,908.64$
County of New Hanover 2 13,888.88$ 1.61765%110,234.92$ 98,767.20$ 77,928.81$ 300,819.81$
Town of Carolina Beach 0 -$ 0.13243%9,024.42$ 8,085.61$ 6,379.67$ 23,489.70$
Town of Kure Beach 0 -$ 0.05064%3,451.03$ 3,092.02$ 2,439.65$ 8,982.70$
City of Wilmington 1 6,944.44$ 1.95097%132,948.46$ 119,117.85$ 93,985.78$ 352,996.53$
Town of Wrightsville Beach 0 -$ 0.08547%5,824.55$ 5,218.62$ 4,117.57$ 15,160.74$
County of Northampton 0 -$ 0.00848%577.56$ 517.47$ 408.29$ 1,503.32$
Town of Conway 0 -$ 0.00163%110.76$ 99.24$ 78.30$ 288.30$
Town of Garysburg 0 -$ 0.01161%791.19$ 708.88$ 559.32$ 2,059.39$
Town of Gaston 0 -$ 0.01750%1,192.21$ 1,068.18$ 842.81$ 3,103.20$
Town of Jackson 0 -$ 0.00221%150.89$ 135.19$ 106.67$ 392.75$
Town of Lasker 0 -$ 0.00055%37.46$ 33.56$ 26.48$ 97.50$
Town of Rich Square 0 -$ 0.00517%352.05$ 315.42$ 248.87$ 916.34$
Town of Seaboard 0 -$ 0.00814%554.77$ 497.05$ 392.18$ 1,444.00$
Town of Severn 0 -$ 0.00114%77.47$ 69.41$ 54.77$ 201.65$
Town of Woodland 0 -$ 0.00633%431.03$ 386.19$ 304.71$ 1,121.93$
County of Onslow 1 6,944.44$ 1.31212%89,414.52$ 80,112.74$ 63,210.16$ 239,681.86$
Town of Holly Ridge 0 -$ 0.02208%1,504.52$ 1,348.01$ 1,063.60$ 3,916.13$
City of Jacksonville 1 6,944.44$ 0.53447%36,421.42$ 32,632.50$ 25,747.54$ 101,745.90$
Town of North Topsail Beach 0 -$ 0.06099%4,156.29$ 3,723.91$ 2,938.22$ 10,818.42$
Town of Richlands 0 -$ 0.02978%2,029.04$ 1,817.96$ 1,434.40$ 5,281.40$
Town of Swansboro 0 -$ 0.03685%2,511.04$ 2,249.81$ 1,775.14$ 6,535.99$
County of Orange 0 -$ 0.36290%24,729.73$ 22,157.10$ 17,482.29$ 64,369.12$
Town of Carrboro 2 13,888.88$ 0.24532%16,717.42$ 14,978.31$ 11,818.11$ 57,402.72$
Page 12 of 19
Prefix Local Government
# Of Certified
PEG Channels
Supplemental
PEG Channel
Support
Proportionate
Share of
Distribution
Sales Tax on Video
Programming
Sales Tax on Direct-
to-Home Satellite
Sales Tax on
Telecommunication
Service Total Distribution
Town of Chapel Hill 3 20,833.32$ 0.94053%64,092.15$ 57,424.66$ 45,308.92$ 187,659.05$
Town of Hillsborough 1 6,944.44$ 0.08046%5,482.92$ 4,912.54$ 3,876.06$ 21,215.96$
County of Pamlico 0 -$ 0.01450%987.86$ 885.10$ 698.35$ 2,571.31$
Town of Alliance 0 -$ 0.00333%226.59$ 203.02$ 160.19$ 589.80$
Town of Arapahoe 0 -$ 0.00333%227.11$ 203.48$ 160.55$ 591.14$
Town of Bayboro 0 -$ 0.00969%660.61$ 591.89$ 467.01$ 1,719.51$
Town of Grantsboro 0 -$ 0.00178%121.42$ 108.79$ 85.84$ 316.05$
Town of Mesic 0 -$ 0.00080%54.36$ 48.71$ 38.43$ 141.50$
Town of Minnesott Beach 0 -$ 0.00438%298.48$ 267.43$ 211.00$ 776.91$
Town of Oriental 0 -$ 0.01481%1,009.55$ 904.52$ 713.68$ 2,627.75$
Town of Stonewall 0 -$ 0.00045%30.74$ 27.54$ 21.73$ 80.01$
Town of Vandemere 0 -$ 0.00094%64.33$ 57.64$ 45.48$ 167.45$
County of Pasquotank 3 20,833.32$ 0.19764%13,468.22$ 12,067.12$ 9,521.14$ 55,889.80$
City of Elizabeth City 0 -$ 0.17205%11,724.17$ 10,504.51$ 8,288.21$ 30,516.89$
County of Pender 0 -$ 0.40709%27,741.12$ 24,855.22$ 19,611.14$ 72,207.48$
Town of Atkinson 0 -$ 0.00162%110.49$ 99.00$ 78.11$ 287.60$
Town of Burgaw 0 -$ 0.02967%2,021.62$ 1,811.31$ 1,429.15$ 5,262.08$
Village of Saint Helena 0 -$ 0.00213%145.30$ 130.18$ 102.72$ 378.20$
Town of Surf City 0 -$ 0.09708%6,615.27$ 5,927.08$ 4,676.56$ 17,218.91$
Town of Topsail Beach 0 -$ 0.02705%1,843.02$ 1,651.29$ 1,302.90$ 4,797.21$
Town of Watha 0 -$ 0.00156%106.27$ 95.21$ 75.12$ 276.60$
County of Perquimans 0 -$ 0.02593%1,767.32$ 1,583.47$ 1,249.38$ 4,600.17$
Town of Hertford 0 -$ 0.01927%1,313.38$ 1,176.75$ 928.47$ 3,418.60$
Town of Winfall 0 -$ 0.00324%220.84$ 197.87$ 156.12$ 574.83$
County of Person 0 -$ 0.08641%5,888.58$ 5,275.99$ 4,162.84$ 15,327.41$
City of Roxboro 0 -$ 0.09022%6,148.08$ 5,508.50$ 4,346.29$ 16,002.87$
County of Pitt 1 6,944.44$ 0.50196%34,206.37$ 30,647.88$ 24,181.64$ 95,980.33$
Town of Ayden 0 -$ 0.04468%3,044.90$ 2,728.14$ 2,152.54$ 7,925.58$
Town of Bethel 0 -$ 0.01259%857.85$ 768.61$ 606.45$ 2,232.91$
Town of Falkland 0 -$ 0.00022%14.95$ 13.40$ 10.57$ 38.92$
Town of Farmville 0 -$ 0.04191%2,855.85$ 2,558.76$ 2,018.90$ 7,433.51$
Town of Fountain 0 -$ 0.00066%44.69$ 40.04$ 31.59$ 116.32$
City of Greenville 2 13,888.88$ 1.09214%74,423.68$ 66,681.40$ 52,612.63$ 207,606.59$
Town of Grifton 0 -$ 0.00629%428.89$ 384.27$ 303.20$ 1,116.36$
Town of Grimesland 0 -$ 0.00382%260.19$ 233.12$ 183.94$ 677.25$
Village of Simpson 0 -$ 0.00201%137.25$ 122.97$ 97.03$ 357.25$
Town of Winterville 0 -$ 0.09268%6,315.58$ 5,658.57$ 4,464.69$ 16,438.84$
Page 13 of 19
Prefix Local Government
# Of Certified
PEG Channels
Supplemental
PEG Channel
Support
Proportionate
Share of
Distribution
Sales Tax on Video
Programming
Sales Tax on Direct-
to-Home Satellite
Sales Tax on
Telecommunication
Service Total Distribution
Notes:
1) 7.70% of the net proceeds of the State Sales Tax on Telecommunication Services
2) 23.60% of the net proceeds of the State Sales Tax on Video Programming Services, other than on Direct ‑to‑Home Satellite Service
3) 37.10% of the net proceeds of the State Sales Tax on Direct‑to‑Home Satellite Service
D) For questions concerning the breakdown of the amount distributed, please contact the Distribution Unit at (919) 814-1118.
A county's or city's proportionate share is based on its certified amount of revenue from cable franchise fees and PEG channel subscriber fees for the first six months of FY06-07 compared to the
statewide total of those revenues. The proportionate share for counties and cities that had no cable revenues during this time is based on an amount equal to $2 per capita [G.S. 105-164-44I(c)].
Proportional shares are adjusted each fiscal year by changes in certified populations estimated by the State Budget Officer [G.S. 105-164-44I(d)]. For the purposes of this distribution, the population of a
county is the population of its unincorporated areas plus the populations of any ineligible cities in the county [G.S. 105-164-44I(g)].
A) The share of each certified PEG channel that North Carolina counties and cities receive is one-fourth of the sum of $4,000,000 and the amount of any funds returned to the Secretary in the prior fiscal
divided by the number of certified PEG channels [G.S. 105-164-44I(b)]. A qualifying PEG channel is one that meets the programming requirements under G.S. 66-357(d). A county or city must certify to
the Secretary by July 15 of each year the qualifying PEG channels it operates. A county or city may not receive PEG channel support for more than three qualifying PEG channels. The money
distributed to a county or city for PEG channel support must be used by it for the operation and support of PEG channels. The term "PEG channel" means "A public, educational, or governmental
access channel provided to a county or city." [G.S. 66-350].
B) According to G.S. 105-164.44J(c), a county or city must use the supplemental PEG channel support funds distributed to it for the operation and support of each of the qualifying PEG channels it
certifies by allocating the amount it receives equally among each of the qualifying PEG channels. A county or city must distribute the supplemental PEG channel support funds to the PEG channel
operator of the qualifying PEG channel within 30 days of its receipt of the supplemental PEG channel support funds from the Department, or as specified in an inter-local agreement. If a qualifying PEG
channel has more than one PEG channel operator, the county or city must distribute the amount allocated for that PEG channel equally to each PEG channel operator, or as specified in an inter-local
agreement.
C) North Carolina counties and cities receive a quarterly distribution of their proportionate share of each of the following three taxes, minus $1,000,000 per quarter for Supplemental PEG
Channel Support, to replace local cable television franchise taxes repealed as of January 1, 2007 [G.S. 105-164.44F(a) and G.S. 105-164-44I(a), (b)]:
Page 19 of 19
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 9, 2020
Department: Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing: Jan. 16, 2020
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
7.A
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Ordinance annexing 313 Odie Street
Attachment(s):
1. Petition
2. Map
3. Annexation ordinance
Brief Summary:
The town received Mr. Bowman’s request for annexation and conducted a public hearing in January. No one spoke at
the public hearing. The Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the annexation.
Action Requested:
Adopt ordinance annexing 313 Odie Street.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
In 2015, Habitat for Humanity requested the annexation of 16 parcels on Odie Street with plans to redevelop the
neighborhood. Two current owners were not interested in selling or being annexed at that time. One owner has now
petitioned for annexation of his parcel at 313 Odie Street. The parcel contains a singlewide mobile home that he is
renovating. The site has existing water and sewer service.
The site is zoned Residential-10 with the Plus overlay district, as are the other parcels on the street. The Plus overlay
district allows for the placement of singlewide mobile homes in addition to replacement of the same. Replacement is
allowed in any zoning district, but the placement of a new singlewide is limited to the Plus overlay district and mobile
home parks. The owner is not requesting any change to the zoning. Having all the parcels on the street in the city
limits is desirable from equity and efficiency standpoints.
Financial Impacts:
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
Ordinance No.
The following ordinance was introduced by Commissioner , and duly seconded
by Commissioner .
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING
CERTAIN CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY
WHEREAS, a petition was received requesting the annexation of 313 Odie Street;
WHEREAS, the Parcel Identification Number (PIN) for the requesting property is 9865-
52-5132;
WHEREAS, the petition was signed by the owners of all the real property located within
such area; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the annexation was held on January 16, 2020 following
notice of such hearing published in the News of Orange County on January 1 and January 8, 2020.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE TOWN OF
HILLSBOROUGH ORDAINS:
Section 1. The Board of Commissioners finds that a petition requesting the annexation of
the area described in Section 2 was properly signed by the owners of all the real property located
within such area and that such area is contiguous to the boundaries of the town of Hillsborough,
as the term "contiguous" is defined in G.S. 160A-31(f).
Section 2. The following area is hereby annexed to and made a part of the Town of
Hillsborough:
The southern half of Lot 14 shown on the Plat of Property of James J. Freeland (Odie Jones Trt)
in Book 24 Page 150 as recorded in the Orange County Registry of Deeds.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall become effective on adoption.
Section 4. The Town Clerk shall cause to be recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds
of Orange County and in the Office of the Secretary of State an accurate map of the annexed
territory described in Sections 2 together with a duly certified copy of this ordinance. Such a map
shall also be delivered to the Orange County Board of Elections as required by G.S. 163-288.1.
The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was
duly adopted this 9th day of March 2020.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent or Excused:
Town of Hillsborough
Katherine M. Cathey, Town Clerk
SEAL
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 9, 2020
Department: Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing: Jan. 16, 2020
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
7.B
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Resolution amending the Hillsborough Future Land Use Plan and Map as requested by the neighborhood bounded
by West King Street, West Hill Avenue South, the railroad, and the western city limits
Attachment(s):
1. Application
2. Neighborhood petition
3. Future Land Use Map – neighborhood and entire town
4. Public comments
5. Draft resolution
Brief Summary:
The request, submitted by a neighborhood resident, is two-part:
1) Amend the description of the Small Lot Residential Neighborhood designation to remove R-10 as a possible
zoning.
2) Amend the map so the applicant neighborhood is designated Small Lot Residential rather than the current Urban
Neighborhood.
This item was discussed at the January public hearing. The applicants presented the attached petition and map from
area residents. A straw poll at the public hearing indicated everyone present (about 35) were in favor of the request.
No one indicated they were opposed. Attached are also the email comments received by staff.
The Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of these amendments. The Future Land Use Plan and Map
are amended by resolution, not by ordinance.
Action Requested:
Adopt resolution amending the Future Land Use Plan and Map
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
The Future Land Use Plan and Map guides decisions on rezoning requests and future development. The Future Land
Use Plan is composed of a map showing Future Land Use Designations and a brief text detailing those designations
and how they align with zoning districts listed in the Hillsborough Unified Development Ordinance. Together, the map
and text constitute the Future Land Use Plan for the Town of Hillsborough and lands within its jurisdiction. The Plan is
adopted as a component of the Hillsborough Comprehensive Plan and is subject to amendments following the
procedure established in the UDO.
Future Land Use Designations are not a guarantee that land will remain zoned in any particular use district, and are
subject to the availability of infrastructure, including but not limited to water, sanitary sewer, and streets necessary to
support designated or proposed uses.
Currently, the West Hillsborough neighborhood is designated Urban Development. The Urban Neighborhood is
described as: “established residential neighborhoods that pre-date traditional zoning and land use regulation. Lot
sizes and building types are varied and generally developed on a grid street pattern. The predominant type is
generally low-density single-family housing with occasional business, government, park, church or school uses. Infill
and redevelopment projects should enhance the unique character of the surrounding neighborhood and be of
consistent scale and appearance. The opportunity to increase the residential density in a compatible manner is
encouraged. Zoning Districts: R-10; R-15; R-20; Neighborhood Business Special Use; Residential Special Use.”
West Hillsborough has seen some infill and redevelopment activity over the last few years. Several neighborhood
residents approached the town looking for ways to influence decisions about future development. The participating
resident’s west of West Hill Avenue were mostly concerned with the increase of density in their portion of the
neighborhood through rezoning to Residential-10. This allows 10,000 sf lots rather than 15,000 – 20,000 sf lots
allowed in R-15 and R-20. One resident filed an amendment to change the designation West of West Hill Avenue to
Small Lot Residential AND remove R-10 from the Small Lot Residential Neighborhood designation on behalf of the
participating owners and resident’s west of West Hill Ave.
The Small Lot Residential Neighborhood designation was applied to neighborhoods generally developed at R-15 and
R-20 zoning (with a few exceptions). The Plan describes this designation as: “these areas provide opportunities for a
lower density than pre-WWII or neo-traditional neighborhood living. These areas include detached single-family
residential uses in post-WWII subdivision developments which range in density from 0.5 dwelling units per acre to 3
dwelling units per acre. Zoning Districts: R-10; R-15; R-20; Entranceway Special Use; Mixed Residential Special
Use; Residential Special Use.”
Clarifying questions:
As you can see on the map, the boundary of the neighborhood isn’t quite as regular as described. There are 3 areas
where I would like the board to make clear as to your intent.
Murray Street Park – all parks are in the protected open space category. Should this continue or should the park
change to the recommended designation? Planning Board recommended the park remain Protected Open Space.
Barracks Road (north) – there is a parcel of nearly 8 acres on the west side of Barracks Road with about 150 feet of
frontage on Barracks. The bulk of the property is outside the city limits and designated Rural Living. This parcel
contains the Anglican Church building and that is the only building on the acreage. Should this continue or should the
parcel have two different designations? Planning Board recommended the parcel remain Rural Living.
Barracks Road (south) – there is a parcel nearly 2 acres on the west side of Barracks Road near Eno Street. The
parcel is roughly half in and half out of the city limits. The whole parcel is currently Urban Neighborhood. There is one
dwelling and some outbuildings on the property. Should the entire property change to the new designation? Planning
Board recommended the entire parcel be changed to Small Lot Residential.
Financial Impacts:
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
As stated above.
Future Land Use Plan excerpt:
Gray = Urban Neighborhood
Pink = Mixed Use Neighborhood
Green = Rural Living
Dark green = protected open space
Blue = Employment
Gold = Small Lot Residential
The green line is the city limits
The red lines indicate the area included in the amendment request.
The amendment would change the designation for the hatched area from Urban Neighborhood to Small Lot Residential.
I 40
I 85
U
S 70NC 86US 70A
DAVIS MILLERNC 57OLD NC 86K I N G ST MARYSLAWRENCECHURTONORANGE GROVEOLD NC 10
D IM M O C K S M IL L NASHBALDWINNEW HOPE CHURCHGWENQUE EN
C OR B IN
TRYON
U N I O N
FAUCETTE MILL COL
E
MA
NLANNIEOAKDALEWAKEENOWEST HILLC
E
D
A
R
BORLAND ODE TURNERV
A
L
L
I
E
H
I IV Y
C O R N E L IU S
LATIMER
GOVERNOR BURKEFRANK PERRYORA NGE JOYCERAINEYP O P L A R
MAR G AR E T
C D FARMS NEW SHARON CHURCHBUMPHUSPOWDER MILLSUMMITLAKESHOREHARPERREX
REVERE
MINNISTO
R
AIN
P D
H AYE S
B
O
T
A
N
R I P P YALTMANI 85 N I 40 E
FOXLAIRSCOTSWOODMINNICK
BEN JOHNSTON
ALLENSERVICE
LAFAYETTE CAMERONBECKETTS RIDGE
ROCKY
ODIEFRIENDSHIP
ARBORH I G H L A N D F A R M
LONNIEJONESSTONEYCREEKBROKEN JF
A
R
M
G
A
T
E
MILLSTONEMA
Y
O JA MAXDESTINYBELLVUE OAKSILVER APPLESCHURTON GROVE
L E A H
FLETCHERCODYHILL
JA C O B S LOCUSTMEADOW WI
NDP H O E B E
HOOT O
WLCHESHIRECHILDS
MARKLYNANDANTEMURRAYCAROL
I
NAMITCHELLFIRE FLY
ELFINENO MOUNTAIN
WINTONVIRGINIA CATES ORANGE HIGH SCHOOLP
OINTE
R
SURRYLANDEAUHIDDEN PRESERVE
LYRI
CCOLLEGE PARKFORRESTTERRELLBLAIRP
ARKF
O
X HILL F
A
R
M
RIVERCHEYENNEOCCONEECHEEALMARHONDA RIVERSIDEWOODRIDGE
Y A T E S
OAK RIDGE ADAMSBARRACKSMURDOCKELIZABETH BRADYF A R I B A U L T
OLD OAK
W AT E R S T O N EBUTTONWOODWOODBUR
Y
OLD FORESTLATTALENAPEELUTHERC ATES CR EEKCAMP
WALNUT COVEENGLISH HILLHOLMAN
MOOREFIELDS
DIXIE
NEW GRADY BROWN SCHOOL
C AR R IAG E BL
UESTONECENTRALKING EDWARDLARKSPUR
FI
RSTWOODHAVENRHINEROSEWOODRANGER
SAM TUCKERJAYI 4 0 W E X IT 2 5 9
BOULDER RUNT U S C A R O R A HATTERLEIGHSHAWNEE
JUNE
I 85 N EXIT 165
MIJOS
ARMFIELD
RAMS
S E M I N O L ETULIPTREEI 85 I 40 EXIT 163
H A R O L D L A T T A PAW
COUNTY SEAT RUBRUMP
O
IN
T
E
W A T K I N S
ELINI 85 N ENT 164
WASHINGTON
B U R N S I D E
HAMPTON POINTE
I 85 S ENT 164
STROUDS CREEK
RENCHER
NEW HOPELOUIS
C AVELLRED HATJOHN EARLDAIRY FARMRED HAWKLI
NNETSPIRIT HILLSTILL BROOKI 85 S EXIT 165
SHAMROCKBLACK WALNUT FARMOLD SOUTH
SCOTTTURNER
BAYCOURT
JOYNERHOPE VALLEYHOLTBLACKBURNPENINSULACOBALT RIDGEB E N T O NSPARROW HAWKC E D R O N E L L AMARKET HOUSEHUDDLE
VALLEY CREEK
GAYA
C
E
D
A
R S
T
O
N
E
RED FOX
TIMBER OAKMERILSMOLLIECORPORATE
FLIN T RID G E APTSW H IC K E R
VICTORIASTARFIREHICKORYTUPELO
TECOLOTETWIN OAKSSHORTMYRTLEREGULATORS
CORNERSTONEOLD HERITAGETHOMPSON
STARFIELD CINNAMONE
X
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
I 40
U S 70NC 86CARRIAGEE N O
I 85
¯
Legend
Railroad
streets
mapfldhazar
Ur ban Service Boundary
2013 Land Use
Attached Residential
Employment
Government
Light Industry
Med Density Res Neig
Mi xed Res Neighbor
Mi xed Use
Neighborhood Mixed U
Permanent Open Space
Retail Services
Rural Living
Small Lot Resident
Suburban Office
Town Center
Ur ban Neighborhood
Working Farm
EnoRivers
Future Land Use Plan AdoptedMarch 13, 2013last revised 9/12/16
From:Grace Camblos
To:Margaret Hauth
Cc:Erin Coyle
Subject:Comments for Jan. 16, 2020 Public Hearing
Date:Wednesday, January 15, 2020 12:14:13 PM
Hi Margaret,
My partner Erin Coyle and I were planning on coming to the public hearing tomorrow night
about changing the future land use map for our little chunk of West Hillsborough (West Hill
Ave to Baracks Rd, W King St to Eno St), but now we're traveling unexpectedly for a funeral.
So I thought I'd email our comments instead. Are you the right person to be sending them to?
Erin and I live at 212 Riley Avenue, and basically we are both totally in favor of the proposal
to change the future land use map to make it a little bit harder to subdivide lots to R-10. We
are cool with some development -- more modestly-sized houses that aren't super close together
(like Eryn Donnally's small house that's being built around the corner from us) -- but we are
not in favor of giant houses (e.g., more than 2,400 square feet) that cost a lot more than ours
driving up our property taxes, or giant and tightly-packed-in houses that don't fit in with the
smaller pre-existing houses in our neighborhood (like the ones being built on the corner of
Eno St and Barracks Rd). We both really love our neighborhood and can see why people
would want to build and move here, and we'd just like to see that done with thoughtfulness
and consideration towards the existing homes and neighbors.
Thanks for all your help with this process!
best,
Grace Camblos and Erin Coyle
212 Riley Avenue
Hillsborough
Grace Z. Camblos
From:Town of Hillsborough
To:Margaret Hauth
Subject:Contact form message: changes in west hillsborough zoning
Date:Monday, January 13, 2020 9:42:10 AM
Jackie Stonehuerner sent the message below via the Town of Hillsborough website Planning
Department contact form. To respond, reply to this email or contact jgstone246@gmail.com.
I apologize for contacting you once again, but after reviewing more info, I now support the
proposed changes to the zoning that would not allow R-10 lots. As for the changes in density
that will result, I don't think it will amount to hill of beans. It's a potential tempest in an
imaginary teapot. We're talking about 3 lots vs 4 lots/acre, and there aren't all that many acres
in that part of Hillsborough. Almost certainly nothing will change in the next year or so, and
the long-range differences are minimal. However, as I now understand it, the proposed change
would make it harder for someone to build high or medium density housing in this area. It
would present, as I understand it, another hoop developers would have to jump through and
give more chance for neighborhood input. A couple of years ago I talked with most of the
residents and property owners in this area, and my friends talked to the others. Based on that I
assure you 95% of the property owners and most of the renters support anything that makes it
harder to build medium or high density housing in this area.
From:Eric Taylor
To:Margaret Hauth
Subject:Public Hearing
Date:Thursday, January 16, 2020 3:46:27 PM
Hi Margaret,
I know this is late given the hearing scheduled tonight about West Hillsborough zoning
(applicant Arlo Brown) and I'm going to try to attend, but wanted to get a couple questions to
you. I appreciate the town providing notice.
Since the proposed changes included a change to the Small Lot Residential land use
designation (removal of R-10 option), were others similarly situated under that designation in
other Hillsborough neighborhoods also notified of the hearing?
Are there any planning considerations given to affordable housing in any of the affected
neighborhoods, zoning districts or land use designations?
I'm a homeowner in West Hillsborough since 2002 and have observed quite a few changes
over that time to the makeup of the neighborhood's housing and residents. Though I'm not
inclined to side in any debate over zoning and development, I am concerned about the
continued impact on people in the neighborhood, including those who pre-date my arrival, and
especially those less well positioned than those who propose such changes.
Thank you for your time and review of my questions.
Thanks,
Eric
From:Groves Willer
To:Margaret Hauth
Subject:Re: Written comment received before 1/9
Date:Thursday, January 9, 2020 10:35:36 PM
thank you for taking the time to explain this to me!
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 9:08 AM Margaret Hauth <Margaret.Hauth@hillsboroughnc.gov>
wrote:
Groves,
Thanks for reaching out. This is a complex issue and I’m sorry the information I provided
wasn’t more clear.
A change to the Future Land Use Plan has NO impact on how properties are currently
zoned. Churches are allowed in all residential zoning districts. The businesses in West
Hillsborough are already zoned as General Commercial. This proposal has no impact on
those uses. The Episcopal Church will not be impacted.
Zoning controls the day to day use of the property. The Future Land Use Plan influences
how the zoning can be changed if an owner wants to request a change.
This proposal makes it harder to have more houses per acre. The area west of West Hill Ave
is mostly zoned R-15 and R-20 right now. That means the minimum lot size PER HOUSE is
15,000 sf or 20,000 sf. This proposal makes it harder for someone to request smaller lot
sizes in that area (R-10, which is 10,000 sf). Attached housing like Elfin’s Pond is rather
unlikely under the current rules and would be even harder if the proposal is approved. Same
for apartments in the traditional complex arrangement.
Under either proposal, it is possible for a duplex, triplex, or quad to be built in any
residential district if the lot size is large enough. To build this type of housing without a
zoning change, the zoning density has to be maintained. So in an R-15 district, you could
build a triplex only if you lot was at least 45,000 sf (the same as 3 stand alone lots). This
option isn’t used often, but it is sometimes used on oddly shaped lots that are otherwise not
dividable.
The proposal has no impact on outbuildings or accessory dwelling units. Outbuildings are
not dwellings, so they are not impacted. Accessory dwellings are allowed in all zoning
districts and without regard to lot size, so they are also not impacted.
If this raises more questions, please let me know.
Margaret
Margaret A. Hauth, AICP
Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager
919.296.9471
Margaret.hauth@hillsboroughnc.gov
Pursuant to NCGC Chapter 132, Public Records, this electronic mail message and any attachments hereto, as
well as any electronic mail message(s) that may be sent in response to it ‘may’ be considered public record and
as such are subject to request and review by anyone at any time.
From: Groves Willer <groveswiller@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 11:45 PM
To: Margaret Hauth <Margaret.Hauth@hillsboroughnc.gov>
Subject: Written comment received before 1/9
hey I just wanted to let you know that I received your letter about the public hearing
next Thursday. I have read the letter from the town a couple of times and I am still
not clear as to what all this means.
If it's no longer a mixed use urban neighborhood does that mean you can't have a business or
a church there? would that adversely effect the tiny Episcopalian Church across from the
Commandant's house? does this mean you can have more houses per acre or less? Elfin
pond style Town Houses? actual apartment buildings? what about outbuildings? I don't
know the difference between R10 and 20 maybe you could write us back before the
hearing and let the benighted in on the decision..
Resolution Adopting Amendment To
The Future Land Use Plan and Map
For the Town of Hillsborough
WHEREAS, The Town of Hillsborough adopted a Future Land Use Map in March 2013 based, in part, on
recommendations found in the Strategic Growth Plan, and other locally adopted plans, and
WHEREAS, The Future Land Use Plan and Map describe 16 different land uses to recognize the diversity of land uses
currently existing and anticipated to occur in the town’s jurisdiction in the future, and
WHEREAS, The Future Land Use Plan describes various land use designations and indicates which zoning districts
identified in the Unified Development Ordinance are included within each land use designation
identified in the Future Land Use Plan, such information being intended as a resource and reference for
staff and land owners considering rezoning requests, and
WHEREAS, an amendment to the Future Land Use Map was proposed by residents of the neighborhood bounded
by West King Street, West Hill Avenue South, the railroad, and the western city limits to change the
designation for all parcels currently designated Urban Neighborhood in this neighborhood be changed
to Small Lot Residential neighborhood AND to remove Residential-10 as an expected zoning in the Small
Lot Residential Neighborhood designation
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held to gather public comments on these amendments in January 16, 2020, and
WHEREAS, Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the amendments to the Future Land Use Plan
and Map,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Hillsborough Town Board of Commissioners hereby amends the Future Land
Use Plan and Map as described in the fourth “whereas” above with the clarification that any parcels not presently
designated Urban Neighborhood in that boundary remain in their current designation and all parcels have only one land
use designation, regardless of being impacted by a jurisdictional line.
The Future land Use Plan and Map as herein adopted shall be and is a component of the town’s comprehensive plan in
accordance with N.C. G. S. Section 160A-383.
This the 9th day of March, 2020.
Jenn Weaver, Mayor
Seal
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 9, 2020
Department: Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing: Jan. 16, 2020
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
7.C
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Resolution modifying the Special Use Permit for Hampton Pointe Shopping Center to develop an outparcel at 623
Hampton Pointe Blvd
Attachment(s):
1. Application and plan set
2. Draft planning Board minutes - February
3. Draft resolution of approval
Brief Summary:
This application is considered a modification to the original shopping center permit as this lot was created after that
original approval. The public hearing was held in January but no one other than the applicant spoke. The Planning
Board unanimously voted to approve the permit, including the three requested waivers.
Action Requested:
Adopt the resolution granting the permit modification.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
The applicant is seeking 3 waivers as part of their request: 6.10 – landscaping – 5’ separation of parking and building;
6.10 – landscaping – 10’ landscaped area between paving and property line; and 6.13 – parking in excess of 125% of
the ordinance requirement.
Staff are not opposed to any of these waivers. The first landscaping request has been granted to outparcels in
Hampton Pointe for similar reasons. The second is reasonable since the parcel line goes through the shared
driveway access and doesn’t allow for landscaping to be installed without significantly limited vehicles traffic within
the center generally. The third has also been commonly granted due to a restrictive covenant requiring outparcels to
create a specific amount of parking. They are reducing the current site parking, which seems a reasonable trade-off.
Financial Impacts:
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
SCALE: 1" = 1000'LOCATION OF SITEHAMPTON POINTE BLVDHILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278ORANGE COUNTYLOCATION MAPCONTACT: WYATT BONE, P.E. (919) 578-9000OWNERREDSTONE FUNDING LLC5050 BELMONT AVE YOUNGSTOWN, OH 44505PHONE: (330) 759-4000DEVELOPERMAVIS TIRE SUPPLY, LLC358 SAW MILL RIVER ROAD MILLWOOD, NYCONTACT: MATT SHEFFIELD, P.E.PHONE: (914) 984-2500E-MAIL: MSHEFFIELD@MAVISTIRE.COMFORSPECIAL USE PERMITMODIFICATION SITE PLANPREPARED BYNCBELS P-11324130 PARKLAKE AVE., SUITE 130RALEIGH, NC 27612Phone: (919) 578-9000NC@BohlerEng.comTMTMSITE CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERINGLAND SURVEYINGPROGRAM MANAGEMENTLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURESUSTAINABLE DESIGNPERMITTING SERVICESTRANSPORTATION SERVICESTMBOHLER ENGINEERINGTHIS DRAWING IS INTENDED FOR MUNICIPAL AND/OR AGENCYREVIEW AND APPROVAL. IT IS NOT INTENDED AS ACONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE.PROJECT No.:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:CAD I.D.:PROJECT:FORH:\2019\NCR192016\DRAWINGS\PLAN SETS\NCR192016 - SDP - 3----->LAYOUT: C-101 COVER SHEETRGSHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:H:\2019\NCR192016\DRAWINGS\PLAN SETS\NCR192016 - SDP - 3.DWG PRINTED BY: RGALLAGHER 12.23.19 @ 4:01 PM LAST SAVED BY: RGALLAGHERNCR192016 - SDP - 3HAMPTON POINTE BLVDORANGE COUNTYHILLSBOROUGH, NCNCR192016MEWB9/3/2019PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT1234REVISION 4 -REVISIONSREV DATE COMMENT10/14/19HILLSBORUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES11/15/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/19/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/23/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/23/19ISSUED FOR MUNICIPAL &NCBELS P-11324130 PARKLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 130RALEIGH, NC 27612Phone: (919) 578-9000NC@BohlerEng.comIt's fast. It's free. It's the law.SITE PLANREVIEWDOCUMENTSSEAL040241W YATT L. BONESEAL040241W YWW ONOOEC-101COVERSHEETCONTACT INFORMATIONREFERENCESGOVERNING AGENCIESiBOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC/ALTA SURVEY: "ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY FOR MAVIS SOUTHEAST LLC" PREPARED BY: BOHLER ENGINEERING NC, PLLC 4130 PARK LAKE AVE. STE. 130RALEIGH, NC 27612 (919) 578-9000 (P) DATED: 11/16/18iTOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH PLANNING 101 E. ORANGE STREETHILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 (919) 296-9472 (P)SHEET LIST TABLESheet Number Sheet TitleC-101 COVER SHEETC-102 GENERAL NOTES--- ALTA-NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYC-201EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLANC-301 SITE PLANC-401 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANC-402 SCM PLANC-403 SCM DETAILSC-501UTILITY PLANC-601EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL - PHASE IC-602 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL - PHASE IIC-701 LANDSCAPE PLANC-800 LIGHTING PLANC-900 LANDSCAPE DETAILSC-901 CONSTRUCTION DETAILSC-910EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL -DETAILSA-200cEXTERIOR ELEVATIONSiTOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 105 E. CORBIN ST.HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278(919) 296-9630 (P)WAIVERS REQUIRED/REQUESTED FROM UNIFIED DEVELOPMENTORDINANCE SECTION 6 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS):1. SUBSECTION 6.10 (LANDSCAPING (PARKING LOT)), PARAGRAPH 6.10.3 (LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS), SUBPARAGRAPH 6.10.3.7:"PARKING FACILITIES, UNLESS LOCATED ON OR WITHIN A STRUCTURE, SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM THE EXTERIOR WALL OF ASTRUCTURE BY A LANDSCAPED AREA AT LEAST FIVE (5) FEET IN WIDTH."REASON FOR NEED: WAIVER NEEDED BECAUSE SEPARATION BETWEEN PARKING AND BUILDING IS LESS THAN FIVE FEET. SITERESTRAINTS PROHIBIT THE EXTERIOR PARKING TO BE PUSHED OUT FURTHER AND ENCROACH ON EXISTING PARKING SPACES.THEREFORE, THE CURRENT DIMENSIONS OF THE SIDEWALK ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE AND THE LANDSCAPE AREA STRIP ON THESOUTHEAST SIDE NEED TO BE KEPT UNDER THE 5 FOOT THRESHHOLD.2. SUBSECTION 6.10 (LANDSCAPING (PARKING LOT)), PARAGRAPH 6.10.3 (LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS), SUB-PARAGRAPH 6.10.3.8:"GROUND LEVEL PARKING FACILITIES AND THE GROUND LEVEL OF ANY PARKING STRUCTURE SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 10'PLANTED SETBACK AREA AROUND PARKING PERIMETER, WHETHER ALONG A SIDE STREET, PROPERTY LINE, DRIVEWAY, ORUNDEVELOPED PORTION OF THE SITE. WITHIN THIS SETBACK, AN OPAQUE SCREEN OR FENCE TO A HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 3 FEET SHALLBE REQUIRED WHEN THE ADJOINING LAND IS IN RESIDENTIAL USE OR A STREET."REASON FOR NEED: WAIVER NEEDED BECAUSE THERE IS A 10-FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE STRIP REQUIRED DIVIDING OUR PARKINGFROM THE SHOPPING CENTER ON PLAN SOUTH OF OUR PARCEL. PART OF OUR BOUNDARY LINE EXTENDS INTO THE ROADWAYBETWEEN THE PROPOSED BUILDING AND SHOPPING CENTER WHICH PROHIBITS US FROM PUTTING A LANDSCAPED ISLAND AT THEPROPERTY LINE AND IS AN EXISTING NONCONFORMANCE. THE PROPOSED PARKING IN THE PLAN SOUTH PART OF THE LOT IS BEYOND 10 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND LANDSCAPING IS BEING PROVIDED SEPARATION.3. SUBSECTION 6.13 (PARKING, LOADING, AND CIRCULATION), PARAGRAPH 6.13.9 (OFF-STREET PARKING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS),SUB-PARAGRAPH 6.13.9.10 : "IF AN APPLICANT PROPOSED TO CONSTRUCT PARKING SPACES IN EXCESS OF 125% OF THE NUMBERREQUIRED BY THIS ORDINANCE, THE APPLICANT WILL NEED TO SEEK A WAIVER FROM THE PERMIT ISSUING AUTHORITY. THE PERMITISSUING AUTHORITY MAY CONSIDER THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE PAVEMENT, RESERVATION OF SPACES FOR ELECTRIC CHARGING OROTHER INNOVATIONS IN CONSIDERING A WAIVER REQUEST."REASON FOR NEED: WAIVER NEEDED BECAUSE PARKING COUNT FOR PROPOSED SITE IS OVER THE ALLOWED 125% OF MINIMUMPARKING STANDARDS. THE EXISTING SITE HAS 38 SPACES AND WE PLAN ON REDUCING THAT AMOUNT DOWN TO 28 SPACES. PER THETABLE LOCATED ON C-301 - SITE PLAN WE SHOW WE ARE DECREASING THE OVERALL SHOPPING CENTERS PARKING SO WE BELIEVETHIS MEETS THE INTENT OF THE CODE SECTION.ORANGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE STANDARD PLANNOTES ( CONSTRUCTION WASTER)* OCSW CONSTRUCTION WASTE REQUIREMENTS1. ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES 500 SQUARE FEET AND LARGER SHALL BE ASSESSED PRIOR TOISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE COUNTY'S REGULATEDRECYCLABLE MATERIALS ORDINANCE (RRMO) AND TO ACCESS THE POTENTIAL FORDECONSTRUCTION AND/OR THE REUSE OF SALVAGEABLE MATERIALS. CONTACT THE ORANGECOUNTY SW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AT 919-968-2788 TO ARRANGE FOR ASSESSMENT.2. PURSUANT TO THE COUNTY'S RRMO, CLEAN WOOD WASTE, SCRAP METAL, AND CORRUGATESCARDBOARD PRESENT IN CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION WASTE MUST BE RECYCLED.3. PURSUANT TO THE COUNTY'S RRMO, ALL HAULERS OF MIXED CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITIONWASTE WHICH INCLUDES ANY REGULATED RECYCLABLES MATERIALS SHALL BE LICENSED BYORANGE COUNTY.4. PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ON THE SITE, THE APPLICANT SHALLHOLD A PRE-DEMOLITION/PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE WITH SOLID WASTE STAFF. THISMAY BE THE SAME PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING HELD WITH OTHERDEVELOPMENT/ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.5. THE PRESENCE IF ANY ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS ('ACM') AND/OR OTHER HAZARDOUSMATERIALS SHALL BE HANDLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY AND ALL LOCAL, STATE, ANDFEDERAL REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES.
1"=10'0102.5510C-201EXISTINGCONDITIONS &DEMOLITIONPLANTYPICAL NOTE TEXTCONCRETE CURB &GUTTERUNDERGROUNDWATER LINEUNDERGROUND GASLINESTORMSEWERSANITARY SEWERMAINSANITARYMANHOLEWATER VALVESAWCUTLINELODLIMITS OFDISTURBANCEUNDERGROUNDTELEPHONESTORM INLETPROPERTYLINEADJACENTLOT LINEUTILITY POLE/LIGHTOVERHEAD WIREHYDRANTTREEELECTRIC LINECHAINLINKFENCESOILS BOUNDARYDSTORM MANHOLEBOLLARDSIGNCOMMUNICATIONLINE MARKERTRANSFORMERSPEDESTALSDFOTTINSERTSEE INSERTTMSITE CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERINGLAND SURVEYINGPROGRAM MANAGEMENTLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURESUSTAINABLE DESIGNPERMITTING SERVICESTRANSPORTATION SERVICESTMBOHLER ENGINEERINGTHIS DRAWING IS INTENDED FOR MUNICIPAL AND/OR AGENCYREVIEW AND APPROVAL. IT IS NOT INTENDED AS ACONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE.PROJECT No.:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:CAD I.D.:PROJECT:FORH:\2019\NCR192016\DRAWINGS\PLAN SETS\NCR192016 - DMP - 3----->LAYOUT: C-201 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLANRGSHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:H:\2019\NCR192016\DRAWINGS\PLAN SETS\NCR192016 - DMP - 3.DWG PRINTED BY: RGALLAGHER 12.23.19 @ 4:02 PM LAST SAVED BY: RGALLAGHERNCR192016 - DMP - 3HAMPTON POINTE BLVDORANGE COUNTYHILLSBOROUGH, NCNCR192016MEWB9/3/2019PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT1234REVISION 4 -REVISIONSREV DATE COMMENT10/14/19HILLSBORUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES11/15/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/19/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/23/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/23/19ISSUED FOR MUNICIPAL &NCBELS P-11324130 PARKLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 130RALEIGH, NC 27612Phone: (919) 578-9000NC@BohlerEng.comIt's fast. It's free. It's the law.SITE PLANREVIEWDOCUMENTSSEAL040241W YATT L. BONESEAL040241W YWW ONOOE
C-301SITE PLAN1"=10'0102.5510INSERTSEE INSERTTYPICAL NOTE TEXTGRAPHIC LEGENDPROPOSED NOTEPROPERTYLINEBUILDING ORPARKING SETBACKLIMITS OFDISTURBANCECURB &GUTTEREDGE OFPAVEMENTFLUSHCURBSPILLCURBRETAININGWALLSTORMWATERINLETPARKINGCOUNTPAVEMENTSTRIPING - 4" SSYLLODLOD DELINEATES PROPOSED HEAVYDUTY ASPHALTDELINEATES PROPOSED STANDARDDUTY CONCRETEDELINEATES PROPOSEDHEAVY DUTY CONCRETEPAVEMENT LEGENDDELINEATES STANDARD DUTY ASPHALTPAINTING STRIPING LEGEND4"SSWL - SINGLE SOLID WHITE LINE / 4" WIDE4"SSBL - SINGLE SOLID BLUE LINE / 4" WIDESITE PLAN & ZONING NOTES: IMPERVIOUS AREA TABLEIMPERVIOUS (SF) TOTAL SITE (SF)PRE-DEVELOPED16,421 SF 35,093 SFPOST-DEVELOPED25,688 SF 35,093 SFNET +/-+9,267 SF0 SF1. THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FOR THE HAMPTON POINTE SHOPPING CENTERIS 65%1. THIS PLAN REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION BY:ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYPREPARED BY BOHLER ENGINEERING NC, PLLC4130 PARKLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 130RALEIGH, NC 27612DATED 8/2/192. OWNER: REDSTONE FUNDING LLC5050 BELMONT AVE.YOUNGSTOWN, OH 445053. PARCEL: HAMPTON POINTE BLVDTOWN OF HILLSBOROUGHORANGE COUNTY, NC 272784. ZONING: ESU5. PIN: 98735991086. USE: MOTOR VEHICLE MAINTENANCE, & SERVICE7. SITE ACREAGE: 0.810 AC8. DISTURBED AREA: 0.695 AC9. UNDISTURBED AREA: 0.250 ACPARKING SUMMARY10. REQUIRED: 1 PER 375 SF GFA = 17 SPACES11. EXISTING IN PARCEL: 38 SPACES12. EXISTING IN SHOPPINGCENTER 526 SPACES13. PROPOSED IN PARCEL: 28 SPACES14. PROPOSED IN SHOPPINGCENTER 516 SPACES15. REQUIRED ADA SPACES: 2 PER 26-51 TOTAL SPACES16. PROPOSED ADA SPACES: 2 SPACES17. PROPOSED HOURSOF OPERATION: 8AM - 6PMTMSITE CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERINGLAND SURVEYINGPROGRAM MANAGEMENTLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURESUSTAINABLE DESIGNPERMITTING SERVICESTRANSPORTATION SERVICESTMBOHLER ENGINEERINGTHIS DRAWING IS INTENDED FOR MUNICIPAL AND/OR AGENCYREVIEW AND APPROVAL. IT IS NOT INTENDED AS ACONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE.PROJECT No.:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:CAD I.D.:PROJECT:FORH:\2019\NCR192016\DRAWINGS\PLAN SETS\NCR192016 - SSP - 3----->LAYOUT: C-301 SITE PLANRGSHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:H:\2019\NCR192016\DRAWINGS\PLAN SETS\NCR192016 - SSP - 3.DWG PRINTED BY: RGALLAGHER 12.23.19 @ 4:02 PM LAST SAVED BY: RGALLAGHERNCR192016 - SSP - 3HAMPTON POINTE BLVDORANGE COUNTYHILLSBOROUGH, NCNCR192016MEWB9/3/2019PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT1234REVISION 4 -REVISIONSREV DATE COMMENT10/14/19HILLSBORUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES11/15/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/19/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/23/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/23/19ISSUED FOR MUNICIPAL &NCBELS P-11324130 PARKLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 130RALEIGH, NC 27612Phone: (919) 578-9000NC@BohlerEng.comIt's fast. It's free. It's the law.SITE PLANREVIEWDOCUMENTSSEAL040241W YATT L. BONESEAL040241W YWW ONOOE
TMSITE CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERINGLAND SURVEYINGPROGRAM MANAGEMENTLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURESUSTAINABLE DESIGNPERMITTING SERVICESTRANSPORTATION SERVICESTMBOHLER ENGINEERINGTHIS DRAWING IS INTENDED FOR MUNICIPAL AND/OR AGENCYREVIEW AND APPROVAL. IT IS NOT INTENDED AS ACONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE.PROJECT No.:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:CAD I.D.:PROJECT:FORH:\2019\NCR192016\DRAWINGS\PLAN SETS\NCR192016 - GDP - 3----->LAYOUT: C-401 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANRGSHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:H:\2019\NCR192016\DRAWINGS\PLAN SETS\NCR192016 - GDP - 3.DWG PRINTED BY: RGALLAGHER 12.23.19 @ 4:03 PM LAST SAVED BY: RGALLAGHERNCR192016 - GDP - 3HAMPTON POINTE BLVDORANGE COUNTYHILLSBOROUGH, NCNCR192016MEWB9/3/2019PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT1234REVISION 4 -REVISIONSREV DATE COMMENT10/14/19HILLSBORUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES11/15/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/19/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/23/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/23/19ISSUED FOR MUNICIPAL &NCBELS P-11324130 PARKLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 130RALEIGH, NC 27612Phone: (919) 578-9000NC@BohlerEng.comIt's fast. It's free. It's the law.SITE PLANREVIEWDOCUMENTSSEAL040241W YATT L. BONESEAL040241W YWW ONOOEC-401GRADINGANDDRAINAGEPLAN1"=10'0102.5510INSERT: STM INLET 101 TO EXISTING1"=20'02051020INSERT: STM INLET 101 TO EXISTINGPROPOSED NOTETYPICAL NOTE TEXTGRADING LEGENDCONTOURLINESPOTELEVATIONSSTORMLABELSTORMSEWERCLEANOUTC/OSPILLCURB1. FOR GRADING LEGEND, REFER TO 'GENERAL NOTES & LEGEND' SHEET.2. STORM AND SANITARY SEWER PIPE LENGTHS INDICATED ARE NOMINAL AND MEASURED CENTER OF INLET AND/OR MANHOLESSTRUCTURE TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE.3. CURB REVEALS ARE 6" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. FLUSH CURB REVEAL IS 0".4. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE CONTRACTOR REVIEW THE INTENDED CONSTRUCTION WITH THE LOCAL BUILDING CODE OFFICIALPRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK.5. REFER TO DETAIL SHEETS FOR STORM/UTILITY STRUCTURE INFORMATION.6. REFER TO ADA NOTES ON GENERAL NOTES SHEET.CONTRACTOR AND ARCHITECT AND DESIGNER TO FOLLOW ECS' RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION AS OUTLINED INGEOTECH REPORT DATED JANUARY 1, 2019:- SITE CLASS “D”, AS DEFINED IN THE NCSBC 2018, BE USED FOR THE PROPOSED BUILDING.- A CBR VALUE OF 4 TO BE USED IN DESIGN OF THE PROJECT PAVEMENTS.- THE HEAVY DUTY SECTION SHALL BE USED IN ALL DRIVE AISLES AND AREAS WHERE TRASH COLLECTION TRUCKS MAY DRIVE.- THE REFUSE COLLECTOR SHALL BE CONSULTED TO DETERMINE THE SIZE AND THICKNESS OF THE CONCRETE PADS FOR DUMPSTERS.- MINIMUM SEPARATIONS FROM HIGH PLASTICITY SOILS (CH, MH) SHALL BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN FOOTING BEARING (MIN. 2FT), SLAB SUBGRADE (MIN. 3FT), AND PAVEMENT SUBGRADE (MIN. 2FT) TO HELP REDUCE THE POTENTIAL FOR DISTRESS OF CONSTRUCTION AS A RESULT OF VOLUMETRIC CHANGES IN THE SOIL DUE TO VARIATIONS IN ITS MOISTURE CONTENT.- THE GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE EQUIPMENT ON SITE DURING EARTHWORK FOR BOTH DRYING AND WETTING FILLSOILS.- CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT USE RUBBER TIRE EQUIPMENT IF SUBGRADE CONDITIONS EXHIBIT ELEVATED MOISTURE CONDITIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD USE TRACKED EQUIPMENT TO HELP MINIMIZE THE DEGRADATION OF EXPOSED SUBGRADES.GRADING NOTESRIGHT OF WAY
TMSITE CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERINGLAND SURVEYINGPROGRAM MANAGEMENTLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURESUSTAINABLE DESIGNPERMITTING SERVICESTRANSPORTATION SERVICESTMBOHLER ENGINEERINGTHIS DRAWING IS INTENDED FOR MUNICIPAL AND/OR AGENCYREVIEW AND APPROVAL. IT IS NOT INTENDED AS ACONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE.PROJECT No.:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:CAD I.D.:PROJECT:FORH:\2019\NCR192016\DRAWINGS\PLAN SETS\NCR192016 - SSP - 3----->LAYOUT: C-501 UTILITY PLANRGSHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:H:\2019\NCR192016\DRAWINGS\PLAN SETS\NCR192016 - SSP - 3.DWG PRINTED BY: RGALLAGHER 12.23.19 @ 4:03 PM LAST SAVED BY: RGALLAGHERNCR192016 - SSP - 3HAMPTON POINTE BLVDORANGE COUNTYHILLSBOROUGH, NCNCR192016MEWB9/3/2019PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT1234REVISION 4 -REVISIONSREV DATE COMMENT10/14/19HILLSBORUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES11/15/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/19/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/23/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/23/19ISSUED FOR MUNICIPAL &NCBELS P-11324130 PARKLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 130RALEIGH, NC 27612Phone: (919) 578-9000NC@BohlerEng.comIt's fast. It's free. It's the law.SITE PLANREVIEWDOCUMENTSSEAL040241W YATT L. BONESEAL040241W YWW ONOOEC-501UTILITYPLAN1"=10'0102.5510SITE PLAN & ZONING NOTES:1. ACCORDING TO THE DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 2T .0114RULES, THE DESIGN FLOW FOR AUTO/RECREATIONAL BUSINESSES WITHRESTROOMS IS 125 GAL/PLUMBING FIXTURE.
TMSITE CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERINGLAND SURVEYINGPROGRAM MANAGEMENTLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURESUSTAINABLE DESIGNPERMITTING SERVICESTRANSPORTATION SERVICESTMBOHLER ENGINEERINGTHIS DRAWING IS INTENDED FOR MUNICIPAL AND/OR AGENCYREVIEW AND APPROVAL. IT IS NOT INTENDED AS ACONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE.PROJECT No.:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:CAD I.D.:PROJECT:FORH:\2019\NCR192016\DRAWINGS\PLAN SETS\NCR192016 - LSP - 3----->LAYOUT: C-701 LANDSCAPE PLANRGSHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:H:\2019\NCR192016\DRAWINGS\PLAN SETS\NCR192016 - LSP - 3.DWG PRINTED BY: RGALLAGHER 12.23.19 @ 4:04 PM LAST SAVED BY: RGALLAGHERNCR192016 - LSP - 3HAMPTON POINTE BLVDORANGE COUNTYHILLSBOROUGH, NCNCR192016MEWB9/3/2019PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT1234REVISION 4 -REVISIONSREV DATE COMMENT10/14/19HILLSBORUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES11/15/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/19/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/23/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/23/19ISSUED FOR MUNICIPAL &NCBELS P-11324130 PARKLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 130RALEIGH, NC 27612Phone: (919) 578-9000NC@BohlerEng.comIt's fast. It's free. It's the law.SITE PLANREVIEWDOCUMENTSSEAL040241W YATT L. BONESEAL040241W YWW ONOOE1"=10'0102.5510C-701LANDSCAPEPLANLANDSCAPE NOTES:1. EXISTING CANOPY TREES: 2 12" OAK TREES2. DBH OF EXISTING CANOPY TREES: ALL 12" DBH3. CANOPY TREES TO BE REMOVED: 2 12" OAK TREES4. CANOPY TREES TO REMAIN: 05. EXISTING TREES OF 24" DBH: 06. TREES OF 24" DBH TO BE REMOVED: 07. EXISTING TREE COVERAGE: 4.5%8. PROPOSED TREE COVERAGE: 13.8%9. METHOD USED TO CALCULATETREE COVERAGE AREA: AREA COVERED BY TREECANOPY / TOTAL SITE AREA
TMSITE CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERINGLAND SURVEYINGPROGRAM MANAGEMENTLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURESUSTAINABLE DESIGNPERMITTING SERVICESTRANSPORTATION SERVICESTMBOHLER ENGINEERINGTHIS DRAWING IS INTENDED FOR MUNICIPAL AND/OR AGENCYREVIEW AND APPROVAL. IT IS NOT INTENDED AS ACONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE.PROJECT No.:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:CAD I.D.:PROJECT:FORH:\2019\NCR192016\DRAWINGS\PLAN SETS\NCR192016 - LGP - 3----->LAYOUT: C-800 LIGHTING PLANRGSHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:H:\2019\NCR192016\DRAWINGS\PLAN SETS\NCR192016 - LGP - 3.DWG PRINTED BY: RGALLAGHER 12.23.19 @ 4:04 PM LAST SAVED BY: RGALLAGHERNCR192016 - LGP - 3HAMPTON POINTE BLVDORANGE COUNTYHILLSBOROUGH, NCNCR192016MEWB9/3/2019PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT1234REVISION 4 -REVISIONSREV DATE COMMENT10/14/19HILLSBORUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES11/15/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/19/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/23/19HILLSBOROUGHCOMMENTSRMGWES12/23/19ISSUED FOR MUNICIPAL &NCBELS P-11324130 PARKLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 130RALEIGH, NC 27612Phone: (919) 578-9000NC@BohlerEng.comIt's fast. It's free. It's the law.SITE PLANREVIEWDOCUMENTSSEAL040241W YATT L. BONESEAL040241W YWW ONOOE1"=10'0102.5510C-800LIGHTINGPLANLIGHTING PLAN NOTES:1. ALL POLL MOUNTED LIGHTS WILL BE A MOUNTING HEIGHT OF 25FT.2. PROPOSED HOURS OF LIGHTING: 5PM - 11PM3. OWNER TO CONTROL AND MAINTAIN LIGHTINGLuminaire ScheduleQtyLabelTotal Lamp LumensLLFSYMBOL8rab02600N.A.1.000A4ECF-S-32L-1_2A-CW-G2-4N.A.1.000B1ECF-S-32L-1_2A-CW-G2-2N.A.1.000CCalculation SummaryLabelCalcTypeUnitsAvgMaxMinCalcPts_1IlluminanceFc3.0110.50.3
Assistant 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 2
Draft Minutes
Planning Board
7 p.m. Feb. 25, 2020
Town Hall Annex Board Meeting Room, 105 E. Corbin St.
Present
Board: Chair Dan Barker, Lisa Frazier, Chris Johnston, Alyse Polly, Jeff Scott, Jenn Sykes and Scott Taylor
Staff: Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Hornik and Public Information Specialist
Cheryl Sadgrove
Guests: Commissioner Matt Hughes and Will Swearingen
A. Special Use Permit request: Request from Mavis Tire to modify the original shopping center Special Use
Permit to develop an outparcel at 623 Hampton Pointe Blvd.
Hauth said that the developer has not offered any changes to the plan since the public hearing.
The board reviewed the waivers and the developer’s reasons for the waivers.
Waiver 1
Waiver 1 is regarding Subsection 6.10.3.7, which states that a 5-foot landscaped area be installed between
the building and the parking lot.
The applicant is requesting the waiver because site constraints prohibit the parking lot from being pushed far
enough away from the building to create a 5-foot landscaped area and to build a sidewalk. Also, adding the
landscaping strip would shift the proposed drive aisle so that it would not line up with The Home Depot’s
existing drive aisle.
Hauth asked if the applicant would retain existing parking. Will Swearingen, representing the applicant, said
they will try to, but they need to install stormwater measures.
Polly expressed concern about the lack of landscaping. Swearingen pointed out there will be landscaping on
the perimeter.
The board asked if the business could run with six bays instead of seven. Swearingen said no, seven bays is
typical for this company.
Frazier said staff is not opposed to the waivers, so she is comfortable with recommending that they be
approved.
Hauth said every parcel in this shopping center has received a waiver on the 5-foot landscaping because the
requirement was 3 feet when the shopping center was first approved.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 2 of 2
Waiver 2
Waiver 2 is regarding Subsection 6.10.3.8, which states that the parking lot should have a minimum 10-foot
setback area.
The applicant needs the waiver because there is an existing parking aisle along the southern property line.
Hauth added that the applicant would have to change the drive aisle on someone else’s property to meet the
requirement.
Barker noted there was consensus on recommending approval of this waiver.
Waiver 3
Waiver 3 is regarding Subsection 6.13.9.10, which states that a waiver is required if the applicant wishes to
have more spaces than allowed under the minimum parking standards.
The site already has 38 spaces, and the plan is to reduce that number to 28, which is over the 125% minimum
parking spaces.
Hauth added that there is a restrictive covenant on outparcels to provide excessive parking so that their
customers do not park at The Home Depot or Walmart Supercenter instead.
Barker noted there was consensus to recommend approval.
Motion: Member Chris Johnston moved to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit and the three
waivers. Sykes seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
4130 ParkL4130 ParkL4130 ParkL4130 ParkLake Avenue, Suite 130ake Avenue, Suite 130ake Avenue, Suite 130ake Avenue, Suite 130
RaleiRaleiRaleiRaleighghghgh, , , , NCNCNCNC 27612276122761227612
PHONE 919.578.9000
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS •••• PROJECT MANAGERS •••• SURVEYORS •••• ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS •••• LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERINWWW.BOHLERENGINEERINWWW.BOHLERENGINEERINWWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COMG.COMG.COMG.COM
Date: 12/23/19
Town of Hillsborough Planning Department
101 E. Orange St.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Attn: Tom King
Re: Mavis Discount Tire
623 Hampton Pointe Blvd.
Hillsborough NC 27278
BE # NCR192016
Design Hillsborough Planning Department:
The subject site is located at 623 Hampton Pointe Boulevard. and is part of the Hampton Pointe Shopping
Center off of Hampton Pointe Boulevard. The site is currently a vacant outparcel. Our project is
proposing to put a Mavis Discount Tire on this vacant parcel. This will include building a new 6,203 SF
building with 7 service bays along with its associated improvements. This will include additional
landscaping, utilities, drainage, a 28-spot parking lot, dumpster enclosure and appropriate signage.
Pertaining to UDO Section 5, Subsection 5.2, Paragraph 5.2.27, Sub-Paragraph 5.2.27.1, the following
specific standards shall be used in evaluating an application for the approval of this use:
a) The proposed hours of operation shall be consistent with the predominant uses in the area.
Response: The proposed hours of operation are 8am-6pm, consistent with surrounding
businesses in the shopping center.
b) Lots with frontage on more than one street shall be limited to one (1) driveway cut on the
higher classified street. Additional driveway cut(s), if any, shall be on streets of lower
classification. Driveways permits shall be approved by NCDOT for access to state roads.
Response: The proposed site has one cut onto the existing entrance into the shopping
center and none onto Hampton Pointe Boulevard.
c) Service bay doors shall not be located on the building façade facing the public right-of-way
or on pedestrian- oriented façades.
Response: No bay doors are facing the public right-of-way or pedestrian-oriented
façade.
d) Applicants shall provide noise level documentation for equipment use outdoors on site. The
permit issuing authority may require any one, or a combination of fencing, distance, hours of
operation, and baffling as needed to minimize noise generated by such facilities.”
Response: Noise level documentation has been provided for equipment used outdoors
on site.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS •••• PROJECT MANAGERS •••• SURVEYORS •••• ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS •••• LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERINWWW.BOHLERENGINEERINWWW.BOHLERENGINEERINWWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COMG.COMG.COMG.COM
Kari Grace, CZO
Re: Comment Response Letter to City
February 12, 2018
Page 2 of 3
The waivers being requested are as follows:
1. SUBSECTION 6.10 (LANDSCAPING (PARKING LOT)), PARAGRAPH 6.10.3
(LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS), SUBPARAGRAPH 6.10.3.7: "PARKING FACILITIES,
UNLESS LOCATED ON OR WITHIN A STRUCTURE, SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM THE
EXTERIOR WALL OF A STRUCTURE BY A LANDSCAPED AREA AT LEAST FIVE (5) FEET IN
WIDTH."
REASON FOR NEED: WAIVER NEEDED BECAUSE SEPARATION BETWEEN PARKING
AND BUILDING IS LESS THAN FIVE FEET. SITE RESTRAINTS PROHIBIT THE
EXTERIOR PARKING TO BE PUSHED OUT FURTHER AND ENCROACH ON EXISTING
PARKING SPACES. THEREFORE, THE CURRENT DIMENSIONS OF THE SIDEWALK
ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE AND THE LANDSCAPE AREA STRIP ON THE SOUTHEAST
SIDE NEED TO BE KEPT UNDER THE 5 FOOT THRESHHOLD.
2. SUBSECTION 6.10 (LANDSCAPING (PARKING LOT)), PARAGRAPH 6.10.3
(LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS), SUB-PARAGRAPH 6.10.3.8: "GROUND LEVEL PARKING
FACILITIES AND THE GROUND LEVEL OF ANY PARKING STRUCTURE SHALL PROVIDE A
MINIMUM OF 10' PLANTED SETBACK AREA AROUND PARKING PERIMETER, WHETHER
ALONG A SIDE STREET, PROPERTY LINE, DRIVEWAY, OR UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF
THE SITE. WITHIN THIS SETBACK, AN OPAQUE SCREEN OR FENCE TO A HEIGHT OF AT
LEAST 3 FEET SHALL BE REQUIRED WHEN THE ADJOINING LAND IS IN RESIDENTIAL USE
OR A STREET."
REASON FOR NEED: WAIVER NEEDED BECAUSE THERE IS A 10-FOOT WIDE
LANDSCAPE STRIP REQUIRED DIVIDING OUR PARKING FROM THE SHOPPING
CENTER ON PLAN SOUTH OF OUR PARCEL. PART OF OUR BOUNDARY LINE
EXTENDS INTO THE ROADWAY BETWEEN THE PROPOSED BUILDING AND
SHOPPING CENTER WHICH PROHIBITS US FROM PUTTING A LANDSCAPED ISLAND
AT THE PROPERTY LINE AND IS AN EXISTING NONCONFORMANCE. THE
PROPOSED PARKING IN THE PLAN SOUTH PART OF THE LOT IS BEYOND 10 FEET
FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND LANDSCAPING IS BEING PROVIDED SEPARATION.
3. SUBSECTION 6.13 (PARKING, LOADING, AND CIRCULATION), PARAGRAPH 6.13.9
(OFF-STREET PARKING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS), SUB-PARAGRAPH 6.13.9.10 : "IF AN
APPLICANT PROPOSED TO CONSTRUCT PARKING SPACES IN EXCESS OF 125% OF THE
NUMBER REQUIRED BY THIS ORDINANCE, THE APPLICANT WILL NEED TO SEEK A
WAIVER FROM THE PERMIT ISSUING AUTHORITY. THE PERMIT ISSUING AUTHORITY
MAY CONSIDER THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE PAVEMENT, RESERVATION OF SPACES FOR
ELECTRIC CHARGING OR OTHER INNOVATIONS IN CONSIDERING A WAIVER REQUEST."
REASON FOR NEED: WAIVER NEEDED BECAUSE PARKING COUNT FOR PROPOSED
SITE IS OVER THE ALLOWED 125% OF MINIMUM PARKING STANDARDS. THE
EXISTING SITE HAS 38 SPACES AND WE PLAN ON REDUCING THAT AMOUNT
DOWN TO 28 SPACES. PER THE TABLE LOCATED ON C-301 - SITE PLAN WE SHOW
WE ARE DECREASING THE OVERALL SHOPPING CENTERS PARKING SO WE
BELIEVE THIS MEETS THE INTENT OF THE CODE SECTION.
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS •••• PROJECT MANAGERS •••• SURVEYORS •••• ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS •••• LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.BOHLERENGINEERINWWW.BOHLERENGINEERINWWW.BOHLERENGINEERINWWW.BOHLERENGINEERING.COMG.COMG.COMG.COM
Kari Grace, CZO
Re: Comment Response Letter to City
February 12, 2018
Page 3 of 3
I am hopeful that the above information is sufficient to meet the Town of Hillsborough Design Guide
Lines. Should you have any questions regarding this project or require additional information, please do
not hesitate to contact me at (919) 578-9000.
Sincerely,
Bohler Engineering NC PLLC
Wyatt Bone, PE
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT Modification
SUBJECT TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS
AFFECTING 623 Hampton Pointe Blvd
(OC PIN 9873-59-9108)
WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners has received an
application from Bohler Engineering for a Special Use Permit Modification to allow the
development of the parcel at 623 Hampton Pointe Blvd with a 6,203 sf building and parking for a
motor vehicle maintenance and service operation; and
WHEREAS, this parcel was created from the adjoining parcel subject to the Special Use
Permit 2001-2 for the Hampton Pointe Shopping Center recorded at DB 2801 PG 355 of the
Orange County Register of Deeds; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners
conducted joint public hearings to consider the application on January 16, 2020 after giving notice
thereof as required by law; and
WHEREAS, at the aforesaid public hearing, the Applicant and all others wishing to be
heard in connection with the Application were given an opportunity to do so; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough Planning Board has made it’s recommendation to
the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners regarding the Application;
WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners has considered the
recommendation of the Planning Board and all the information and testimony presented to it at the
public hearings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town of Hillsborough Board of
Commissioners, on motion of _____________________________, seconded by _____________,
this 9th day of March, 2020 as follows;
1. The Board of Commissioners has considered all the information presented to it
both in support of and in opposition to the application at the January public hearing;
2. The Board of Commissioners finds that the requested permit is within its
jurisdiction according to the Table of Permissible Uses, that the application is complete, and that
if the proposed development is completed as proposed in the application, subject to the Special
Conditions attached hereto, it will comply with the requirements of the Unified Development
Ordinance.
3. The Special Conditions attached hereto are intended to preserve and/or promote the
health, safety and welfare of the surrounding areas and the Town of Hillsborough in general, and
to insure that the provisions established by Section 3.8 and 5.2.27 of the Unified Development
Ordinance are met.
4. Upon adoption of this Resolution, the Town of Hillsborough shall issue a Special
Use Permit in the standard form with the Special Conditions attached and notice of this decision
and issuance of the special use permit shall be transmitted forthwith in accordance with Section
3.8.16 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
5. The Special Conditions applying to this Special Use Permit are:
a. All previous conditions for SUP 2001-2 remain in effect. Other approved SUPs
within the shopping center are not changed by this permit.
b. The application materials including but not limited to the site plan, building
elevations, and narrative dated 12/23/19 are those approved with this permit.
c. The waivers requested to two subsections of Section 6.10 and Section 6.13 are
all approved.
The foregoing Resolution was put to a vote of the Town of Hillsborough Board of
Commissioners, the results of which vote are as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent or Excused:
Dated: _________________ ____________________________________
Katherine M. Cathey, Town Clerk
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 9, 2020
Department: Planning/Utilities
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
7.D
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Hauth, Planning Director and Marie Strandwitz, Utilities
Director
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Resolution in Support of City of Durham Teer Quarry Project
Attachment(s):
1. Letter Request and Supporting Information
2. Resolution
Brief Summary:
The City of Durham, one of our emergency water providers, is seeking to make Teer Quarry a new water supply
source. They request the town support the idea of this effort by resolution which would acknowledge the town to take
the necessary steps to amend the land use ordinance to meet the density restrictions of a water supply protection
area for which small portions of our existing water and sewer boundaries are affected. *This was presented at the
Feb. 10 meeting and is being represented with additional questions addressed*
Action Requested:
Approve resolution supporting project.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
To make Teer Quarry a water supply, they propose to move their existing intake location. This will be considered a
new intake that will create a new water supply protection area per the state. This protective buffer clips some eastern
portions of our current and future water and sewer boundary areas. Where the protective area encroaches, the town
would need to amend the land use ordinance as the allowable density would be reduced. To amend the land use
ordinance, the town must provide notice and public hearing. An area encroachment under the town jurisdiction is
Forest Ridge. Those lot owners would face the newer restrictions should they ever need or want to rebuild or expand
their property use. Other areas are within our water and sewer boundary but not under our land use jurisdiction.
These include parcels near and in Churton Grove and along US 70 A near Lawrence Road and east. This effort
would only be undertaken if several parties support the City of Durham and the state approves moving forward. The
resolution is for initial support of the concept. *The consequences of this approval to the 30 or so in-town
affected homes in Forest Ridge is very minimal as the state rules for the proposed watershed classification protected area restrictions essentially exempt single-family homes from them and also allows redevelopment
of parcels to the same or even more area as existing (pertaining to the resident question at the February
meeting)*
Financial Impacts:
No major impact noted for areas within our jurisdiction.
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
Support the City of Durham in its request.
City of Durham Teer Quarry Project Support Request
Water Supply Proposal•City of Durham (City) owns Teer Quarry•City wants to make Teer Quarry a permanent water supply•The state has rules to follow to create a new water supply•Rules state protective buffer area, land density and use restrictions•Teer Quarry has an existing emergency intake location that won’t work for permanent supply•City would need to move its intake location further west•Moving the intake location further west moves the proposed watershed protection area into part of the town’s water and sewer boundary and clipping our municipal boundary in Forest Ridge
Teer Quarry Current and Proposed Water Supply Area Buffer
Durham Requests Town Support•Durham has presented a letter request asking for town support of their effort to reclassify a segment of the Eno as water supply•Requests a resolution of support indicating we are “on board” with the idea of their request•Durham is a water partner to the town in terms of providing water supply during times of need –effort could benefit town too!•They must gain support from the town, Orange County, and Durham City and Durham County to proceed to the state with a formal application
Consequences of Support•Densities/lot size in the newly impacted areas would be reduced per Water Supply Watershed Protection Program Rules:•Low Density Single‐Family Detached Residential Development •2 dwelling units per acre or 20,000 square foot lot excluding roadway right‐of‐way or 24% built‐upon; or 3 dwelling units per acre or 36% built‐upon area without curb and gutter street system.•Low Density Non‐Residential and All Other Residential Development •24% built‐upon area; or 36% built‐upon area without curb and gutter street system.•High Density Development •24 to 70% built‐upon area.•These limitations would not apply to existing development, but would impact any new development or redevelopment that occurs once the Environmental Management Commission (state) reclassifies the Eno River segment
Consequences of Support•The State’s Water Supply Watershed Protection Program would also require vegetated setbacks along perennial water bodies and perennial streams with the following minimum widths:•Low density projects –30 feet•High density projects – 100 feet•Projects covered under the 10/70 option – 100 feet
Consequences of Support•Our land use ordinance would need to be amended for the affected parcels within the new buffer in the town’s jurisdiction•Forest Ridge is the only impacted area under the town’s jurisdiction•There are existing homes in Forest Ridge so there is not much current impact until those homes are rebuilt or new uses are requested•To amend the land use ordinance, the town would give public notice and hearing before proposing adoption by the Board•Orange County would need to take similar steps for areas within its land use jurisdiction
Staff Recommendations•Support the City in its request to create a new water supply•Could consider reducing water and sewer service area instead of reducing density for areas not currently in town jurisdiction•Would require involving all partners to the water and sewer boundary agreement•Could support the City with or without amending water and sewer boundary•Other boundary area requests have arisen recently such that it makes good timing for amending it, if desired
Application Instruction 2011.doc
RECLASSIFICATION OF SURFACE WATERS
IN NORTH CAROLINA
How to Request a Reclassification
Any person may request the reclassification of North Carolina's surface waters by
contacting staff listed on the web at http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu#contact.
Local governments which are requesting a water supply reclassification should also have
dialogue with all local governments having land use jurisdiction within the boundaries of
a proposed water supply watershed; if the request is for a more protective water supply
classification, a written resolution from all affected local governments is needed per 15A
NCAC 2B .0104. Water quality studies may be required to determine whether or not the
waters meet the criteria associated with the requested classification.
Process for Reclassification
If the waters meet the criteria for reclassification outlined in the North Carolina
Administrative Code (15A NCAC 2B .0100 and .0200), permission is sought from the
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to proceed with the
reclassification request through “rule-making”; rule-making is the required legal process
to make official amendment to a waterbody classification. The rule-making process can
typically be, at a minimum, an 18-month process. Public comments are considered as
part of this process, and verbal comments are heard at public hearing/s. A written record
of the rule-making process including all comments received is prepared, and a
recommendation regarding the reclassification is presented to the EMC.
Final Adoption of a Reclassification
If the EMC adopts a rule, the rule is then submitted to the Rules Review Commission
(RRC), a ten member panel appointed by elected officials. Assuming the RRC approves
the rule, and less than 10 people formally object to it, then the reclassification becomes
effective under state rules. However, if after RRC approval, 10 or more people formally
request legislative review, the reclassification then goes to the next legislative session. If
the reclassification survives legislative review, then it becomes effective under state
rules. The EPA has final approval of the reclassification.
Readopted Eff. [New Date].
The provisions of this Rule were transferred from 15A NCAC 02B .0243.The provisions of item (2) of 15A NCAC 02B
.0243 were transferred to 15A NCAC 02B .0610. The provisions of item (8) & (9) of 15A NCAC 02B .0243 were
transferred to 15A NCAC 02B .0611. The provisions of item (11) of 15A NCAC 02B .0243 were transferred to 15A
NCAC 02B .0612.
15A NCAC 02B .0620 WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM: PURPOSE
The purpose of this Rule and Rules .0621 through .0624 of this Section is to implement G.S. 143-214.5, which requires the Commission
to adopt rules that establish minimum statewide water supply watershed protection requirements applicable to each Water Suppl y
classification to protect the water quality of public surface water supplies. Water Supply classifications are set forth in 15A NCAC 02B
.0212 through .0218.
History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-214.5; 143-215.3(a)(1);
15A NCAC 02B .0621 WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM: DEFINITIONS
The definition of any word or phrase in Water Supply Watershed Protection Program Rules .0621 through .0624 of this Section shall be
the same as given in Rule .0202 of this Subchapter and Article 21, Chapter 143 of the Gene ral Statutes of North Carolina, as amended.
Other words and phrases used in Rules .0622 through .0624 of this Section are defined as follows:
(1) "Balance of Watershed" or "-BW" means the area adjoining and upstream of the critical area in a WS-II and WS-III
water supply watershed. The "balance of watershed" is comprised of the entire land area contributing surface drainage
to the stream, river, or reservoir where a water supply intake is located.
(2) "Built-upon Area" has the same meaning as in G.S. 143-214.7.
(3) "Cluster development" means the grouping of buildings in order to conserve land resources and provide for innovation
in the design of the project including minimizing stormwater runoff impacts. Planned unit developments and mixed
use development shall be considered as cluster development.
(4) "Commission" means the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission.
(5) "Common plan of development" has the same meaning as in 15A NCAC 02H .1002, which is herein incorporated by
reference, as amended.
(6) "Curb Outlet System" has the same meaning as in 15A NCAC 02H .1002.
(7) "Development" means any land disturbing activity that increases the amount of built -upon area or that otherwise
decreases the infiltration of precipitation into the subsoil.
(8) "Dispersed flow" has the same meaning as in 15A NCAC 02H .1002.
(9) "Division" means the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources or its successors.
(10) "Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan" means any plan, amended plan, or revision to an approved plan submitted
to the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources or a delegated authority in accordance with G.S. 113A-57.
(11) "Existing development" means those projects that are built or those projects that at a minimum have established a
vested right under North Carolina zoning law as of the effective date of the local government water supply ordinance,
or such earlier time that an affected local government's ordinance shall specify, based on at least one of the following
criteria:
(a) substantial expenditure of resources (time, labor, money) based on a good faith reliance upon having received
a valid local government approval to proceed with the project;
(b) having an outstanding valid building permit in compliance with G.S. 153A-344.1 or G.S. 160A-385.1; or
(c) having an approved site specific or phased development plan in compliance with G.S. 153A-344.1 or G.S.
160A-385.1.
(12) "Family subdivision" means a division of a tract of land:
(a) to convey the resulting parcels, with the exception of parcels retained by the grantor, to a relative or relatives
as a gift for nominal consideration, but only if no more than one parcel is conveyed by the grantor from the
tract to any one relative; or
(b) to divide land from a common ancestor among tenants in common, all of whom inherited by intestacy or by
will.
(13) "Geotextile fabric" has the same meaning as in 15A NCAC 02H .1002.
(14) "Intermittent stream" has the same meaning as in 15A NCAC 02B .0610.
(15) "Major variance" means a variance that is not a "minor variance" as that term is defined in this Rule.
(16) "Minimum Design Criteria" or "MDC" has the same meaning as in 15A NCAC 02H .1002.
(17) "Minor variance" means a variance from the minimum statewide watershed protection rules that results in the
relaxation of up to 10 percent of any vegetated setback, density, or minimum lot size requirement applicable to low
density development, or the relaxation of up to five percent of any vegetated setback, density, or minimum lot size
requirement applicable to high density development. For variances to a vegetated setback requirement, the percent
variation shall be calculated using the footprint of built-upon area proposed to encroach within the vegetated setback
divided by the total area of vegetated setback within the project.
(18) "Nonconforming lot of record" means a lot described by a plat or a deed that was recorded prior to the effective date
of local watershed regulations (or their amendments) that does not meet the minimum lot size or other development
requirements of Rule .0624 of this Section.
(19) "NPDES" means National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
(20) "Perennial stream" has the same meaning as in 15A NCAC 02B .0 610.
(21) "Perennial waterbody" has the same meaning as in 15A NCAC 02B .0610.
(22)"Primary SCM" has the same meaning as in 15A NCAC 02H .1002.
(23) "Project" means the proposed development activity for which an applicant is seeking approval in accordance with
Rules .0620 through .0624 of this Section. A project shall exclude any land adjacent to the area disturbed by the project
that has been counted as pervious by any other development regulated under a federal, State, or local stormwater
regulation. Owners and developers of large developments consisting of many linked projects ma y consider developing
a master plan that illustrates how each project fits into the design of the large development.
(24) "Redevelopment" means any land disturbing activity that does not result in a net increase in built -upon area and that
provides greater or equal stormwater control to that of the previous development.
(25) "Required storm depth" has the same meaning as in 15A NCAC 02H .1002.
(26) "Runoff treatment" has the same meaning as in 15A NCAC 02H .1002.
(27) "Runoff volume match" has the same meaning as in 15A NCAC 02H .1002.
(28) "Secondary SCM" has the same meaning as in 15A NCAC 02H .1002.
(29) "Stormwater Control Measure" or "SCM" has the same meaning as in 15A NCAC 02H .1002.
(30) "Vegetated setback" means an area of natural or established vegetation adjacent to surface waters, through which
stormwater runoff flows in a diffuse manner to protect surface waters from degradation due to development activities.
(31) "Vegetated conveyance" means a permanent, designed waterway lined with vegetation that is used to convey
stormwater runoff at a non-erosive velocity within or away from a developed area.
History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-214.5; 143-215.3(a)(1);
15A NCAC 02B .0622 WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM: APPLICABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE DATES
All local governments that have land use authority within classified water supply watersheds are subject to Rules .0621 through .0624
of this Section. Administration and enforcement of Rules .0621 through .0624 of this Section shall be the responsibility of the adopting
local government within its jurisdiction. In addition, State-owned projects, silviculture activities, and agricultural activities are subject
to these rules pursuant to G.S. 143-214.5 (i) and Items (2), (3), and (4) of this Rule, as applicable.
(1) EFFECTIVE DATES. For the purposes of implementing the requirements of this Rule, Rules .0621 through .0624 of
this Section, and G.S. 143-214.5, the effective dates set forth in 15A NCAC 02B .0104(d) shall apply.
(2) STATE-OWNED PROJECTS. State-owned projects, with the exception of North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) projects, that are located in designated water supply watersheds shall comply with the
stormwater management requirements of this Section and G.S. 143 -214.5(i). For NCDOT projects, the construction
of new roads and bridges shall minimize built-upon area, divert stormwater away from surface water supply waters as
much as possible, and employ best management practices to minimize water quality impacts. To the extent practicable,
the construction of new roads in a critical area shall be avoided. NCDOT projects shall be in compliance with NPDES
Permit No. NCS000250.
(3) SILVICULTURE. The North Carolina Forest Service (NCFS) shall be the designated agency for oversight of
compliance with the water supply watershed protection requirements of this Section, insofar as their authority allows,
for silviculture activities occurring within designated water supply watersheds. Silviculture activities that comply with
the provisions of the Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (02 NCAC 60C, herein incorporated by
reference with subsequent amendments and editions and available at no cost at http://www.ncoah.com/rules/) and
other applicable forestry water quality standards as determined by NCFS shall be deemed compliant with the water
supply watershed protection requirements of this Section.
(4) AGRICULTURE. The North Carolina Soil and Water Conservation Commission shall be the designated agency for
administration of the applicable water supply watershed protection requirements of this Section for agricultural
activities. Agricultural activities are not subject to the stormwater management requirements of this Section, except
that agricultural activities occurring after January 1, 1993 within WS-I watersheds and the critical areas of WS-II,
WS-III, and WS-IV watersheds are subject to the vegetated setback requirements as set forth in Rule .0624(12)(a)(iv)
of this Section.
History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-214.5; 143-215.3(a)(1);
The provisions of this Rule were previously codified in 15A NCAC 02B .0104.
15A NCAC 02B .0623 WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM: PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
This Rule contains provisions for the administration of water supply watershed protection programs.
(1) All local governments that have land use authority within designated water supply watersheds shall adopt and enforce
ordinances and watershed maps that meet or exceed the requirements of G.S. 143 -214.5 and Rules .0621 through
.0624 of this Section. Local governments may adopt and enforce more stringent controls. Local governments shall
have the option to use the Commission's model Watershed Protection Ordinance available at no cost at
http://watersupplywatershed.nc.gov as the basis for their ordinance, or they shall have the option to propose an
alternative ordinance that meets or exceeds the requirements of this Section.
(2) SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION. Local governments shall adopt, make effective, and begin implementing the
required water supply watershed protection ordinance (or equivalent ordinance) and watershed map in accordance
with the effective dates set forth in 15A NCAC 02B .0104(d).
(3) COMMISSION APPROVAL. Local government water supply watershed protection ordinances (or equivalent
ordinances) and watershed maps shall be submitted to the Division for approval by the Commission or its designee no
later than 270 days after receiving notice of a water supply reclassification from the Commission. The Commission
or its designee shall approve the water supply watershed protection ordinance and map if it meets or exceeds the
minimum statewide water supply watershed management requirements adopted pursuant to this Section and G.S. 143-
214.5. The local government may begin implementing the ordinances prior to receiving approval by the Commission.
The following items shall be included in the submission in either paper or electronic format:
(a) one copy of the adopted and effective relevant ordinance;
(b) a cover letter from the local government's legal counsel, municipal or county clerk, or municipal or county
manager certifying that the ordinance meets or exceeds the requirements of this Section and G.S. 143-214.5;
and
(c) one copy of a watershed map showing the local government corporate and extraterritorial jurisdictional
boundaries, the Commission's adopted watershed boundaries, the local government's interpreted watershed
boundaries, and U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000 (7.5 minute) scale topographic contour lines and
hydrography.
(4) WATERSHED BOUNDARY INTERPRETATION. Major landmarks such as highways or property lines may be
used to delineate the outer boundary of the critical and protected areas if these landmarks are immediately adjacent to
the appropriate outer boundary of 1/2 mile for the critical area or five or ten miles for the protected area. Local
governments may extend the critical and protected area boundaries beyond the minimum distance required; however,
these extended local boundaries shall not affect administration of state permits unless the boundaries are also adopted
by the Commission. Local governments shall delineate the approximate normal pool elevation for backwaters of water
supply reservoirs for the purposes of determining the critical and pro tected area boundaries as appropriate. Local
governments shall rely primarily on U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, land surveys conducted by licensed
surveyors, Lidar data, or information from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in approximating the lo cation of
backwaters.
(5) REVISIONS TO ORDINANCES AND MAPS. Revisions to local watershed supply watershed protection ordinances
and watershed maps shall be submitted to the Commission or its designee for approval. The submission requirements
set forth in Item (3) of this Rule shall apply to all subject revisions. In addition, revisions to ordinances shall be
submitted in a format that identifies the changes adopted or being proposed, as applicable. The local government may
adopt and begin implementing the revised ordinance prior to receiving approval by the Commission or its designee;
however, revisions (expansions or deletions) to watershed maps shall be approved by the Commission or its designee
prior to local government adoption.
(6) VARIANCES. For all proposed major and minor variances, as those terms are defined in Rule .0621 of this Section,
from the minimum statewide watershed protection rules, the local Watershed Review Board, or equivalent quasi -
judicial body, shall make findings of fact in accordance with the procedures of S.L. 2013-126 and Article 18 of G.S.
153A or Article 19 of G.S. 160A, as appropriate, showing that:
(a) there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that prevent compliance with the strict letter of the
ordinance;
(b) the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the local watershed protection ordinance
and preserves its spirit; and
(c) in granting the variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured and substantial justice has been
done.
For all proposed major and minor variances, the local government considering or requesting the variance shall notify
and allow a reasonable comment period for all other local governments having jurisdiction within the watershed area
governed by these Rules and the entity using the water supply for consumption. The local Watershed Review Board
may attach conditions to the major or minor variance approval that support the purpose of the local watershed
protection ordinance. The local Watershed Review Board, or equivalent local quasi-judicial body, shall have the power
to authorize minor variances for development activities on a case-by-case basis. For major variances, if the local
Watershed Review Board decides in favor of granting the major variance, the Boar d shall then prepare a preliminary
record of the hearing and submit it to the Commission for review. If the Commission approves the major variance or
approves the variance with conditions or stipulations added, then the Commission shall prepare a decision that
authorizes the local Watershed Review Board to issue a final decision that includes any conditions or stipulations
added by the Commission. If the Commission denies the major variance, then the Commission shall prepare a decision
to be sent to the local Watershed Review Board. The local Watershed Review Board shall prepare a final decision
denying the major variance. Appeals from the local government decision on a major or minor variance request shall
be made on certiorari to the local Superior Court. Appeals from the Commission decision on a major variance request
are made on judicial review to Superior Court. When local ordinances are more stringent than the state's minimum
watershed protection requirements, a variance to the local government's ordinance is not considered a major variance
as long as the result of the variance is not less stringent than the state's minimum watershed protection requirements.
(7) RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS. Local governments shall maintain the following records and furnish a copy
of these records to the Division upon request:
(a) a copy of all variance requests and associated documents;
(b) findings of fact on all variance requests;
(c) a description of all projects for which the local government has granted a variance to the requirements of this
Section;
(d) an accounting of projects approved under the local government's 10/70 Option (as described in Rule .0624
of this Section), as applicable; and
(e) records of inspections of SCMs pursuant to Item (8) of this Rule.
(8) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SCMS. Wherever in this Section it is provided that local governments
assume responsibility for operation and maintenance of engineered SCMs, this shall be construed to require
responsible local governments to either inspect such SCMs or require the owners of such SCMs to inspect such SCMs
at least once per year to determine whether the SCMs are performing as designed and intended. Records of inspections
shall be maintained on forms made available by the Division at http://watersupplywatershed.nc.gov/ or the local
government. The inspection form shall include the following:
(a) project name;
(b) owner name and address;
(c) name and classification of the water supply watershed where the project is located;
(d) type(s) of SCMs at the project site;
(e) summary of repairs or maintenance needed; and
(f) estimated timeframe for completion of the repairs or maintenance.
In the event an inspection shows that an SCM is not performing as designed and intended, the local government shall
order the owning entity to take corrective actions. If the entity fails to take corrective actions, the local government
may impose civil penalties and pursue other available remedies in accordance with State and local law, including
without limitation: G.S. 14-4; G.S. 77-13; G.S. 77-14; G.S. 143-214.7; G.S. 143-215.6A; G.S. 153A-123; G.S. 160A-
459; and G.S. 160A-175.
(9) Local governments shall, as the existing laws allow, develop, implement, and enforce comprehensive nonpoint source
and stormwater discharge control programs to reduce water pollution from activities within water supply watersheds
such as development, landfills, mining, on-site sanitary sewage systems which utilize ground adsorption, toxic and
hazardous materials, transportation, and water-based recreation.
(10) In the event that the Commission determines that a local government program has failed to adopt or implement its
program in compliance with the water supply watershed protection requirements of this Section and G.S. 143-214.5,
the Commission shall take appropriate enforcement action in accordance with G.S. 143-214.5 and G.S. 143-215.6A(e).
When the Commission assumes a local water supply watershed protection program as specified under G.S. 143 -
214.5(e), all local permits authorizing construction and development activities as regulated by the statewide minimum
water supply watershed protection requirements of this Section shall be approved by the Commission or its designee
prior to local government issuance.
(11) The Commission may delegate such matters as variance approval, extension of deadlines for submission of ordinances,
and assessment of civil penalties pursuant to G.S. 143-214.5(e) to the Director.
History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-214.5; 143-215.3(a)(1);
The provisions of this Rule were previously codified in 15A NCAC 2B .0104.
15A NCAC 02B .0624 WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM: NONPOINT SOURCE AND
STORMWATER POLLUTION CONTROL
The purpose of this Rule is to minimize the impact of stormwater runoff from development on the water quality of public surface water
supplies and to protect their designated uses as public water supplies.
(1) IMPLEMENTING AUTHORITY. The requirements of this Rule shall be implemented by local governments with
land use authority in one or more designated water supply watersheds. State agencies shall also comply with this Rule
insofar as required by G.S. 143-214.5 and in accordance with Rule .0622 of this Section.
(2) APPLICABILITY. This Rule shall apply to all new development projects that lie within a designated water supply
watershed, except in a Class WS-IV watershed where this Rule applies only to new development projects that require
an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan.
(3) EXCLUSIONS. The following shall not be subject to this Rule:
(a) existing development;
(b) redevelopment, as that term is defined in Rule. 0621 of this Section;
(c) single-family residential redevelopment even if there is a net increase in built-upon area or if stormwater
controls are not equal to that of the previous single-family residential development;
(d) expansions to single-family residential existing development unless the expansion is part of a larger common
plan of development that is subject to this Rule;
(e) nonconforming lot of record that is not contigu ous to any other lot owned by the same party and if it is to be
developed for single-family residential purposes. Local governments may require the combination of
contiguous nonconforming lots of record owned by the same party in order to establish a lot o r lots that meet
or nearly meet the development restrictions of this Section;
(f) any lot or parcel created as part of a family subdivision after the effective date of the local watershed
ordinance if it is to be developed for one single-family detached residence and if it is exempt from a local
subdivision ordinance. Any lot or parcel created as part of any other type of subdivision that is exempt from
a local subdivision ordinance shall be subject to this Rule, except that such a lot or parcel shall meet the
vegetated setback requirements set forth in Item (12) of this Rule to the maximum extent practicable. In
determining whether this criteria has been met, the local government shall take into account site -specific
factors including technical and cost con siderations as well as protection of water quality;
(g) silviculture activities except as required by Rule .0622(3) of this Section;
(h)agricultural activities except as required by Item (12) of this Rule and Rule .0622(4)of this Section; and
(i) North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) activities that are regulated in accordance with the
provisions of NPDES Permit No. NCS000250.
(4) PROJECT DENSITY. The following maximum allowable project densities and minimum lot sizes shall apply to a
project according to the classification of the water supply watershed where it is located (WS-I, WS-II, WS-III, WS-
IV, WS-V), its relative location in the watershed (Critical Area versus Balance of Watershed or Protected Area), its
project density (low density versus high density), and the type of development (single-family detached residential
versus all other types):
Water Supply
Classification
Location in the
Watershed
Maximum Allowable Project Density or Minimum Lot Size
Low Density Development High Density
Development
Single -family
detached residential
Non-residential
and all other
residential
All types
WS-I
Not Applicable: Watershed shall remain undeveloped except for the following
uses when they cannot be avoided: power transmission lines, restricted access
roads, and structures associated with water withdrawal, treatment, and
distribution of the WS-I water. Built-upon area shall be designed and located
to minimize stormwater runoff impact to receiving waters.
WS-II
Critical Area
1 dwelling unit per 2
acres or 80,000
square foot lot
excluding roadway
right-of-way or 6%
built-upon area
6% built-upon
area
6 to 24% built-
upon area
Balance of
Watershed
1 dwelling unit per 1
acre or 40,000
square foot lot
excluding roadway
right-of-way or 12%
built-upon area
12% built-upon
area
12 to 30% built-
upon area
WS-III
Critical Area
1 dwelling unit per 1
acre or 40,000
square foot lot
excluding roadway
right-of-way or 12%
built-upon area
12% built-upon
area
12 to 30% built-
upon area
Balance of
Watershed
1 dwelling unit per
one-half acre or
20,000 square foot
lot excluding
roadway right-of-
way or 24% built-
upon area
24% built-upon
area
24 to 50% built-
upon area
WS-IV
Critical Area
2 dwelling units per
acre or 20,000
square foot lot
excluding roadway
right-of-way or 24%
built-upon area
24% built-upon
area
24 to 50% built-
upon area
Protected Area
2 dwelling units per
acre or 20,000
square foot lot
excluding roadway
right-of-way or 24%
built-upon; or 3
dwelling units per
acre or 36% built-
upon area without
curb and gutter street
system
24% built-upon
area; or 36%
built-upon area
without curb
and gutter street
system
24 to 70% built-
upon area
WS-V Not Applicable
(5) CALCULATION OF PROJECT DENSITY. The following requirements shall apply to the calculation of project
density:
(a) Project density shall be calculated as the total built-upon area divided by the total project area;
(b) A project with "existing development," as that term is defined in Rule .0621 of this Section, may use the
calculation method in Sub-Item (a) of this Item or shall have the option of calculating project density as the
difference of total built-upon area minus existing built-upon area divided by the difference of total project
area minus existing built-upon area. Expansions to existing development shall be subject to this Rule except
as excluded in Sub-Item (3)(d) of this Rule. Where there is a net increase of built-upon area, only the area of
net increase shall be subject to this Rule. Where existing development is being replaced with new built -upon
area, and there is a net increase of built-upon area, only the area of net increase shall be subject to this Rule;
(c) Total project area shall exclude the following:
(i) areas below the Normal High Water Line (NHWL); and
(ii) areas defined as "coastal wetlands" pursuant to 15A NCAC 07H .0205, herein incorporated by
reference, including subsequent amendments and editions, and available at no cost at
http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac.asp, as measured landward from the NHWL; and
(d) Projects under a common plan of development shall be considered as a single project for purposes of density
calculation except that on a case-by-case basis, local governments shall have the option to allow projects to
be considered to have both high and low density areas based on one or more of the following criteria:
(i) natural drainage area boundaries;
(ii) variations in land use throughout the project; or
(iii) construction phasing.
(6) LOW DENSITY PROJECTS. In addition to complying with the project density requirements of Item (4) of this Rule,
low density projects shall comply with the following:
(a) VEGETATED CONVEYANCES. Stormwater runoff from the project shall be released to vegetated areas
as dispersed flow or transported by vegetated conveyances to the maximum extent practicable. In determining
whether this criteria has been met, the local government shall take into account site-specific factors such as
topography and site layout as well as protection of water quality. Vegetated conveyances shall be maintained
in perpetuity to ensure that they function as designed. Vegetated conveyances that meet the following criteria
shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of this Sub -Item:
(i) Side slopes shall be no steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) unless it is demonstrated to the local
government that the soils and vegetation will remain stable in perpetuity based on engineering
calculations and on-site soil investigation; and
(ii) The conveyance shall be designed so that it does not erode during the peak flow from the 10-year
storm event as demonstrated by engineering calculations.
(b) CURB OUTLET SYSTEMS. In lieu of vegetated conveyances, low density projects shall have the option to
use curb and gutter with outlets to convey stormwater to grassed swales or vegetated areas. Requirements for
these curb outlet systems shall be as follows:
(i) The curb outlets shall be located such that the swale or vegetated area can carry the peak flow from
the 10-year storm and at a non-erosive velocity;
(ii) The longitudinal slope of the swale or vegetated area shall not exceed five percent except where not
practical due to physical constraints. In these cases, devices to slow the rate of runoff and encourage
infiltration to reduce pollutant delivery shall be provided;
(iii) The swale's cross section shall be trapezoidal with a minimum bottom width of two feet;
(iv) The side slopes of the swale or vegetated area shall be no steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical);
(v) The minimum length of the swale or vegetated area shall be 100 feet; and
(vi) Low density projects may use treatment swales designed in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .1061
in lieu of the requirements specified in Sub-Items (i) through (v) of this Sub -Item.
(7) HIGH DENSITY PROJECTS. In addition to complying with the project density requirements of Item (4) of this Rule,
high density projects shall comply with the following:
(a) SCMs shall be designed, constructed, and maintained so that the project achieves either "runoff treatment"
or "runoff volume match" as those terms are defined in Rule .0621 of this Section;
(b) REQUIRED STORM DEPTH. For high density projects designed to achieve runoff treatment, the required
storm depth shall be one inch. Applicants shall have the option to design projects to achieve runoff volume
match in lieu of runoff treatment.
(c) OFF-SITE STORMWATER. Stormwater runoff from off-site areas and "existing development," as that term
is defined in Rule .0621 of this Section, shall not be required to be treated in the SCM. Runoff from off -site
areas or existing development that is not bypassed shall be included in sizing of on-site SCMs;
(d) MDC FOR SCMS. SCMs shall meet the relevant MDC set forth in 15A NCAC 02H .1050 through .1062.
(e) STORMWATER OUTLETS. Stormwater outlets shall be designed so that they do not cause erosion
downslope of the discharge point during the peak flow from the 10-year storm event as shown by engineering
calculations.
(8) OPTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING PROJECT DENSITY. Local governments shall have the following options when
developing or revising their ordinances in place of or in addition to the requirements of Item (4) of this Rule, as
appropriate:
(a) Local governments shall have the option to allow only low density development in their water supp ly
watershed areas in accordance with this Section.
(b) Local governments shall have the option to regulate low density single-family detached residential
development using the minimum lot size requirements, dwelling unit per acre requirements, built -upon area
percentages, or some combination of these.
(c) 10/70 OPTION. Outside of WS-I watersheds and the critical areas of WS-II, WS-III, and WS-IV watersheds,
local governments shall have the option to regulate new development under the "10/70 option" in accordance
with the following requirements:
(i) A maximum of 10 percent of the land area of a water supply watershed outside of the critical area
and within a local government's planning jurisdiction may be developed with new development
projects and expansions of existing development of up to 70 percent built-upon area.
(ii) In water supply watersheds classified on or before August 3, 1992, the beginning amount of acreage
available under this option shall be based on a local government's jurisdiction as delineated on July
1, 1993. In water supply watersheds classified after August 3, 1992, the beginning amount of acreage
available under this option shall be based on a local government's jurisdiction as delineated on the
date the water supply watershed classification became effective. The acreage within the critical area
shall not be counted towards the allowable 10/70 option acreage;
(iii) Projects that are covered under the 10/70 option shall comply with the low density requirements set
forth in Item (6) of this Rule unless the local government allows high density development, in which
case the local government shall have the option to require these projects to comply with the high
density requirements set forth in Item (7) of this Rule;
(iv) The maximum built-upon area allowed on any given new development project shall be 70 percent;
(v) A local government having jurisdiction within a designated water supply watershed may transfer,
in whole or in part, its right to the 10/70 land area to another local government within the same water
supply watershed upon submittal of a joint resolution and approval by the Commission; and
(vi) When the water supply watershed is composed of public lands, such as National Forest land, local
governments may count the public land acreage within the watershed outside of the critical area in
calculating the acreage allowed under this provision.
(d) New development shall meet the development requirements on a project-by-project basis except local
governments may submit ordinances that use density or built-upon area criteria averaged throughout the local
government's watershed jurisdiction instead of on a project-by-project basis within the watershed. Prior to
approval of the ordinance, the local government shall demonstrate to the Commis sion that the provisions as
averaged meet or exceed the statewide minimum requirements and that a mechanism exists to ensure the
orderly and planned distribution of development potential throughout the local government's jurisdiction
within the watershed.
(e) Local governments may administer oversight of future development activities in single -family detached
residential developments that exceed the applicable low density requirements by tracking dwelling units
rather than percentage built-upon area, as long as the SCM is sized to capture and treat runoff from all
pervious and built-upon surfaces shown on the development plan and any off -site drainage from pervious
and built-upon surfaces, and when an additional safety factor of 15 percent of built -upon area of the project
site is figured in.
(9) CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT. Cluster development shall be allowed on a project-by-project basis as follows:
(a) Overall density of the project shall meet the requirements of Item (4) of this Rule;
(b) Vegetated setbacks shall meet the requirements of Item (12) of this Rule;
(c) Built-upon areas are designed and located to minimize stormwater runoff impact to receiving waters,
minimize concentrated stormwater flow, maximize the use of sheet flow through vegetated areas, and
maximize the flow length through vegetated areas;
(d) Areas of concentrated development shall be located in upland areas and away, to the maximum extent
practicable, from surface waters and drainageways. In determining whether these criteria have been met, t he
local government shall take into account site-specific factors such as topography and site layout as well as
protection of water quality;
(e) The remainder of tract shall remain in a vegetated or natural state;
(f) The area in the vegetated or natural state may be conveyed to a property owners association, a local
government for preservation as a park or greenway, a conservation organization, or placed in a permanent
conservation or farmland preservation easement;
(g) A maintenance agreement for the vegetated or natural area shall be filed with the Register of Deeds; and
(h) Cluster development that meets the applicable low density requirements shall comply with Item (6) of this
Rule.
(10) DENSITY AVERAGING OF NONCONTIGUOUS PARCELS. Density averaging of two noncontiguous parcels for
purposes of complying with this Rule shall be allowed in accordance with G.S. 143 -214.5 (d2).
(11) RESPONSIBILITY FOR SCM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE. Operation and maintenance agreements and plans
are required for SCMs in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .1050. Local governments that allow high density
development shall assume ultimate responsibility for operation and maintenance of the SCMs that they approve.
(12) VEGETATED SETBACKS. Vegetated setbacks shall be required along perennial waterbodies and perennial streams
that are indicated on the most recent versions of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale (7.5
minute) quadrangle topographic maps, which are herein incorporated by reference and are available at no cost at
http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/, or other maps developed by the Department or a local government and approved by
the Commission. Where USGS topographic maps do not distinguish between perennial and intermittent streams, an
on-site stream determination may be performed by an individual qualified to perform such stream determinations. A
qualified individual is one who has been certified to perform stream determinations by completing and passing the
Surface Water Identification Training and Certification (SWITC) Course offered by the North Carolina Division of
Water Resources and North Carolina State University. Vegetated setbacks shall also be in accordance with the
following:
(a) MINIMUM WIDTHS. The following minimum widths shall apply:
(i) low density projects 30 feet;
(ii) high density projects 100 feet;
(iii) projects covered under the 10/70 option 100 feet;
(iv) agricultural activities 10 feet, or equivalent control as determined by the designated agency as set
forth in Rule .0622 of this Section; and
(b) The width of a vegetated setback shall be measured horizontally from the normal pool elevation of
impounded structures, from the top of bank of each side of streams or rivers, and from the mean high
waterline of tidal waters, perpendicular to the shoreline;
(c) Vegetated setbacks may be cleared or graded, but shall be replanted and maintained in grass or other
vegetation;
(d) No new built-upon area shall be allowed in the vegetated setback except for the following uses where it is
not practical to locate the built-upon area elsewhere:
(i) publicly-funded linear projects such as roads, greenways, and sidewalks;
(ii) water dependent structures such as docks; and
(iii) minimal footprint uses such as poles, signs, utility appurtenances, and security lights.
Built-upon area associated with these uses shall be minimized and the channelization of stormwater
runoff shall be avoided; and
(e) Artificial streambank and shoreline stabilization shall not be subject to the requirements of this Item.
(13) VARIANCES. Variances to this Rule may be considered in accordance with Rule .0623 of this Section.
History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-214.5; 143-215.3(a)(1);
The provisions of this Rule were previously codified in 15A NCAC 02B .0104 and 02B .0212 through .0218.
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR RECLASSIFYING A SEGMENT OF THE
ENO RIVER FOR WATER SUPPLY IN DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WHEREAS, the City of Durham owns Teer Quarry located at 5090 Denfield Road in
Durham County, adjacent to the Eno River; and
WHEREAS, Teer Quarry is critical for meeting the City’s emergency water supply
needs and will improve the City’s water system reliability; and
WHEREAS, the City of Durham is at the center of an interconnected, regional water
supply network that includes the Town of Hillsborough, the Orange Water and Sewer
Authority, Chatham County, the City of Raleigh, and the Town of Cary; and
WHEREAS, improving the City of Durham’s water supply reliability improves water
supply reliability for the Town of Hillsborough; and
WHEREAS, use of Teer Quarry as a water supply requires filling it from a new intake
in the Eno River; and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Statutes require that the segment of the Eno
River in which the new intake is located and its watershed, as well as Teer Quarry, be
reclassified to protect the quality of the water;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners
hereby resolves to support the reclassification of the lands and waters identified by the
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality as being within the new Eno River
intake watershed to WS-IV NSW with a Critical Area (CA) and Protected Area (PA), and Teer
Quarry to WSIV NSW CA.
Approved this ___ day of _________ 20____.
Seal
Jenn Weaver, Mayor
Town of Hillsborough
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 9, 2020
Department: Police
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
7.E
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Police Chief Duane Hampton
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Noise ordinance discussion continuation
Attachment(s):
1.Noise Issue Summary Document
2.Noise complaint history associated with 115 W. Margaret Ln.
Brief Summary:
This is a follow up to the discussion from the January Board meeting. Since the last meeting HPD has continued to
work on understanding the issues and done the following:
•Conducted additional research into peer ordinances.
•Reviewed all noise calls associated with Hot Tin Roof from Jan. 1, 2019 to present as well as reviewing all
calls for service at HTR and similar businesses.
•Observed and collected data from businesses with live music to better understand practices and
implications of various measurement scales (A and C).
•Reviewed our internal process to better understand what is involved in taking readings and the issues we
have encountered in doing so.
A summary of this work and some background are included in Attachment 1.
Action Requested:
Provide direction to finalize ordinance change recommendations.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
Issues surrounding noise associated with the Hot Tin Roof have been ongoing since 2014. We made changes to our
ordinance in 2015 but we continue to get complaints and further changes may be warranted.
Financial Impacts:
None
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
See Attachment 1.
3-9-20 HPD Noise Issue Update and Recommendations
**NOTE: We have been working to try to pull this together in time for the packet deadline so the Board will
have time to contemplate information and formulate questions so this may contain some typos and
unintentional errors for which we apologize.
History
• Prior to 2013, we had no significant persistent noise issues that we were aware of.
• The Hot Tin Roof opened in 2013. Late 2013/Early 2014 we started having noise issues
associated with events there.
• April 2014 issues first brought to the Board.
• October 2014 Board updated and provided information.
• April 2015 the new noise ordinance using dB(A) was proposed and approved.
• Between 2015 and 2019, we have been operating under the revised ordinance. We have
continued to receive complaints but were not monitoring the effectiveness of our
responses.
• In November 2019 – issues surrounding noise and the Hot Tin roof were again raised
causing HPD to do a review of the past events, our responses and the effectiveness of
our ordinance. As part of this process we did research on decibel scales, took test
readings, examined our procedures for taking measurements, surveyed peer
ordinances, did a survey of local residents.
• January 13, 2020 presented an update to the Board with some options to consider.
Efforts since last Board meeting
• Conducted additional research into peer ordinances
• Reviewed all noise calls associated with Hot Tin Roof from January 1, 2019 to present as
well as reviewing all calls for service at HTR and similar businesses.
• Observed and collected data from businesses with live music to better understand
practices and implications of various measurement scales (A and C)
• Reviewed our internal process to better understand what is involved in taking readings
and the issues we have encountered in doing so.
Findings - Peer Ordinances
Reviewed ordinances for more than 25 other North Carolina municipalities.
All contained a general prohibition that making noise that bothered person of ordinary
sensibilities was a violation.
14 specifically defined day/night hours
o 9pm – 1
o 10pm – 3
o 11pm – 7
o 2 had different weekday/weekend night hours like ours
o 1 (Cary) had 3 times (9a-9p, 9p-2a, 2a-9a)
A little over half had some kind of tiered civil penalty
Only 9 used any kind of dB(A) limit/threshold. Only 1 (Greensboro) used dB(C).
Of those with dB limits, 5 took readings from source property, 4 took readings from
complainant/nearest residential
5 had a 2-complaint system (either 2 citizens or a citizen and verified by officer)
One (Hendersonville) had a specific requirement that business with live music keep
doors/windows closed.
Findings – Call Review
• Since 1/1/2019, there have been 26 total calls on 20 different days.
• 21 calls have been since October.
• 25 calls are verified as coming from Mr. Payne, 1 call is unknown.
• Call Summary (details are attached):
o 7 – no details of the response are available.
o 3 – equipment malfunctioned or was inoperable, so no readings were taken.
o 3 – officers responded but band quit playing before readings could be taken.
o 2 – officers responded and there are notes about hearing music, but no
indication of readings taken.
o 8 – officer took readings and there was not a violation (NOTE: 3 readings were
within 1 dB of being in violation).
o 2 – officers took readings and there was a violation.
o 1 – officers responded but ended up investigating an assault and never
investigated noise.
Findings - Observation/Data Collection
• Observed and/or took readings at three businesses (HTR, Yonder, Nash St.) over the
weekends of Jan 17-18, Jan 24-25 and Feb 1-2 when they all had live bands. General
observations:
o HTR Staff appeared to be actively taking readings and trying to self-monitor. The
overall volume was lower compared to the past and music ended earlier.
o Live music at Yonder and Nash St. appeared to end at 11, while HTR continued until
after midnight
o While observing Yonder from W. King St. Sidewalk, music from HTR could be heard
over sound from Yonder.
o After midnight, both Yonder and Nash St. were quiet and not contributing additional
noise to neighborhood. HTR continued to have music playing and there was
additional noise associated with patrons, vehicles and trash being dumped all adding
noise to neighborhood.
o Taking measurements at all business is difficult due to interference from non-
amplified sound (vehicles, people, trash dumps, etc.)
• C-Scale measurements do seem to capture more of the bass sound impact, but they
appear inconsistent and may be influenced by other things we do not understand. In
both A-scale and C-scale, sound can be over the limit in one, but not over the limit in the
other.
• Sounds registering above 50 dB(A) but below 55 dB(A) can still be perceived to be
disturbing. In addition, sounds appear to carry and how they are perceived is impacted
by environmental conditions and other factors.
Internal Review Findings
• The process of taking a reading is very cumbersome and difficult for persons who do not
use the equipment frequently to do. The process involves multiple steps with lots of
potential for errors. To respond to a call an officer must:
o Go to HQ to get the device.
o Check the calibration of the device and adjust if needed (we have found that the
device frequently needs to be adjusted before use).
o Go to the location.
o Take a 5-minute reading (can take 10-15 minutes to get a good reading if there
are issues with interfering noises).
o Take device to a computer, plug it in and download data (we have encountered
issues with mobile computers not working so officers have had to go to HQ to
download).
o Examine the data and determine if there is a violation (approximately 5 out of 30
readings have to be over the limit for it to be a violation).
o If in violation, make contact, address and write report. If not in violation, write
report.
o Save all data, then clear out device and return it to HQ for next use.
• We have encountered several significant issues with using the technology:
o Keeping all the personnel who may be called upon to use the device (any patrol
officer) trained and familiar with how to properly use the device has been
problematic
o Issues with compatibility and computer use. As an example, on 2/9 Sgt. Chestnut
responded to a noise complaint and took readings. He saw the device display
readings that were in violation (57-58dB) but could not get the data to download
on his mobile computer. When he tried to download at HQ the data was gone.
o Tracking and accountability for ensuring equipment service and calibration.
• Significant time and energy is being spent trying to understand and address this issue.
Current enforcement efforts take up significant staff time during peak call times.
Recommendation
We recommend we change the ordinance as follows:
1. Set an absolute cutoff time after which no amplified sound can be heard at a
residential property. We recommend 11pm, 7 days a week.
2. Prior to 11pm, rely on the standard language already in our ordinance (“The
operation or authorization to use or operate any musical instrument, radio receiving
set, television, phonograph, tape recorder or similar electronic device for the
production or reproduction of sound so as to disturb the comfort, quiet or repose of
persons in any place of residence or so as to create unreasonably loud noise
disturbing to persons located on public property.”)
3. Implement a 2-party complaint requirement – two citizens at separate locations, or
one citizen and a verifying officer.
4. Allow permitted amplified sound until 1am up to 4 times/year for each location.
a. Notice required 30 days in advance.
b. Would have set limit of 50dB(A).
c. Police staff would proactively monitor from nearest residential property.
5. Allow for exemptions for approved public special events.
6. Make Tiered Civil Penalty – Warning, $100, $250, $500, $1000/year.
It is our hope that these changes will:
• Reduce the overall noise experienced by residents during late-night hours.
• Simplify the process of identifying late night violations.
• Reduce the amount of time required to investigate a noise complaint.
• Require officers to have less technical training and spend less time learning to use and
staying familiar with the technology.
• Keep violations from being a criminal issue associated with people’s records.
Alternatives/Additional Considerations
As an alternative, if we do not want to impose an absolute limit, keep our existing structure
with the following modifications:
1. Reduce limit and times for late-night noise to 50dB(A) after 11pm 7 days a week.
2. Only respond to complaints – measure from nearest residential.
3. If not in violation, no business contact.
4. Allow for exemptions for approved public special events.
5. Make Tiered Civil Penalty – Warning, $100, $250, $500, $1000/year.
Additional considerations/options
• Outdoor amplified sound – we currently have no clear provision to address this.
Recommend setting an earlier absolute cutoff of 9pm.
• Consider including provision to require businesses with amplified sound to keep doors
and windows closed.
• Set a plan to review any of these changes after 6 months and consider any needed
modifications.
• We do not recommend implementing the use of dB(C) scale. We simply do not
understand the implications enough that we are comfortable using it for enforcement
and we believe this would add an additional level of complication to an already difficult
process.
Calls since 1/1/2019
2/24/19 0115am Sat 19-00386 David Payne Sound meter batteries dead so could not take reading. Contacted bar, asked to turn down.
3/17/19 0207am Sat 19-00552 David Payne Responded but discovered an assault had happened - did not investigate noise complaint
4/6/19 0045am Fri 19-00710 David Payne Took reading, no violation. Average in upper 40's, highest was 53. (15 minute response)
7/27/19 0105am Fri no report unknown No details
8/24/19 0012am Fri no report David Payne No details
10/5/19 0001am Fri no report David Payne No details
10/5/19 0153am Fri no report David Payne CAD notes indicate band had quit playing by officer arrival (7 minute response)
10/26/19 0051am Fri 19-02227 David Payne
Officer could not get sound meter to work. Mark Bateman approached him and said he asked DJ to turn it
down. Officer walked through business said music was lowered.
11/9/19 0003am Fri 19-02333 David Payne
Officer could not get sound meter to work. Spoke with complainant. Bar employee came out and told
officer Band was going to stop at 0045.
11/9/19 0054am Fri
supplement to
19-02333 David Payne
Spoke with complainant again. Officer described sound as having a "good amount of bass". Spoke with
employee - employee said they were only getting 48dB.
11/24/19 0004am Sat 19-02427 David Payne Spoke with complainant. Used county meter - reading was 52. Spoke with Bar staff.
11/24/19 2345pm Sun 19-02436 David Payne Orange County took reading and advised it was 42. (note: this was a Sunday night, level changes at 11pm)
12/1/19 2303pm Sun No report David Payne No details. (note: this was a Sunday night, level changes at 11pm)
12/7/19 0015am Fri 19-2512 David Payne
Responded and "could hear music clearly from residence" but band quit playing while waiting for sound
meter.
12/15/19 0019am Sat no report David Payne No details
12/21/19 0031am Fri 19-2627 David Payne
Took readings and they were in the 54 range. Spoke to DJ to let them know. DJ said they would be
shutting down soon.
12/21/19 0118am Fri 19-2628 David Payne Took readings, highest was 54.8. Music had stopped by time readings were finished. No contact.
12/24/19 0017am Mon no report David Payne no details (Note: Monday night, so level changes at 11pm).
12/24/19 0059am Mon no report David Payne no details (Note: Monday night, so level changes at 11pm).
12/24/19 0144am Mon no report David Payne
Cad notes indicate they called for noise meter. Music stopped before noise meter arrived. (Note: Monday
night, so level changes at 11pm).
1/1/19 0106am Tue 20-00001 David Payne
Took reading using OCSO meter. Never over 55dB, average was 47dB. Complainant said he waited until
after 1am to call since it was new years.
1/4/20 0009am Fri 20-00020 David Payne
Took readings - 5 readings over 55dB, 1 away from violation. Business warned. Employee said they were
checking every 30 minutes, but only took 15 second readings. (30 minute response)
1/12/20 0031am Sat 20-00086 David Payne
Readings were taken and business was in violation. Charges deferred due to ordinance conversation.
Business notified.
2/2/20 0000am Sat 20-00240 David Payne
Officer responded and took readings, but there is no information on what readings were. Described sound
as being able to hear it, but not clearly make out songs. (30 minute response)
2/9/20 0121am Sat 20-00293 David Payne
Took readings and found in violation (57-58dB), but noise meter data would not download. Employees
contacted and warned.
2/23/20 0008am Sat 20-00416 David Payne
Responded and took readings. Used Chapel Hill meter, got range of 44-52. Advised employee who came
out to talk to him of reading.
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 9, 2020
Department: Econ Dev/Admin/PIO
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
7.F
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Economic Development Planner Shannan Campbell
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Town Logo/Branding Refresh Project
Attachment(s):
1. PowerPoint Presentation of logo options (updated with a NEW version E per town board comments)
2. Polco Engagement Survey Results & Comments
Brief Summary:
The Town of Hillsborough government needs a cohesive brand identity, logo, and seal to identify itself to the public
when it conducts its business. A seal and logo have been developed for adoption. A brand standards guide will follow
in coming months outlining colors (with codes), fonts, and typography examples. The board will review/adopt this
document as well at a later date.
Action Requested:
1. Adopt the digitized Town Seal image as the official seal of the Town of Hillsborough government
2. Adopt a logo design concept as the official logo of the Town of Hillsborough government
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
The Town of Hillsborough government currently has a bit of an identity problem- the adopted logo from 1994 is
sometimes used and can be seen on town vehicles and letterhead, as is a logo appropriated from the 2013
wayfinding signage project. Additionally, various logos have been created for use for programs and initiatives,
banners, and some departments have created their own version of the wayfinding signage logo for envelopes and
other promotional materials. The Town’s Economic Development Planner, Assistant to the Town Manager, and
Public Information Office have worked closely with a graphic designer to attempt to find 1 (one) logo image that
represents Hillsborough that we can adopt and use town-wide to create a more cohesive brand identity. The logos
match the colors and fonts of the wayfinding signage, so that they are not incongruent with anything adopted. This
project is intended to refresh the brand and get everything to look the same. A brand standards guide will also be
produced as part of this project for internal/staff use that will include the fonts and specific colors to be used when
representing the Town of Hillsborough in any official documents, marketing, or outreach materials.
Financial Impacts:
Implementation of the new brand standards is expected to be gradual and as needed (ie. When you re-order
business cards you’ll order them with the new logo), with some funds expected to be used from the original project
budget to purchase some promotional items.
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
Adopt and implement a Town seal and logo for official use.
3/3/2020
1
Town of Hillsborough
Logo/Branding Refresh 2020
Background-Existing Logos/Branding
Town currently has an adopted logo that’s dated
1994
1
2
3/3/2020
2
Town Seal
The Town’s seal has never been drawn into
a digital format and what we know of it is
based on a painting hanging on the wall in
Town Hall.
Wayfinding Signage
•In 2013 the Town designed wayfinding
signage that is installed Town-wide to
assist people with navigating and finding
town and county offices, attractions, etc.
3
4
3/3/2020
3
Website & Social Media
•The new wayfinding signage branding (fonts, colors, and symbols)
started to be used more on digital platforms in lieu of the 1994 logo
because it was more modern.
New logos emerge
5
6
3/3/2020
4
Town Seal 2020
Logo Update Option A-Clocktower
7
8
3/3/2020
5
Logo Update Option A-Clocktower
(Color/Shape Variations)
Logo Update Option B-Quatrefoil
9
10
3/3/2020
6
Logo Update Option B-Quatrefoil
(Color/Shape Variations)
Logo Update Option C-Riverwalk
11
12
3/3/2020
7
Logo Update Option C-Riverwalk
(Color/Shape Variations)
Logo Update Option D-Town Hall
13
14
3/3/2020
8
Logo Update Option D-Town Hall
(Color/Shape Variations)
NEW! Logo Update Option E-Clocktower + Riverwalk
15
16
3/3/2020
9
NEW! Logo Update Option E-Clocktower + Riverwalk
(Color Variations)
17
POLICY OVERVIEW ADDED. FEB 18, 2020 ENDED. FEB 26, 2020
CURRENT RESULTS 374 Total Responses
REGISTERED VS NON-REGISTERED
ALL RESPONDENTS
Town of Hillsborough Branding
Are you a Hillsborough (select all that apply):
A Resident or utility customer (309)
B Business owner or employee (46)
C Town of Hillsborough employee (28)
D Visitor (16)
E Other (18)
A B C D E
Registered Voters (215)94.4% (203)10.2% (22)2.8% (6)0.9% (2)2.8% (6)
Non-Registered Voters (159)66.7% (106)15.1% (24)13.8% (22)8.8% (14)7.5% (12)
A B C D E
All respondents (374)83.0% (309)12.0% (46)7.0% (28)4.0% (16)5.0% (18)
Registered Voters in Town of Hillsborough, NC (215)94.4% (203)10.2% (22)2.8% (6)0.9% (2)2.8% (6)
Live in Town of Hillsborough, NC (332) - Self-reported 90.1% (299)12.0% (40)5.1% (17)1.2% (4)3.3% (11)
Subscribers to Town of Hillsborough, NC (337)89.3% (301)12.2% (41)5.0% (17)1.8% (6)3.6% (12)
Register respondents from anywhere (238)86.0% (204)10.0% (24)5.0% (12)5.0% (11)5.0% (12)
83% (309)
12% (46)
7% (28)
4% (16)
5% (18)
1 of 16
1 of 16
CURRENT RESULTS 374 Total Responses
REGISTERED VS NON-REGISTERED
ALL RESPONDENTS
Which of the four logo options is your favorite?
A Clock Tower (182)
B Quatrefoil (44)
C Riverwalk (123)
D Town Hall (25)
A B C D
Registered Voters (215)49.3% (106)11.6% (25)31.6% (68)7.4% (16)
Non-Registered Voters (159)47.8% (76)11.9% (19)34.6% (55)5.7% (9)
A B C D
All respondents (374)49.0% (182)12.0% (44)33.0% (123)7.0% (25)
Registered Voters in Town of Hillsborough, NC (215)49.3% (106)11.6% (25)31.6% (68)7.4% (16)
Live in Town of Hillsborough, NC (332) - Self-reported 48.8% (162)10.8% (36)33.7% (112)6.6% (22)
Subscribers to Town of Hillsborough, NC (337)48.4% (163)10.7% (36)34.4% (116)6.5% (22)
Register respondents from anywhere (238)50.0% (119)12.0% (29)30.0% (72)8.0% (18)
49% (182)
12% (44)
33% (123)
7% (25)
2 of 16
2 of 16
CURRENT RESULTS 359 Total Responses
REGISTERED VS NON-REGISTERED
ALL RESPONDENTS
Which of the four logo options is your second favorite?
A Clock Tower (114)
B Quatrefoil (68)
C Riverwalk (113)
D Town Hall (64)
A B C D
Registered Voters (208)29.3% (61)17.8% (37)36.1% (75)16.8% (35)
Non-Registered Voters (151)35.1% (53)20.5% (31)25.2% (38)19.2% (29)
A B C D
All respondents (359)32.0% (114)19.0% (68)31.0% (113)18.0% (64)
Registered Voters in Town of Hillsborough, NC (208)29.3% (61)17.8% (37)36.1% (75)16.8% (35)
Live in Town of Hillsborough, NC (318) - Self-reported 31.8% (101)18.2% (58)32.4% (103)17.6% (56)
Subscribers to Town of Hillsborough, NC (323)31.9% (103)18.3% (59)31.9% (103)18.0% (58)
Register respondents from anywhere (230)29.0% (67)18.0% (41)36.0% (82)17.0% (40)
32% (114)
19% (68)
31% (113)
18% (64)
3 of 16
3 of 16
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Please share any thoughts that help explain your preferences.
I quite like the Riverwalk option but really feel that the clock tower is most iconic and instantly recognizable as Hillsborough. The Riverwalk option from a distance might appear to be just another
environmental/parks/rec logo on someone's t-shirt. The clock is very specifically Hillsborough, though. Thanks so much. They're all really great!
Clock Tower is part of the Hillsborough history and town hall same and part historical
The clock tower at least has some actual history. You should also include the date the town was founded below the logo. The other logos are really meaningless, do not convey anything. How about
something connected to our revolutionary history. The current selection, not great in my opinion
I like the feeling of the Riverwalk logo - it gives a nice small town feel and shows a connection with nature. The Clock Tower logo has a nice historical feel to it. The Town Hall logo was too busy with the two
colors.
The clock tower represents the history and architecture of the town and is easily recognizable by anyone visiting the downtown area. The Greenway bridge and river logo represents Hillsborough’s unique
Riverwalk which is an asset for both residents and visitors alike.
The Clock Tower is by far my favorite. The quatrefoil doesn't signify "Hillsborough" to me at all. The Town Hall building could be seen as just "a building" in town. The Riverwalk logo is nice, but would
highlight just one of our many features. The Tower, on the other hand, rises above it all, represents our history, and overlooks everything lovely about our lovely town. And showing the tower as a crisp,
rather modern drawing instead of a photo shows that we are part of the modern world as well as part of the past. If we use the Clock Tower, the Riverwalk logo could be used to promote our public spaces,
but it would need to be slightly different somehow -- or seen as subordinate to the Tower logo in some way -- so that it is not confused with our "primary" town logo. Then perhaps other "subordinate" logos
could be created to feature other areas of interest, such as the Burwell School when featuring town history; or a dinner plate and cutlery when promoting our food scene.
The Riverwalk is perhaps the most unique feature of Hillsborough and is certainly among its biggest draws.
The clock tower is a staple of the downtown area. The riverwalk logo is also good but is not as present as the clock tower. I think the other symbols are not distinct enough to make as our town's symbol.
Quatrefoil looks like a Fleur De Lys and reminds me of New Orleans. Not fitting w Hillsborough. Town Hall looks looks just looks like a house and isn't a unique to represent the whole town.
The quatrefoil on the Earl of Hillsborough arms represents his grandfather, Thomas Ro[w]e, a diplomat.
The clock tower is very distinct and apropos. The bridge is a little busy but still a good second.
I am surprised that nothing better has been created. These four choices seem rather lackluster and/or childlike. Were there not any Occaneechi Band of Saponi symbols that could be used and/or
incorporated? Not the clover, that explanation was a bit of a "snow job." A logo that represents the rivers and land that gave life to all of us rather then the bell that a king gave us!
Much as I would like to go for the beautiful quatrefoil which also marvelously reflects the blossom of the dogwood, our NC state tree, I must stick with the clocktower for two reasons: 1) the clock speaks to
the town's historicity and reminds people that Hillsborough is the Orange County seat; 2) It is elegant and has high recognition value for our brand. I would also add that the clocktower is a symbol of time
and justice that speaks to a modern town with a lengthy past, as well as being a community where social and economic justice are important. I hope these personal reflections are helpful.
I am a photographer and a printer. I believe that we want something that invites people to explore our town. Those 2 show nature and history.
The Riverwalk logo makes me think of a bridge between Hillsborough and surrounding areas, between humans as we embrace our similarities and differences, between history and future. I also love the
idea of looking as Hillsborough as a place, not a building, one that grows and develops. Best of luck with your rebrand! It will be beautiful! Thank you!
I was happy with the old branding. Just hope this isn’t costing too much. I imagine it might if things all are changed. We are an historic town, let’s keep it with historic look we have. Looking for fiscal
responsibility in my government.
We love the concept of the bridge over the river!
4 of 16
4 of 16
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Tough decision. I love the idea of a Riverwalk logo but I feel like the execution of this one ends up with the bridge looking like an angry smile (like a monster). I'm used to the clock tower and like it, and like
the town hall one, too. The quatrefoil is my least favorite because most of us aren't used to that symbol being associated with Hillsborough.
These are the images with more relevance to the town.
The clock tower. Simply because it’s the most recognizable symbol of Hillsborough’s history and carries forward the old logo but in a new way. Even though the Town Hall is my second choice, I have a
feeling there will be kickback on thatl one because the building’s legal registry name has “Ruffin” in it and some people won’t like that image representing our town. Also people outside of Hillsborough may
not recognize Riverwalk by the image presented. I think it’s too abstract. The quatrefoil is too impersonal and doesn’t reflect anything about the town that folks will recognize. So the clock tower gets my
vote!
River Walk Logo is more distinctive and unique which would help to differentiate Hillsborough from other towns and highlight a tourist attraction.
Represents a truly unique feature of the community. Emphasizes the town's history (others don't make that connection). Very clearly represents a place (vs a concept).
I strongly prefer the idea of the Riverwalk being the Town logo, as I believe it is what we are most well known for, but this particular version seems like it could represent any location. Understand the need
for simple lines, but can the river next to the walk be incorporated? Or, clock tower (or other identifying feature) be added above the tree line? Alternatively, the view of the curve in the river from the picnic
table is spectacular - can that be simplified down to a logo along with one of the Riverwalk's bridges?
The clock tower and quatrefoil are my top choices because they are the most simple. I think it would be hard for people to see that the riverwalk logo is supposed to be a river, bridge and trees. I love the
riverwalk concept but being limited to 2 colors, makes it hard to see what the picture is supposed to be. I really like the look of the Town Hall Campus logo, but I'm having a hard time seeing it on town work
shirts, vehicles and official town documents.
Hillsborough is a historic town the other choices are not, in my mind, historical in the same sense. Folks move here because of the history and the clock. The clock is the most identifiable landmark in town.
The clock tower is the most relevant and readily recognizable to both Hillsborough residents and visitors. The other three are either unrecognizable (Riverwalk), poor branding (all three), or could be
irrelevant in the near future (Town Hall). I would recommend the clock tower overlaying a background of the trees n the Riverwalk, i.e., without the bridge. This highlights Hillsborough's strong identity with
history and nature, as well as it's beautiful natural, tree-abundant setting.
Clock is safe and transitions nicely from past to present. That said, I really like either the Riverwalk or Town Hall logos. The Quatrefoil is really interesting, but will take some time to become established. All
are pretty cool.
The riverwalk option doesn't speak to the legacy and history and History of Hillsborough; it's too generic. I feel the quatrefoil is as well. While it does have a history when explained, it doesn't convey that
history the way the other two do. The other two really connect to this unique place.
As someone that has worked in Hillsborough for about 3 years, I have noticed how important the environment is to the Town and I feel that the Riverwalk logo would represent that well. A lot of people that
work in the Town and live here are always walking around the Town to enjoy what it has to offer. The clock tower is my second choice because it seems that history is also very important to the town and
since the clock tower has a unique history, it would also fit well as the logo.
The quatrefoil is unique and more adaptable than the others. It creates a balance between Hillsborough's historic past and the vision for the future.
The quarterfoil is the most unique and simple. The clock tower is nice but I feel like I have seen this before. C and D are way too detailed for a logo. I would consider them Illustrations, not logos.
I honestly am not a fan of any, nor the color scheme. (Local entrepreneur/Marketing & brand business). I think the impact these have, the emotional response they foster, comes across too "old." I would
approach the design to try to capture the essence of the growth, new energy, new mindsets, new families that are coming here. We have grown so much and look so different than we did 15 years ago and
it's BEAUTIFUL! I was really excited to see Matt's post and was expecting/hoping for something a little "more fresh" in take. I know we have traditionally used certain colors, we have certain staples (clock,
river walk, etc.) but this is our opportunity to really show the country/world what our community/town is about...look at, albeit extreme change, the fresh take Carrboro took when they updated their
brand/logo. That's just my perspective, the 4 options seem too "vector" and too "old fashioned" for a town so rich in the arts, entrepreneurship, and community. I would like to see and feel "artistic, fresh,
growing" community in the logo and I think you can do that while still conveying "tradition/heritage." Happy to discuss further. Josh Collins
The riverwalk logo is more visually interesting, with depth the others lack. The bridge creates symbolism on several levels: a path forward, bridging gaps, creating shared community.
Only A and D have any semblance to tie with Hillsborough. Shame on ‘this’ taking months to develop.
The first and the last logo (clock tower and town hall) only speak to the white colonialists experience here. This land was home to the occonneechi and other native tribes before the whites came. People
5 of 16
5 of 16
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
from countries in Africa were kidnapped and brought here to work as slaves. None of these really speak to their experience, or the fact that the town had an all white high school and the "other" much
smaller, poorly funded school for people of color. So, I feel like the riverwalk at least refers to something in the present that we all enjoy and can take pride in. The quatrefoile at least includes a reference to
native people, but without a lot of explaining, no one will understand. Whereas the riverwalk is obvious.
The quatrefoil also has a botantical/flower look to it, which is nice.
The quatrefoil is not easily linked to our town. Visitors will not know what it is. The Riverwalk bridge looks like an old railroad bridge and I doubt it would be readily identifiable either.
We live 5 miles south of town and visit several times each week. The Clock Tower is the first glimpse of town from Churton St. I moved to Hillsborough in 1975; the Clock Tower is unique to our town and is
readily identifiable as our symbol. The Quatrefoil is pretty, but there's nothing uniquely "Hillsborough" about it. The Riverwalk is a busy design, but it IS uniquely ours. The Town Hall just looks like a drawing
of anyone's ranch house, our least favorite.
We hope our town can show that it is continuing to grow. That we are diverse and dynamic.
The clock tower has consistently been used as Hillsborough's signature branding image. It's recognizable and the updated stylized icon treatment is simple and sharp. The type treatment and color palette
work well and are both consistent with Hillsborough's wayfinding signage. (Full disclosure: I served on the Wayfinding Signage Committee.) The town hall icon is a nice second choice, but it does not have
the image recognition that the clock tower does. Thanks for requesting input!
This is the county seat first and foremost. Second reflects the awesomeness that is our town in terms of activities.
Riverwalk is about the landscape of the town -- not a gift from England nor a symbol from Ireland. That's why I like it the best.
I love our riverwalk!! I end up there at least 1-2 times per week. When speaking with others about our town this is often what they remark on.
I think the quatrefoil brings in the history of the town's namesake while also including the Native American and agricultural history of the area.
Would be nice to do Riverwalk one, but in middle top have clock tower instead of bushes. Combine the history, current, future, nature and architecture all in one.
The Quatrefoil is my favorite by process of elimination. The Riverwalk icon is too busy and I don't think the best representation, it could be a favorite but would need to be refined more. The oval shape is
awkward and the line surrounding is as well, cutting off the edges of the bridge. It's close, but needs work. The clock tower is too similar graphically to that of the UNC Chapel Hill logo which is iconic. It
would be a mistake to try and have something so similar to other main town in Orange County. The town hall campus icon is fine, but I don't think it is the iconic thing to represent all of Hillsborough.
Because it's not as well known as some would like, it just looks like a house. So it represents "Hillsborough: full of old houses". While being true, it's not really enticing as a logo. So, the Quatrefoil wins. It is
a bit lackluster in itself though, and could be refined another round to become something that really is eye-catching and unique. Perhaps expanding the knockout lines in the leaves or giving it a unifying
outline that better ties it with the text below. At the moment, the logos all feel cut off from the "Hillsborough" text. If you'd like to discuss further, my name is Erin Campbell and I am designer with
background in advertising and identity branding.
The clock tower is also similar to UNC's Bell tower, which might be nice to have a similarity/connection. However, River Walk brings so many people together, which is also a lovely concept.
The riverwalk better represents our active and beautiful town.
The two building options -- the clock tower and Town Hall -- are not very interesting. (Town Hall is particularly boring as a logo.) I'm also not interested in the two options that hark back to 18th century
England and Ireland (the clock tower and the quatrefoil). In my view, these symbols are not representative of the Hillsborough of today, which is increasingly diverse and is home to both folks who have
lived here for many years as well as newcomers. The Riverwalk represents the town well. It's a peaceful and beautiful space.
The Quatrefoil is nice when reading its history but looks too much like an arbitrary decorative element. The town hall brands Hillsborough as almost purely historical and doesn’t convey the vibrancy and
natural aspects of Hillsborough. The Riverwalk is strong but busy iconography. I think outside visitors would have difficulty understanding it’s significance in the picture. The clock tower is iconic, simple,
and perhaps representative of both our time past and our progress moving forward. It lacks communication of our natural splendor but is still a good contender.
I like the continuity of the clock and prefer the cleaner design. Riverwalk is also an engaging symbol for the town, thus my second choice.
Riverwalk is #1 because it combines the Eno, forests, and the Riverwalk bridge itself is also similar to a railway bridge, another defining feature of the town. Townhall is #2 because, I think it's a nice
looking design. The Clock Tower could use a break, and the quatrefoil is a little too abstract in concept for representing the town as a whole and what features people like about it.
6 of 16
6 of 16
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
The quatrefoil seems to me to have no connection to the town, and the town is so much more than the town hall. The clock tower we see daily. Riverwalk...we all love but the bridge is misleading...seems
larger than it actually is.
The clock tower is the only one I like. The others are not appealing. They are cold. They don't have a real feeling about them.
The Riverwalk is the only one that remotely approaches acceptability. Town Hall: generic, boring, looks like a ranndom house. Clock tower: generic, boring, not reflective of the town's character, could be
NC State's clock tower. Quatrefoil: Looks like a cheap kaleidoscope image, not at all reflective of Hillsborough's unique character and identity. Even the Riverwalk logo has a generic feel, but at least it
suggests the town's natural amenities even if there's no historical element. Is this really the best we can do?
The quatrefoil is terrible. Please don't use it.
When driving north on 86 into town from 85, you can clearly see the clock tower. It's what I have always associated with Hillsborough since I moved to Durham in 1975 and been living here since 2010.
On the clock tower design, Perhaps consider making the white ring (between the two gold rings) brown, instead of white. The graphics in B & C don’t have enough contrast. I’ve seen gold elements go
wrong when used on white backgrounds because they lack sufficient contrast. Tha nod for the opportunity to provide community feedback!
Going back to the town's beginning, the Eno River is literally its reason for existence. Riverwalk is what makes Hillsborough unique. It reflects the town's concerns with all living things (birds, bees, plants,
etc.) as well as combining both social encounters and healthy exercise right in the town center.
While the clock tower is identifiable, it looks an awful lot like a penis. The Riverwalk logo is a little jarring and reminds me of the Triple A logo with all the diagonal bridge supports. The Quatrefoil is clean,
classy, and pretty. It doesn't immediately connect people with a visual of Hillsborough, but I like that it's in the town seal and it looks like a flower which makes me think of the natural environment of the
town.
Riverwalk has been the single most important project the town has completed. Riverwalk connects communities within Hillsborough as well as connecting beyond as part of the MTS. It is a wonderful
attraction and its center is the Eno River. The Eno has a much longer history and the town has spent millions to protect the Eno's water quality as well as its ecosystem.
The clock tower is nice but reminds me of Old Well at Chapel Hill. So, it's a very simple icon/logo but too easily confused with other ones. The Quatrefoil is too generic. The Town Hall too busy. And the
Riverwalk gives me a warm fuzzy about the town.
The clock tower may be confused with UNC-CH?
Riverwalk emphasizes the natural beauty of the town. The clock tower emphasizes its history and architecture. Basically, I ask myself: does the logo make me think I'd like to live there? The Town Hall
looks a little generic, and while the quatrefoil has nice symbolic resonances, it doesn't give a real sense of place.
The clock tower is far and away the best. It is a much, much better logo in and of itself than the other three options. Also, the clock tower is the best choice for a logo as it is an easily recognizable symbol
that is perfectly representative of the town. It incorporates the physical centrality of the clock tower to Hillsborough's vibrant downtown, the historic aspect of the town which is so central to Hillsborough's
identity, and the clock tower's modern position as a gathering place for the community with events such as Last Friday and the Sundays in Hillsborough concert series. It is simply the best option by far.
I feel as though the Riverwalk is such a huge draw for the town and a distinguishing factor that many people in town are proud of...there aren't many like it in the area! My second favorite is the clock tower
since it's been associate with the town for a while now. My only hesitation is the clocktower itself isn't the main focal point in town and so many people never see it. I've lived here in Hillsborough for 20
years and I didn't know where it was for the first 5! Only when someone pointed up did I ever see it! The quatrefoil is too generic in my opinion. It's better with the description of what it means in this poll, but
it doesn't immediately convey that information by itself. I think the town hall is too complicated and not interesting enough to be a logo. It could represent just about any town in NC!
I think I'm drawn to the multiple colors in the Town Hall logo - I might feel differently about the other logos if they had more contrast. But all are nice!
Everyone who comes downtown is able to see the clock tower.
The tower is classic. The quatrefoil is contemporary and clean. The other two are cartoonish.
Would like to see incorporated: "FOUNDED 1754"
Keeps the Historic parts at the forefront.
7 of 16
7 of 16
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
The two I selected seem to be the most inclusive of the logos.
I think if the Riverwalk logo included some darker shading in it, similar to the way the Town Hall logo uses shading, I would move it to #1.
The quatrefoil seems most inclusive in our history and more open to personal interpretation.
I see the clock tower as a historic symbol of establishment & residence. The quatrefoil is symbolic of the heart & nature of the town of Hillsborough.
The riverwalk logo shows the outdoor experience and Hillsborough is more than just buildings. While the other logos of buildings is nice and adds the historical touch - more broadly it is the people in
Hillsborough that make this place so great and to me the riverwalk logo provides more of a feel to this.
The quatrefoil design is especially clean and appealing. It seems like it would be the most legible/recognizable in a variety of sizes and contexts.
The riverwalk just seems like a great central part of our town - spanning all the different areas!
Riverwalk would look really great on hats, t-shirts, etc.
The riverwalk symbol looks like a frowning mouth with sharp teeth! The quatrefoil has no meaning to the average person who sees it.
The clock tower represents Hillsborough's rich history. It is a classic emblem that is representative of the town unlike the others that are trendy. Hillsborough is a classic-built to withstand the test of time,
not a trend that ultimately fades.
The Riverwalk logo is a symbol for the community that invites visitors in, and represents the welcoming spirit of the residents and businesses of the Town of Hillsborough.
Riverwalk and Quatrefoil could be any town. Clock tower and Town Hall are more distinctive for Hillsborough
I really like the clock tower, but I am concerned that it looks too much like the Old Well logo used by UNC Chapel Hill.
I meet so many people who come to Hillsborough to walk on the Riverwalk. Also, it is the one place in Hillsborough where you see a wide diversity of people-old and young, black, brown & white. To me,
the Riverwalk represents all that is good about the town and looks toward the future. I put the clock tower as my second choice, but that's just because I had the option. To me the Riverwalk is a much
better choice.
The riverwalk is a nod to the future rather than to the historic past.
To bad the Emo died.
Personally, both the Riverwalk and Town Hall seem too “busy” for a logo.
The riverwalk design, while meaningful, looks like a toothy smile with a tongue sticking out.
Clock tower is literally iconic, and identifiable by visitors. Quatrefoil and town hall are "inside baseball" and unremarkable when viewed in isolation. Riverwalk is on right track with sweep of river but overlay
of bridge looks like an animal baring its teeth.
No real visuals suggesting music and food. River walk is best.
8 of 16
8 of 16
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
I prefer the simple designs best since they are more easily reproduced than the more complicated designs.
The Riverwalk is a beautiful concept and beautiful design, but the bridge somehow looks like a wall. Is there a way the design could be altered to make it visually clear that it's a bridge connecting, not a
wall dividing? If so, that would be our first choice.
The clock tower (my first choice) is very recognizable to me, Riverwalk (my second choice) isn't AS location-specific, but it represents a great reason and resource to visit!
The clock tower is the best representation of this historic town and the Riverwalk its best asset, in my opinion.
If I am not mistaken, town hall is in the Rhoulac House...Orange County just removed his picture from the courthouse due to his owning of enslaved Africans. As a lifelong black resident of Hillsborough, I
ask for that option to be removed and will lead an effort to have it changed if chosen as the new logo. Stick with the courthouse logo. It is old, historic, notable and recognized.
Despite our growth, we need to preserve our historic origins. I wonder why you can't have a "pseudo -coat-of-arms" in the shape of a shield, with 4 quadrants, and include and artistic rendition of all 4 of the
symbols. That is my suggestion.
I like the clock tower because it does represent our town and everyone knows that is distinct for Hillsborough. The river walk was my next favorite but the logo does seem a bit much like clip art.
The a river walk is a contemporary project that highlights one of the best features of our town—scenic public spaces that encourage people to be healthy and to interact with each other.
The clocktower represents Hillsborough in my mind. It's also a classic, timeless icon for the town. The town hall is my second favorite for similar reasons. I don't like the quartrefoil at all. It doesn't feel
genuine or representative of Hillsborough.
The connections that the Riverwalk forms around the town to me represents the connections that we have all made with this town. it represents the love that we feel for this community and the passion that
each and every one of us exhibits through our service.
Leaves are a sign of healthy growth
None of the logos - except the clock tower - are easily recognizable, simple, and distinctive. I appreciate the updated Clocktower logo, I think it looks nice. The Riverwalk logo and Town hall logo are a little
too busy and complex. The Quatrefoil logo is not distinctive or unique to Hillsborough, and I don’t think that one is a wise choice.
The Town Hall is kind of generic-looking. The quatrefoil doesn't evoke Hillsborough
Riverwalk logo Bridge looks as if a giant mouth is eating through the frame. Least favorite. Quatrefoil is at least dignified, but a bit too generic for me. Town hall fits both dignity and town identity but it's not
necessarily recognizable as such if you've never really seen the town hall (it's easy to drive past unnoticed). The clock tower ticks the other boxes and represents not only our current identity but our history
as well, and if you've been anywhere downtown it's visible from all over.
The clock tower is iconic and the centerpiece of the downtown. You identify it with Hillsborough right away (it’s our Eiffel Tower- ha!)
Hillsborough
The Riverwalk doesn't remind me of the Riverwalk or Hillsborough.
Prefer the clock as an old symbol and the viewer can tell it's a clock. I would not even know what the Quatrefoil is without the above description. Riverwalk is pretty, but new and not historic.
The Riverwalk logo is the only one that tells people something about the town. It draws you in. It says we're a river town and that we value accessing and protecting the natural beauty around us.
I like the Quatrefoil best because it is representative of all different kinds of people who have been a part of this town and land, including the native people that lived here before it was a town. It also
represents the Irish for whom the town was names, and the people that live here now in the clover that represents good luck, agriculture, and gardening. I like the Riverwalk second, for many of the same
9 of 16
9 of 16
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
reasons. It's all along the Eno, through the land the Occoneechee once inhabited, and is a place for everyone that lives here now. The other two logos, I feel, have more limited representation and aren't
quite so broad.
The clock tower is instantly recognizable as a Hillsborough symbol and has a historic Hillsborough vibe. The design is simple, will work well on web or in print and will look great in black and white. The
square shape will easily work on anything. Riverwalk is too new and isn't historic. That logo is a little more complicated or "busy" which is also a negative. The horizontal shape isn’t as adaptable for
different uses as a square shape. The Quatrefoil logo is a nice simple shape, but I don't think anyone will know what it is. Town Hall is a bit complicated and the wide shape not as adaptable.
I find the clock tower to be one of the most historical and distinct logos in this list, of a good size and nice color blend for branding purposes.
The town hall logo just looks like a house and I don’t like the coloring. So it doesn’t feel special to me. The quartrefoil feels either Irish or like a symbol of a church to me so I don’t feel like it captures the
right feel of Hillsborough. I like the other two almost equally but since I had to choose a favorite I went with the clock tower. The river walk is fine but I feel like I’ve seen it before somehow.
Quatrefoil doesn't mean anything. The town hall just looks like a house that could be anywhere. The thing I love most about Hillsborough is all of the natural spaces and hiking places.
The Riverwalk logo looks like it's throwing up. The Town Hall -nah, nobody cares about a building, and most people haven't ever been there. The Quatrefoil looks funny. The Clock Tower is prominent and
reflects the historical importance of the town. Even third graders know about the Clock.
Didn t care for any as a second choice. The quad and riverwalk ones could be almost anywhere and are not solely unique to Hillsborough.
The town hall logo is too basic and could be any house. The clock tower or river walk represent Hillsborough more.
Multiple connotations of quatrefoil and its elegantly simple lines: winner
I like the clock tower because it’s familiar and the first thing I see when I come into town. The Riverwalk is a nice choice because it’s a great feature of our town. I feel the bridge needs to be more elegant
or stylized to make it my first choice over the clock tower, the lines on it are too fat and distracting right now. The clock tower is a more solid logo, visually.
I am torn. I like the clock tower because it evokes the history of Hillsborough, but the Riverwalk feels more fresh and forward-looking. Both are attractive, visually.
Go back to spelling Hillsboro drop the ugh I think all the logos are terrible
Quatrefoil is most distinctive. Tower looks really nice, but maybe too similar to CH’s logo. The other two are too busy and wouldn’t translate well to single color applications (I’m a designer)
The Riverwalk is a huge draw for the town and the improvements to facilitate access will make it even more so, and the route passes both old and new structures/areas. The Quatrefoil gives homage to
both the Native Americans who first settled here and the immigrants who came after, and better care for the Earth will be a huge part of everyone's life (whether some want to or not).
Clock tower is the first sight upon entering Hillsborough downtown area. Great history w King George. The quatrefoil has a great opportunity to build on name Hillsborough and Irish history.
The clock tower is the most recognizable image. The quatrefoil gives a nod to Native Americans.
Riverwalk most represents what the town in trying to come and the way it has tried to present itself in the 21st century. The rest are tired remnants of the past. Certainly important historically but should be
less prevalent going forward. Plus Riverwalk is most visually interesting. It is the only one not completely symmetrical. The trees and river being graphic and abstracted but also assymetrical make the eye
stay on the logo longer. Of the rest, quatrefoil and town hall are the most boring. They look like generic icons bought from a kit. The clock tower is a little better but it is still full. Riverwalk is the only one
which comes close to evoking a real location.
The town hall logo looks best in relation to the type and the use of two colors gives it more dimension.
Clock tower is an iconic symbol in the center of town. Riverwalk is a lovely interactive feature of town that brings people together; additionally, to get into downtown, you have to cross a bridge.
I love the uniqueness, simplicity and symbolism of the quatrefoil. And we could all use all the luck we can get!
10 of 16
10 of 16
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
the riverwalk is pretty and one of the cherished features of our community. The bridge is a reminder of the river that winds through the community. The quatrefoil looks like a christian symbol, whether or
not it is or isn't, using a christian symbol to represent the town is exclusive which is not representative of the community's spirit of dynamism and inclusiveness.
Both choices are stongly recognizable and connected to "place"
I like the Clock tower with some black or brown lines in it. But mostly I like the designs that are currently on our town vehicles.
River walk seems too generic, clock tower seems more specific to Hillsborough
The town hall is my favorite because it is most uniquely Hillsborough. The other 3 are kinda vague looking as they could represent many places (some of which already have similar logos). The Riverwalk
one is my second favorite, but it doesn’t quite have enough umph.
All of the logos are too simple, and the only 1 that is distinctive to Hillsborough is the riverwalk logo. I like that the Town Hall logo is 2 colors, instead of just the yellow. The riverwalk logo would look better
with 2 colors. I wish there were an option that pointed to our arts community.
Actually they are all very mundane and not at all memorable.
Both of my favourite logos are things that make me think of Hillsborough when I see them. They're both things you can see by spending time downtown.
We should keep the clock tower (how many NC towns have an 18th century clock tower!) and I prefer the existing colors rather than the safety yellow.
I chose the logo that exemplifies Historic Hillsborough as first choice. However I also like the Riverwalk logo because this is what we love about Hillsborough today. I would be happy with either. Another
idea might be to have a logo that emphasizes the arts community. Have you requested input from our talented artists who might offer additional logos for consideration?
The clock tower is the only choice that immediately said Hillsborough to me. It is iconic yet also simple. Far and away the best.
Please Please work on more options. Maybe open this up to more submissions from the town. You can't please everyone I know but I feel these options lack options. Also are we committed to the serif for
some unexplained reason? Posting design guidelines to the community seems like a much more democratic route. Please forgive me if this was an option and I missed it, but I am just now seeing this.
Hillsborough is essential to Colonial NC history. Something that shows that legacy is important. I like the idea of the clock tower, but it feels too modern of a design. It’s the circle that feels off. The town hall
mixes modern lines with historic images better and balances well with the long name. River walk feels too new to symbolize the town’s history. And the Quatrefoil while creative doesn’t scream Hillsborough
without a lot of explanation and fees a little too Redcoat-ish and letting England identify us. Curious if there was an option to use Imagery of Hillsborough as a historic (and current) trading path. But the
historic home look is emblematic Hillsborough.
The clocktower logo just feels like it represents Hillsborough to me. If you had asked me, I might have said that was already our logo. I also like the Riverwalk one. The other two feel too generic to me, and
could be for anywhere.
I like that options A & D reflect the history of the town in an understandable way. Hillsborough has so much to offer, but what seems to intially draw people in is our ruch history. I would like to see that
history honored in the town logo. (FYI, I am a northern OC resident, but work in town.)
I think they are all wonderful. After we choose one, how about using all of them in various ways? T-shirts, and I'm not sure what else, but good work and may the people have fun choosing their favorite!
Barbara Younger
Only the clock tower is specifically uniquely historically Hillsborough; the others could be anywhere.
The riverwalk is something to be so proud of!!!!!!! We are a bridge! Like it! Clock tower too similar to UNC branding and let's be distinct from them. Quatrefoil seems too generic like Cary.
Moving into the future and enjoying nature like our predecessors.
11 of 16
11 of 16
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
I like the representation of the historic buildings in town.
Clocktower is a highly recognized symbol and has long-term meaning and significance. The Riverwalk is accessible to all-- residents and visitors, and the Eno River is focal point for settlement here by
Native people, European settlers, and all who followed (voluntarily or involuntarily).
I like the font style and the dark red color, but not a fan of the yellow used in the images and none of the images are great.
I already got the Riverwalk logo tattooed on my arm! You gotta pick that one!
The riverwalk is current, and easy to understand. I see the bridge as not only linking communities and places together, but also linking history with the future. The clock tower is a bit confusing to look at if
you don't know there's a clock tower in Hillsborough. It's history, it's meaningful, but I don't know that it represents time now. It just says " hey, our town is historical".
Clock tower is clean, I busy and relatable. River walk is busier, yet identifies with the town
The riverwalk design represents modern Hillsborough and the direction in which it's going in. The clock tower represents its historic beginnings, an explanation of from whence it began.
Thank you for asking our input.
When I think of Hillsborough, I think of our walkability, nature, and community. The Riverwalk branding represents all these to me; particularly a bridge signifying unity, acceptance, and a town for all!
I am an owner planning to move to Hillsborough. The clock tower carries on the 18th century history the town is known for, and sets it apart from much of the Triangle region. Secondly the Town Hall Is
one of the historic houses that also sets us apart from other Triangle towns. The symbol symbol requires explanation and is a new brand that in itself does not immediately capture the history of the town.
The Riverwalk is a fairly recent visitor attraction. Thanks for allowing input!
I liked the IDEA of the river walk or some sort of outdoorsy feature the most, but in terms of the actual logo I felt like the clock tower one was best design
Other than the clock tower— they are pathetic. I like the bridge logo concept but the one shown is UGLY and hardly looks like a bridge. Talk to The Hillsborough arts Council. There are so many fabulous
artist in Hillsboro, I’m sure they can help you find one that does a really great job.
I love the story of the clock tower almost as much as I do the image. It best signifies the great history of Hillsborough to me.
Both are good.
Clock .tower is centrl, tll. And vissible
The Riverwalk logo is by far my favorite. It is a look that implies the town is living and growing and offers lovely outdoor spaces. The other ones look tired and stuffy in comparison.
Town hall looks too generic. Could be any ranch house. Quatrefoil reflects nothing of the Hillsborough experience so not relatable. Clock Tower is a definite Hillsborough experience and icon. Riverwalk is
tourist attraction but not a universal experience of locals as not fully accessible.
I love the meaning behind the quatrefoil because it touches on multiple groups/histories unique to the town. I like the clock tower because it is such a powerful visual representation of the town. I definitely
think of the clock tower as part of the "skyline" of Hillsborough when you drive in on Churton Street.
Clock tower reminds us of the history hillsborough has and surrounding areas. But the bridge links the history of hillsborough to more modern times. I like them both.
Personally, logos that display unique features of an object (person, place, thing) have greater appeal for me. Thus, the greenway & clock tower are my choices as these display what's "unique" about
Hillsborough.
12 of 16
12 of 16
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Though it may have been a gift from the king, the clock tower is the most iconic symbol of the town. I love the idea of the River Walk logo but don't much like the logo itself. It's more bridge than river. The
quatrefoil just doesn't say Hillsborough to me, and the Earl of Hillsborough was a horrible person.
I think that the clock tower is an iconic part of the town that has been its symbol for many years and should remain as such. I do not particularly like the oversimplified version of the clock tower though.
As a native of Hillsborough, I have found the clock a symbol of Hillsborough and a welcomed sight for when I enter the town. It has much history. To be honest, the old banners are great. Why change?
When I see the clock tower I always think of Hillsborough
The branding does not need refreshing. If someone truly feels a need to spend time on this, I feel it’s time to reduce headcount to what is required for meaningful work.
i like the current logo better than any of the new options - it is grounded and open to the future there was a banner used for the 250th celebration - did that include the clock tower? i think so
Option B is the least representational which makes it the strongest logo to me. I don't like how all of the options have the same wordmark. It doesn't speak to the strength of the logo to be pieced together in
such a disparate manner — the logo and mark should be harmonious. That said, option b is the strongest of the options as it is the only icon which doesn't have solid uniform-width lines that match the
details and characteristics of the type.
Graphically I like the Clock Tower best. However, the Riverwalk speaks more to what I absolutely love about HIllsborough, the riverwalk and it's access to nature and the community. Every time I walk on it
(several times a week), I engage with unknown or barely known citizens. I've never met anyone who wasn't friendly and appreciative of this stellat addition to our town.
If Hillsborough is freshening up/changing the logo/branding, choosing the clock tower defeats the purpose. It's staid, and only represents the Anglo heritage of the town. The riverwalk and quatrefoil logos
are more inclusive of many histories and backgrounds, and represent Hillsborough as it is now, not how it was (and who dominated the town) in the past. The bridge is a beautiful symbol as well as an
actual part of our landscape. Please choose the riverwalk!
The description of the clover is what made my decision as I own a food focused business that relies on local agriculture.
The quatrefoil is my least favorite, because without reading the explanation I don't think it would mean anything to anyone.... all of the other three have some merit.
I like the idea of the quatrefoil but not the symbol. I don't think the symbol brings to mind anything when you see it. I do like the idea of bringing together many elements of the town. Since the trading paths
led to the town, why not a trading path, or the intersection of king and churton?
Both the Clock Tower and the Riverwalk are unique to Hillsborough.
The quatrefoil is eye-catching and references our rich past. Riverwalk celebrates a newer and distinctive part of Hillsborough. The clocktower and town hall logos are so generic that they could be almost
any town in America and are neither distinctive nor celebratory of Hillsborough's character.
The clock tower seems the most distinctive for Hillsborough.
I think the colors are kind of hideous.
The Town of Hillsborough is truly historic. As a past state capitol location and with other significant ties, a logo that ties to that history makes sense. The statement on the poll says to refresh it's existing
brand and that is commonly associated with the clocktower. The graphic presented is not my favorite presentation of the idea - it is rather basic. Perhaps an adaptation of the 250th Anniversary Banner
would be more appropriate (https://fotw.info/flags/us-nchlb.html). Beyond this the Town Hall image is my 3rd favorite but given the link to history it could be 2nd. The Riverwalk at second represents a new
Hillsborough as a place of serenity and activity that is wholesome. Finally, the quatrefoil is quite similar to the Town of Cary's use of the dogwood flower (NC State flower) but fails to bring in what is
significant about Hillsborough.
The Quatrefoil is the cleanest graphic and touches on many historical aspects of our community. It doesn't carry any known unintended associations (like the Ruffin legacy attached to town hall). The clock
is in a county building which confuses the lines between the two entities. The riverwalk bridge is a generic, stock bridge found in many greenways across the state and county.
The clock tower is symbolic of the enduring presence and charm of Hillsborough. I also really like the Town Hall image, as this gives a nod to the literary/artistic talent in our little town. As we expand the
community with new development (Collins Ridge, etc) seems to me that the buildings (whether clock town or town hall) in the Historic District should be celebrated and preserved. And, these two new logos
13 of 16
13 of 16
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
uphold this view.. ---thanks for allowing us to have a voice! --All the best, Bruce Wilcox
a bit more color is needed in the artwork and the town hall is the only one that provides it
The river walk is what makes this town unique and stand out from others!
Add the words, 'No place like home.'
I love the riverwalk and what it has done to create a green space for the town... but the clocktower speaks more to our history
No idea what the quatrefoil is without an explanation, riverwalk bridge needs more detail and town hall is just a house
The clock tower immediately reminds me of Hillsborough and the Town Hall logo is indicative of the historical aspect of Hillsborough's charm.
Quatrefoil is fresh and clean. Clock tower is familiar. Dislike the color a lot. Love the font.might lend more interest if the starting and ending H were same size, maybe elongated or had swoops.
I like the historical ones.
First choice: Clock Tower because it captures the essence of Hillsborough's history. The QuatreFoil is very nice and I especially like the rich and diverse meaning associated with it, but by itself it does not
convey that meaning. Although I prefer a logo with historical meaning, I love the Riverwalk and this logo conveys the natural beauty of the town. The Town Hall is a close 3rd, but the building could just as
easily be a real estate company logo.
The clock tower is somewhat iconic. You notice it right away when you come in to downtown. Riverwalk is something of a hidden gem that deserves some celebration. The quartrefoil and town hall options
just feel too generic.
I am disappointed that there was no option for keep what we have. I would vote NOT to make a change. I feel like for the last few years we have been making some kind of branding change every couple
of years and I worry that it is eroding our image and identity. We did all the wayfinding, we have tweeked the clocktower image in several places, economic development's visit Hillsborough logo... I
appreciate the desire to keep things fresh... but it seems like too many changes and too much energy being expended on this. Our Town Vision says in part that we envision Hillsborough as celebrating our
"unique heritage and small town character." I feel we best do that by maintaining some of our historical images and not trying to freshen things up so dramatically. We do not need to introduce another logo
that will cause all of us to have to redo forms, paperwork, etc. That is energy we can better spend on other priorities.
The Town Hall logo is the best looking of the four based on the current designs. That logo also speaks to me personally -- I feel like it represents Hillsborough best. I'm aware of the issue of this house
being formally owned by Thomas Ruffin. He didn't live there very long, and I feel like this is an opportunity to move past that. The river walk logo would be nice with more colors and details added.
I like the look and the meaning of the Quatrefoil, and the Clock Tower. They are both very aesthetically pleasing. Very attractive.
They seem the most Hillsboroughy and also best lookin.
To me the Clock is a representative of Hillsborough it is on all our signs our buildings are patches and uniforms
The Riverwalk is one of our best, most used attributes, and physically and emotionally connects us to the rest of the state.
Riverwalk reflects a contemporary image - forward looking - and evokes the connection to the Eno River.
I am a life long resident of Hillsborough. My first vote is for the Cock Tower because it is recognizable as a part of the downtown, Hillsborough landscape as far as I remember. It is real, it is tangible and
like the town it is historic. My second vote is for the Town Hall which is approximately 50 years old since renovating. It is also all the things mentioned about the clock. Compared to the Clock Tower and
Town Hall what is a Quatrefoil picture, what is the River Walk Bridge pictures? Another problem I have is that all the figures are an artist rendition of the real objects. I think pictures of the real thing should
be used. There is nothing more visible, notable and beautiful than when you cross the Eno River Bridge and see that clock, which by the way still keeps the time.
clock tower is the most resolved at this stage. all are very safe & harmless. as a graphic designer and marketer, not sure I'd go this direction, and not sure I'd make decisions this way. Hillsborough might
14 of 16
14 of 16
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
Anonymous user's Opinion
be ready for an edgier, provocative brand.
All of the choices are weak
I was attracted to Hboro because of the riverwalk and trails. But, I also like the historic facades
The clock tower iconic and the first thing I see every day when I’m about to cross the bridge.
The river walk logo just seems to capture the essence of Hillsborough best - it’s the best one to demonstrate the way we interact with our town.
“The attraction” the reason for a logo or branding is to “attract.” Why not be known for something and put it on EVERYTHING!!
The Riverwalk was actually my least favorite design, but the idea of a riverwalk logo (if better executed design wise) is my favorite concept - representing the new and current Hillsborough (the others all
reference the history of Hillsborough,) Artistically, I like the town hall logo the best.
The Clocktower is most instantly recognizable and therefore the best, I think. I like the clean, more contemporary look of the quatrefoil. The riverwalk is too generic...while most residents know what the
riverwalk is, the picture itself seems like it could be anywhere. Town hall is ok, but less distinctive than the clock tower.
I chose quatrefoil because it's more of an abstract idea, rather than a reference to a specific location within the town. I like that it represents the concept of town history /architecture (as explained in the
description) ... and because the quatrefoil is based on a natural shape, it also represents the natural setting of Hillsborough. I was actually seeing the quatrefoil more as a dogwood blossom rather than
clover, which I think is a plus. The other logo examples, in being more literal, end up representing fewer dimensions of town life/people/geography. The quatrefoil represents a fresh viewpoint for a multi-
faceted , ever-changing community, rather than reflecting only on its roots (colonial architecture). I put the logo for riverwalk in 2nd place for the same reason. And Riverwalk represents a combination of
natural (trees/water) and man-made (bridge) elements. Still, overall, I like the simplicity of the quatrefoil as a single eye-catching symbol.
I don't think the Quatrefoil is as recognizable as either the Riverwalk or the Clock Tower.
15 of 16
15 of 16
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 9, 2020
Department: Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
7.G
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Letter of interest from Habitat for Humanity related to an annexation inquiry for a parcel immediately east of the
Meadowlands
Attachment(s):
None
Brief Summary:
Last month the board received a letter of interest in annexation regarding approximately 9 acres on US 70-A East
(east of Meadowlands). The applicant noted at the meeting that Habitat was interested in building the project.
Attached is a letter from Habitat indicating their interest in the property.
Action Requested:
Receive letter and provide direction on the fiscal analysis.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
This site is potentially impacted by any adjustment to the water and sewer boundary made in support of Durham’s
request to use the Teer Quarry.
Financial Impacts:
A fiscal impact analysis of the project was requested by the board. The following is some basic analysis. If more is
desired, please let us know.
The parcels are currently valued at $87,200 in the tax records. That would yield $540 in tax revenue. If Habitat
acquires the property, it will become tax exempt until units are built and sold. Using the Habitat units in Waterstone
as a proxy for taxable value and assuming the conceptual 64 units is what is built, future revenue can be projected.
Assuming a value of $100,000 per unit, the taxable site value could be $6,400,000 after development. That would
yield $39,680 of annual tax revenue, excluding the common area which would remain non-taxable.
Townhome developments have minor direct expenses to the town’s general fund as we do not provide any public
works services to attached housing. There would be minor impact during the development phase to the planning
department. Stormwater and police would carry the on-going expenses. The site would be subject to the stormwater
fees. The site is roughly ¼ mile east of the entrance to Forest Ridge, adding driving distance for police patrols. In
general, the impact to the general fund would be considered positive.
All the residents would have individual water and sewer accounts paying standard usage rates. The town has
numerous water customers east of this site, so the development wouldn’t markedly impact driving distances for meter
readers and utility crews. The impact to the water and sewer fund would be neutral.
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 9, 2020
Department: Governing Body
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
7.H
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Mayor Jenn Weaver and Town Manager Eric Peterson
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Preparations for State of the Town Address
Attachment(s):
None
Brief Summary:
The Mayor’s State of the Town Address is scheduled for March 23, 2020. The board may wish to discuss format,
subjects and logistics. In prior years, departments have occasionally set up information tables that were available to
the public prior to the address. Last year, due to limited space in the Town Hall Annex, staff set up a couple of
information tables outside the entrance.
Action Requested:
Discuss.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
N/A
Financial Impacts:
N/A
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
N/A
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: March 9, 2020
Department: All
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
8.C
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Department Heads
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Departmental Reports
Attachment(s):
Monthly departmental reports
Brief Summary:
n/a
Action Requested:
Accept reports
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
n/a
Financial Impacts:
n/a
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
n/a
Page 1 of 2
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
Human Resources/Town Clerk Report: February 2020
Meetings and events
• Management Team Budget Feedback meeting (2/4/20)
• Town of Hillsborough Health Assessment Report Review (2/7/20)
• Board of Commissioners regular meeting (2/10/20)
• Fire Chief discussion (2/13/20)
• Administration: Budget Review meeting (2/11/20)
• Management Team Meeting – Strategic Plan (2/17/20)
• NCHIP Board meeting (2/19/20)
• Board of Commissioners work session (2/24/20)
• Weekly update meetings with town manager
• Biweekly update meetings with safety and risk manager
• Monthly management team/administration team meeting
• Monthly human resources team meeting
Employee Events and Training
• New Employee Orientation (2/3/20)
Recruitment and Selection (* = filled)
• Utility System Supervisor
o Recruitment opened (internal only) (1/2/20)
o Recruitment closed (1/16/20) (2 applicants)
o Interviews conducted (2/20/20)
o Offer accepted (2/28/20)
o Start date: 3/16/20
• Utilities Inspector
o Recruitment opened (1/2/20)
o Recruitment closed (1/16/20)
o Extended recruitment closed (2/6/20) (25 applicants)
• Utility Mechanic (Level 1, 2 or 3)
o Recruitment opened (internal only) (1/2/20)
o Recruitment closed (1/16/20) (8 applicants)
o Offer accepted (2/12/20)
o Start date: 2/17/20
• Water Plant Operator (Level 1, 2, or 3)
o Recruitment opened (1/2/20)
o Recruitment closed (1/16/20) (29 applicants)
o Offer accepted (2/12/20)
Page 2 of 2
o Start date: 3/2/20
• Wastewater Plant Operator I, II or III
o Recruitment opened (2/10/20)
o Recruitment closed (2/23/20) (58 applicants)
• Utility Maintenance Technician I, II or III
o Recruitment opened (2/13/20)
o Recruitment closed (2/27/20) (18 applicants)
• Police Officer
o Recruitment opened (2/19/20)
o Continuous recruitment (12 applicants to date)
o Start date (trainee): 3/2/20
• Planning Technician
o Recruitment opened (2/28/20)
o Recruitment will close (3/19/20) (10 applicants to date)
Pay and Benefits
• Biweekly payroll (2)
• FMLA – 1 Notice of Eligibility and Rights & Responsibilities sent (2020)
Wellness
• Heart Health 101 group nutrition class (2/11/20)
• Weekly onsite nutrition counseling
• Wellness mini-grant program
Performance Evaluation
• Maintained NEOGOV PE system
Professional Development
• Clerks Certification Institute (Sarah) (2/10 -2/14/20)
• Stormwater Training (Katherine) (2/18/20)
• Stormwater Training (Sarah) (2/19/20)
• 9th Annual Raleigh Employment Law Symposium (Katherine) (2/27/20)
Miscellaneous
• n/a
Public Information Office Report: February 2020
None.
Safety and Risk Manager Report: February 2020
None.
FINANCE DEPARTMENTAL REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 2020
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES:
Daily Collections 1,210,303.77$
Tax & Vehicle License 123,641.11$
Solid Waste Disposal Tax 1,428.99$
Beer & Wine Receipt -$
Franchise Tax -$
Powell Bill -$
Sales & Use Tax 152,758.42$
1,488,132.29$
Expenditures: General Fund/Water Fund 1,070,813.54$
FINANCE:
•Compiled and submitted all monthly reports.
•Issued 46 purchase orders.
•Processed 428 vendor invoices, issued 204 accounts payable checks.
•Collected and processed 63 payments for food and beverage tax.
•Collected and processed 7 payments for fire inspection fees and permits.
•Prepared and mailed no delinquent occupancy tax letters.
•Prepared and processed 2 payrolls.
•Issued no new special event permits.
METER READING:
•Terminated 75 services and connected upon request.
•Rechecked 131 meter readings, responded to 1 call back.
•Installed 22 new meters, changed 3 old meters, performed no pressure tests.
•Identified no hydrant tamperings and 2 meter tamperings.
•Changed 10 meter registers.
BILLING & COLLECTION:
•Corrected 37 bills that were rechecked before the 03-01-20 billing.
•Bills adjusted after 02-01-20: 8 leaks; 2 late fees; no pools; 1 miscellaneous.
•Prepared 6,384 water bills; processed .
•Disconnected 99 services for non-payment, reconnected 94.
•Prepared 6,384 water bills; processed .
•Processed 879 utility bank drafts.
•Processed 0 debt set-off letters.
•Processed on-line bill pays.
FINANCE DIRECTOR
•Local Government Commission meeting, February 4
•Board Meeting, February 10
•Management Team Meeting, February 17
•Stormwater Training, February 18
•GFOA Committee on Economic Development and Capital Planning working group meeting, February 20
•Management Team Meeting, February 26
•NCGFOA Government Accounting and Auditing Committee meeting, February 27
FINANCIAL BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT - JANUARY 31, 2020Budget Unit Original Budget Current BudgetPeriod ActivityYear to Date ActivityEncumbrances Variance % RemainingCurrent & Prior Year Property Taxes 7,148,600.00 7,148,600.00 946,950.90 6,899,538.85 - 249,061.15 3.48%Local Option Sales Tax 1,528,555.00 1,528,555.00 157,507.04 633,332.17 - 895,222.83 58.57%Licenses, Permits and Fees 145,200.00 145,200.00 107,858.03 231,897.90 - (86,697.90) -59.71%Unrestricted Intergovernmental Revenue 1,034,900.00 1,034,900.00 37,750.38 416,610.97 - 618,289.03 59.74%Restricted Intergovernmental Revenue 190,000.00 196,729.72 8,221.11 210,616.50 - (13,886.78) -7.06%Other 30,500.00 30,500.00 2,413.83 33,894.59 - (3,394.59) -11.13%Investment Earnings 175,000.00 175,000.00 17,254.83 130,434.96 - 44,565.04 25.47%Transfers - - - 66,189.97 - (66,189.97) 0.00%Fund Balance Appropriatoin 346,733.00 816,640.90 - - - 816,640.90 100.00%Total Revenue 10,599,488.00 11,076,125.62 1,277,956.12 8,622,515.91 - 2,453,609.71 22.15%Budget Unit Original Budget Current BudgetPeriod ActivityYear to Date ActivityEncumbrances Variance % RemainingGoverning Body 138,713.00 138,713.00 17,690.03 70,595.77 105,128.00 (37,010.77) (0.27) Administration 733,470.00 761,040.67 43,565.76 376,273.81 125,387.17 259,379.69 34.08%Accounting 287,760.00 291,370.00 34,496.60 115,069.24 33,789.37 142,511.39 48.91%Planning 464,820.00 464,820.00 30,937.78 253,707.98 30,148.25 180,963.77 38.93%Ruffin-Roulhac 181,786.00 191,786.00 (3,632.23) 175,656.34 30,226.58 (14,096.92) -7.35%Public Space 766,574.00 860,287.33 110,130.44 518,558.95 160,476.09 181,252.29 21.07%Safety & Risk Management 87,242.00 105,514.00 2,288.49 33,378.02 29,722.05 42,413.93 40.20%Information Services 278,614.00 431,486.33 9,368.85 228,287.35 232,029.28 (28,830.30) -6.68%Police 3,394,265.00 3,603,470.15 257,562.59 1,997,293.12 76,528.95 1,529,648.08 42.45%Fire Marshal & Emergency Management 224,268.00 237,290.00 22,487.04 100,244.91 383.72 136,661.37 57.59%Fire Protection 1,228,641.00 1,228,641.00 50,863.23 661,879.14 557,764.00 8,997.86 0.73%Fleet Maintenance 361,944.00 391,212.32 61,132.28 185,538.18 134,928.78 70,745.36 18.08%Streets/Powell Bill 963,093.00 1,030,676.82 37,245.26 488,301.31 166,648.71 375,726.80 36.45%Solid Waste 547,867.00 549,367.00 33,003.13 306,648.78 108,410.23 134,307.99 24.45%Cemetary 13,994.00 13,994.00 25.72 2,216.60 2,700.00 9,077.40 64.87%Economic Development 490,396.00 490,396.00 48,710.32 195,457.41 1,791.66 293,146.93 59.78%Special Appropriations 186,041.00 228,939.00 51,417.63 124,224.10 28,226.03 76,488.87 33.41%Contingency 250,000.00 57,122.00 - - - 57,122.00 100.00%Total Expenditures 10,599,488.00 11,076,125.62 807,292.92 5,833,331.01 1,824,288.87 3,418,505.74 30.86%GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURESGENERAL FUND REVENUE
FINANCIAL BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT - JANUARY 31, 2020Budget UnitOriginal Budget Current BudgetPeriod ActivityYear to Date ActivityEncumbrances Variance % RemainingLicenses, Permits and Fees 10,223,342.00 10,223,342.00 931,756.07 6,138,051.14 - 4,085,290.86 39.96%Other 15,000.00 15,000.00 5,369.75 37,330.48 - (22,330.48) -148.87%Investment Earnings 10,300.00 10,300.00 3,968.55 29,377.55 - (19,077.55) -185.22%Transfers 387,907.00 387,907.00 - - - 387,907.00 100.00%Retained Earnings Appropriated 119,326.00 670,479.07 - - - 670,479.07 100.00%Unrestricted Intergovernmental - - 1,950.04 1,950.04 - (1,950.04) - Total Revenue10,755,875.00 11,307,028.07 943,044.41 6,206,709.21 - 5,100,318.86 45.11%Budget UnitOriginal Budget Current BudgetPeriod ActivityYear to Date ActivityEncumbrances Variance % RemainingAdministration of Enterprise 2,408,677.00 2,446,353.00 138,917.00 1,243,513.74 18,457.36 1,184,381.90 48.41%Utilities Administration 557,180.00 557,880.00 54,053.56 252,611.06 15,914.43 289,354.51 51.87%Billing & Collections 678,187.00 678,507.00 45,573.57 391,216.00 92,565.24 194,725.76 28.70%Water Treatment Plant 1,215,529.00 1,368,579.00 78,434.38 675,773.66 106,012.33 586,793.01 42.88%West Fork Eno Reservoir 612,688.00 612,688.00 3,016.90 253,918.96 11,594.62 347,174.42 56.66%Water Distribution 1,197,551.00 1,224,679.51 52,520.38 453,921.19 135,588.97 635,169.35 51.86%Wastewater Collection 1,381,816.00 1,697,111.56 65,347.52 691,358.57 195,886.32 809,866.67 47.72%Wastewater Treatment Plant 2,304,247.00 2,392,521.00 62,792.72 700,347.58 134,185.31 1,557,988.11 65.12%Contingency 400,000.00 328,709.00 - - - 328,709.00 100.00%Total Expenditures 10,755,875.00 11,307,028.07 500,656.03 4,662,660.76 710,204.58 5,934,162.73 52.48%Budget Unit Original Budget Current BudgetPeriod ActivityYear to Date ActivityEncumbrances Variance % RemainingLicenses, Permits and Fees 653,000.00 653,000.00 76,973.92 634,254.24 - 18,745.76 2.87%Retained Earnings Appropriated- 26,624.09- - - 26,624.09100.00%Total Revenue 653,000.00 679,624.09 76,973.92 634,254.24 - 45,369.85 6.68%Budget UnitOriginal Budget Current BudgetPeriod ActivityYear to Date ActivityEncumbrances Variance % RemainingStormwater 653,000.00 679,624.09 44,071.92 292,901.54 56,298.11 330,424.44 48.62%WATER & SEWER FUND REVENUEWATER & SEWER FUND EXPENDITURESSTORMWATER FUND REVENUESTORMWATER FUND EXPENDITURES
11,076,126 11,307,028 679,624 8,622,516 6,206,709 634,254 5,833,331 4,662,661 292,902 ‐ 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000General Fund Water & Sewer Fund Stormwater FundTown of Hillsborough Fiscal YTD Revenues & ExpendituresAs of January 31, 2020BudgetRevenueExpenditures
Planning Department Report
February 2020
Revenues Collected
Development Review fees $ 300.00
Zoning Permits & HDC reviews $4,851.92
Planning Total $5,151.92 FYTD – 278% of budget projection ($70,000)
Code Enforcement Reimbursement $ 0
Park Reservations $ 340 FYTD - 59% of budget projection ($4,500)
Data is through February 29, 2020 for both permits and Certificates of Occupancy. Data for completed
developments has been removed but totals still reflect all previous activity.
Project name Approved units Permitted Completed
Approved but
not complete
permits
remaining
Under
construction
Corbinton Commons (SF only)70 69 56 14 1 13
Crescent Magnolia (Habitat Waterstone)24 24 10 14 0 14
Fiori Hill 46 31 26 20 15 5
Forest Ridge 233 187 168 65 46 19
Harmony at Waterstone 200 200 169 31 0 31
Total 1343 1281 1199 144 62 82
Misc. infill lots na 98 62 na 36
Grand Total 1379 1261
Project name Approved units Type
Collins Ridge 326 apartment
152 townhome
194 detached
Corbinton Commons 141 senior apartments
Approved, not under construction 813
Pipeline
Approved & Under Construction
Hillsborough Police Department Monthly Report February 2020
REPORTED OFFENSES - UCR
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020 2019 2018
Part I Offenses
Homicide 0 0 0 0
Rape 0 0 2 2
Robbery 1 0 10 5
Aggravated Assault 3 0 14 19
Burglary 3 0 26 40
Larceny/Theft 25 23 297 264
Motor Vehicle Theft 2 0 12 12
Total Part I 34 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 361 342
Other Offenses 2019 2018
Simple Assault 12 7 77 83
Fraud/Forgery 0 0 21 20
Stolen Property 1 3 7 8
Damage to Property 5 5 59 96
Weapons Violations 4 3 5 16
Sex Offences 0 0 3 2
Drug Violations 8 21 85 125
Driving While Impaired 5 6 34 37
Liquor Law Violations 0 1 13 6
Trespassing 3 1 20 23
Domestic Related 13 8 119 146
Missing Persons 0 1 1 1
Summary of Select Offenses:
On 02/02/2020, Officers recovered a stolen vehicle on John Earl St. Officers found a subject asleep in a parking
lot and found the vehicle to be stolen out of Durham. Officers charged Brandon Lewis Johnson, (b/m, 37, of
Raleigh) with Felony Possession of a Stolen Vehicle. He was given a $1,500.00 secured bond.
On 02/24/2020, Officers recovered a stolen vehicle on Murray St. A vehicle stolen out of Oxford, NC, was
tracked by GPS to the 100-block of Murray St. Officers recovered the vehicle, and this incident is still under
investigation.
Hillsborough Police Department Monthly Report February 2020
23 Larcenies were reported at various locations including:
• 11 larcenies were shoplifting related incidents at Hampton Pointe- Walmart.
• 5 larcenies from businesses–2 at 1990 NC 86 S, Sheetz where suspects took a case of beer each time,
valued at $8.39 each. 2 at 500 S. Churton St., Circle K. 1 where a bag of $1.62 chips was stolen. 1 where
food and beer valued at $5.78 were taken. 1 at 106 Rebecca Dr., Food Lion where $9.92 in food items
were taken and recovered.
• 1 Larceny from unlocked motor vehicle– 400-block of Dimmocks Mill Rd. where the victim believes
someone drove their vehicle and brought it back but didn’t return the keys.
Narcotics/weapons related incidents:
• During the month of February, Officers recovered small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, paraphernalia,
three handguns, brass knuckles, and a machete.
Hillsborough Public Works
February 2020 Monthly Report
Work Orders: 8 completed within two days
Asphalt Repair: 2 pothole repairs
Park Maintenance: 70.5 staff hours
Cemetery: 2 graves marked
Flag Installation & Removal: 9 staff hours
Stormwater Work: 339 linear ft., 158 staff hours
Winter Event: 16 staff hours preparation, 64 working hours by staff
March 2020 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH UTILITIES STATUS REPORT Bolded text are updates from prior report.
PROJECT STATUS
WWTP Discharge Compliance The WWTP has been compliant since the last report. Our sludge management program is in good condition.
Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM) Compliance The Town remains compliant with TTHM levels. Results from the mid-February sampling have been received and show an average of 0.048, well
under the limit of 0.080.
Water Treatment Plant Compliance No issues.
Collection System Compliance There have been no observed SSOs since March 2019. The town received a Notice of Violation for the March SSO and has responded to it. It is
unknown if the response is sufficient to avoid a civil penalty.
West Fork of the Eno Reservoir
The reservoir is full, at approximately 42.8 feet. The February releases met or exceeded the minimum release of 3.5 cubic feet per second. Both
Lake Orange and Lake Ben Johnson are spilling. Management of the reservoir will likely require higher than average releases to now keep it at its
Phase 1 level until the last road projects are completed.
WFER Phase 2 Construction Project
Construction is complete on the dam and spillway and Thalle Construction has demobilized. However there is one remaining item to perform and
that is fixing the leaking sluice gate, which will require removing the gate and sending it in for repair. There was a problem removing the gate and
it has not been sent for repair. The contract for the road projects is on the 3/9/2020 agenda.
Water Restrictions Stage 1 voluntary restrictions were lifted on February 13. Our monthly production average is currently 1.23 MGD.
Water System Flushing The spring flushing (burnout) will include all hydrants and not a subset. Flushing began on March 2nd.
"Unaccounted-for" Water We had 2 water main breaks last month and approximately 6 water service leaks were repaired. Miscellaneous repairs have been proceeding as
needed.
Miscellaneous Projects
Staff will be doing some modifications at the Cemetery sewage pump station. Eight proposals were received for the River Pumping Station
Preliminary Evaluation. These are under review. The selected consultant out of eight proposals for the McAdams Road Water Main
Replacement project is Taylor Engineering. A scope and fee is being developed. We are also working on developing RFQs to replace the main
WTP control panel and a few other items.
Sewer Rehabilitation & Repairs at Orange
Grove St. and S. Churton St.
Three bids were received for the project and the engineer is vetting Vortex Drainage Systems for the project. Their bid was $267,455. Arcadis will be
performing the construction administration and observation. Mobilization is anticipated in mid March. There will be a traffic shift but not a
closure on S. Churton St.
Collection System Modeling The project is progressing. Preliminary (and unverified) results indicate much of the main interceptors are over benchmark capacity on dry day peak
flow. A draft report is expected by February 28.
Water and Sewer Advisory Committee
(WSAC) Activities
WSAC is exploring alternative rate structures with the help of a UNC School of Government Environmental Finance Center excel model. Any
proposals will be reviewed by town finance and budget staff and likely an outside financial consultant to ensure viability prior to presentation to BOC.
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
Utilities Department
UTILITIES STATUS REPORT
Page 1 c:\projects\engineering\Report0320_Utilities
3/3/2020, 4:46 PM