The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About03-08-21 Regular Meeting Minutes Board of Commissioners Remote regular meeting 7 p.m. March 8, 2021 Virtual meeting via YouTube Live Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel Present: Mayor Jenn Weaver and commissioners Mark Bell, Robb English, Kathleen Ferguson, Matt Hughes, and Evelyn Lloyd Staff: Interim Human Resources Director Haley Bizzell, Interim Finance Director Keri Carnes, Interim Fire Marshall David Cates, Interim Town Clerk/Human Resources Technician Sarah Kimrey, Police Chief Duane Hampton, Assistant Town Manager/Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Hornik, Town Manager Eric Peterson, Utilities Director Marie Strandwitz and Public Space Manager Stephanie Trueblood Opening of the meeting Mayor Jenn Weaver called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Interim Town Clerk and Human Resources Technician Sarah Kimrey called the roll and confirmed the presence of a quorum. 1. Public charge Weaver noted that the board and guests generally abide by the public charge. 2. Audience comments not related to the printed agenda There was none. 3. Agenda changes and approval Motion: Commissioner Kathleen Ferguson moved to approve the agenda as presented. Commissioner Matt Hughes seconded. Kimrey called the roll for voting. Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Commissioners Mark Bell, Robb English, Ferguson, Hughes and Evelyn Lloyd. Nays: None. 4. Public hearing: Neighborhood petition to change name of Thomas Ruffin Street Mayor Weaver opened the public hearing. Weaver reviewed that the residents of Thomas Ruffin Street had petitioned for a street name change and that the board had decided to call a public hearing to consider the name change. Marty Nelson, a resident of Thomas Ruffin Street, addressed the board. She noted the residents of the street unanimously requested to change the name, explaining there are 12 parcels with addresses on that street. March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 1 of 38 April 12, 2021 The homeowners and landowners on the street had submitted a petition last month requesting a name change and had proposed Hope Lane. Upon further consideration, Nelson said, they submitted a new petition for this meeting to request the name Lydia Lane and noted that the request was again unanimous. Lydia is the name of an enslaved woman whose circumstances were considered in the 1830 North Carolina v. Mann case in which the Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that enslavers had absolute authority over enslaved people and could not be found guilty of committing crimes against them. The judgment was written by Chief Justice Thomas Ruffin. Nelson said “Lydia” embodies this call to not forget history and to pay attention to whom we bestow honor. Debbie Crane of 224 Thomas Ruffin St. addressed the board. Crane said it has grown increasingly harder for her to write the name Thomas Ruffin as her return address. She does not want to erase history but wants Ruffin’s life to be put in context. She noted that she never learned about Thomas Ruffin in North Carolina public schools or while she was a student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said Ruffin doesn’t deserve the honor of having a street named for him. Brad and Phyllis Farlow, of 212 Thomas Ruffin St., addressed the board. They said they are North Carolina natives and have lived on this street for 22 years. They think the name Lydia Lane honors history without honoring racism. Ross Green, who is building a house on Thomas Ruffin Street, said he and his wife Kristy Green support the name change. They are new to Hillsborough and had researched the name Thomas Ruffin out of curiosity. They had planned to talk with neighbors about the possibility of a name change when neighbors instead approached them. Jill Heilman addressed the board as the current chairman of the Historic District Commission. She said the commission was made aware of the proposed change and offers full support to the changing of this street name. Heilman said historic preservation does not consider history as a static event but rather evolving as we learn more. She said the proposed name honors history and does so without racism. Bridget Irish, a Thomas Ruffin Street resident, addressed the board. She spoke in support of Lydia Lane. She said people should not forget who Thomas Ruffin was but that is the purpose of history books. Thomas Ruffin does not need to be honored with a street named for him. She noted that Orange County has removed his portrait from the county courthouse. Lloyd said she has something to print to give to the board about Thomas Ruffin. She noted that he was one of the best-known people from Hillsborough. She said there is something good in everyone. He gave the land for St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church. Motion: Bell moved to close the public hearing. Ferguson seconded. Kimrey called the roll for voting. Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None. 5. Appointments A. Orange County Climate Council – Appointment of Marc Miller to Hillsborough’s at-large seat and Wendy Kuhn to at-large alternate B. Tourism Board – Reappointment of Tommy Stann to Restaurant/Pub Seat March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 2 of 38 April 12, 2021 Motion: Ferguson moved to approve the appointments as presented. Hughes seconded. Kimrey called the roll for voting. Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None. 6. Items for decision ― consent agenda A. Minutes 1. Joint Public Hearing Jan. 21, 2021 2. Regular meeting Feb. 8, 2021 3. Work session Feb. 22, 2021 B. Miscellaneous budget amendments and transfers C. Acceptance of new section of sidewalk at 153 W King St. (Colonial Inn) D. Information only – intent to use COVID Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act funding to repair Exchange Park Lane bridge E. Consistency statement and ordinance amending Unified Development Ordinance Sections 2.6 and 3 – Technical Review Committee F. Consistency statement and ordinance amending Unified Development Ordinance Sections 3.8 and 3.9 – Waivers and minor changes G. Consistency statement and ordinance amending Unified Development Ordinance Section 6.7 – Design Requirements H. Consistency statement and ordinance amending Unified Development Ordinance Section 6.21 - Streets Motion: Ferguson moved to approve all items on the consent agenda. Bell seconded. Kimrey called the roll for voting. Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None. 7. Items for decision ― regular agenda A. Ordinance to change name of Thomas Ruffin Street Planning Director Margaret Hauth said she had already asked the street’s residents to submit a new petition to request the change to Lydia Lane. Staff recommends a 60-day delay for the change to take effect so that there is time to order and receive signs. Ferguson said she was thrilled that an entire street could agree on a name twice. She said Lloyd has a point that Thomas Ruffin was not all bad but agrees the neighbors have chosen a name that is in line with inclusivity goals. Lloyd requested that her prepared statement be included in the minutes. All public comment requests received within 24 hours following the public hearing will be included in the minutes. Bell expressed appreciation for the residents of the street reaching unanimous consensus. He said he echoed Ferguson’s comments about the context of history and Lloyd’s comments as well. He thinks it is appropriate to rename the street for at least one person who had the worst in that chapter of our history. March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 3 of 38 April 12, 2021 Hughes thanked the neighbors for coming together and finding a way to move forward. He said he thinks the town has grappled with how to handle Ruffin. He noted that Orange County Commissioner Sally Greene played a big role in removing the former chief justice’s portrait from the North Carolina Supreme Court. He thinks this road name change is a step in the right direction. He thinks it is appropriate to remove his name from prominence in the town. He would like to remove his name officially from the budget, noting the main building on the Town Hall Campus is the Ruffin-Roulhac House. He said he was conflicted about renaming the street Lydia Lane because the court case was about people who lived in Chowan County. He likes Hope Lane because it is forward thinking and forward moving. If other commissioners want to move forward with Lydia Lane, that would be fine, he added. He asked if there is a Lydia Lane or Lydia Street in the county. Hauth said no. Town Manager Eric Peterson responded to Hughes’ concern about the budget, adding that the name Ruffin- Roulhac was removed from the budget the previous year. English expressed appreciation for the residents and their name selection. Weaver expressed support for Lydia Lane and said she would like the board to consider a future policy against naming things after people. Hughes said he prefers not to substitute one name for another and prefers Hope Lane. Ferguson pointed out that Lydia was not specific and yet could bring someone to the forefront that people don’t know about. She thinks the current proposal is consistent with what the town values because it does not conflict with values or exclude people. Motion: Ferguson moved to change the street name to Lydia Lane. Bell seconded. Kimrey called the roll for voting. Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None. B. Consistency statement and ordinance amending the Zoning Map at 618 and 700 N.C. 86 North Hauth said David Morgan, who was at the public hearing in January, is present. She said the Planning Board discussed this request in February and recommended approval. At the Planning Board meeting, there was a lot of discussion about utilities for the site. The property does not have sewer service. It has water service. Hughes said he would like the town to move away from extraterritorial jurisdictions because he feels there is a bit of disenfranchisement. When asked about sewer concerns, Hauth said connecting to the town’s sewer service is not financially feasible. Zoning the property for Light Industrial use sends the wrong message in terms of what the potential for the property is because the inability to get sewer to it naturally limits the development capacity. Morgan addressed the board. He has been a commercial real estate broker for more than 40 years. He said the owner plans to install a septic system. Ferguson said she would move to approve it because the applicant has a plan and the property would add to the town’s commercial base. March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 4 of 38 April 12, 2021 Motion: Ferguson moved to adopt the consistency statement in support and ordinance to approve rezoning. Hughes seconded. Kimrey called the roll for voting. Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None. C. Update on train station planning Public Space Manager Stephanie Trueblood said the agreement with North Carolina Railroad has been executed. The Town of Hillsborough has agreed to deliver a parking lot, train station building and roads within seven years. She is confident that staff can put together a request for qualifications to start the design process later this summer. She recommended that staff continue to work with the same attorneys with whom they have been working to ensure the request for bids process meets the state law and all the requirements of the agreement. Hughes said he supports approving the $15,000 to continue working with the attorneys. Ferguson seconded. Hauth said a motion was not needed this evening and the board will have an opportunity to formally approve a budget amendment at a future meeting. D. Discussion of potential contract with Orange County for all fire inspections Hauth said, with the retirement of former Fire Chief Jerry Wagner, the Town of Hillsborough has been exploring options of contracting with Orange County to conduct all fire inspections in the town. A contract with the county for this will double the county’s workload. When Ferguson expressed interest in hiring a fire marshal to keep inspections in house, Hauth and Peterson spoke in support of making arrangements with Orange County. Orange County Fire Marshal Jason Shepherd tried to speak and had poor connection. He later said that he was trying to add that the arrangement would be a partnership and the customer service would be seamless. He added that David Cates, the Town of Hillsborough’s interim fire chief, could become an Orange County employee. Hauth said she is supportive of that. No vote was needed at this time. Hauth noted that a majority of the board had expressed interest in moving forward with the agreement. E. Budget Proposal – option to lower dependent healthcare premium costs Interim Human Resources Director Haley Bizzell gave a presentation on options to lower dependent healthcare premium costs. She explained one option is to use $28,000 in North Carolina Health Insurance Pool reserve funds to lower premium costs for FY22. A second option is to use the $28,000 in insurance pool reserve funds and implement a $25 monthly increment supplement ($25 for spouse, $50 for children and $75 for families). This is estimated to have an $18,000 budget impact for FY22 based on the assumption that 30 employees add dependents and assume that most spouses choose to be insured through their own employers. The third option is to use reserve funds and increment supplements of $33, $67 and $100. Assuming 30 employees add child dependents, the budget impact would be $23,760. March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 5 of 38 April 12, 2021 Bizzell noted the staff recommendation is to approve Option 2. Peterson spoke in support of Option 2. Hughes asked if surrounding counties cover 100% of employee insurance. He wondered if the town could drop to 80-20 coverage to have money to support dependent coverage. Bizzell said most local governments do offer employee coverage at 100%. Peterson added that Orange and Durham counties cover 100% of monthly insurance premiums for employees. Ferguson supported the staff recommendation. English asked if other departments besides Hillsborough Police Department have had trouble hiring or retaining employees because of the expense of covering dependents. Bizzell said yes, employees in utilities and applicants in various departments have refused job offers because of the benefits expense. Bell spoke in support of the proposal. He asked about the possibility of covering an employee plus one child. Bizzell said it wouldn’t be much of a cost difference for only one child. Dave Costa with Arthur J. Gallagher and Company added that $28,000 is one-twelfth of the reserve funds. He said the insurance pool is adding more members this year that are on par or better than those in the pool. The reserves are building very nicely. He thinks it would not be a problem to withdraw $28,000 from the reserve funds in future years. Motion: Ferguson moved to approve Option 2, which is to supplement with $28,000 in reserve funds and provide an additional $25 incremental monthly stipend. Bell seconded. Kimrey called the roll for voting. Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None. F.Hot topics for work session March 22, 2021 At the March 22 work session, Utilities Director Marie Strandwitz plans to present results from recent studies on priorities for the wastewater collection and water distribution systems. There also will be discussion about core services provided by town employees. 8.Updates A.Board members Board members gave updates on the committees and boards on which they serve. B.Town manager There was none. C.Staff (written reports in agenda packet) There was none. March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 6 of 38 April 12, 2021 9. Adjournment Motion: Hughes moved to adjourn at 9:32 p.m. Ferguson seconded. Kimrey called the roll for voting. Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Bell, English, Ferguson, Hughes and Lloyd. Nays: None. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Kimrey Interim Town Clerk Staff support to the Board of Commissioners March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 7 of 38 April 12, 2021 March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 8 of 38 April 12, 2021 March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 9 of 38 April 12, 2021 BUDGET CHANGES REPORT TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH FY 2020-2021 DATES: 03/08/2021 TO 03/08/2021 REFERENCE NUMBER DATE BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDEDCHANGE USER 10-10-4200-5300-338 SUPPLIES - DATA PROCESSING 03/08/2021 50.00 2,600.00To cover replacement camera 20540 2,650.00EBRADFORD 10-10-4200-5300-458 DATA PROCESSING SERVICES 03/08/2021 7,511.00 72.00To cover graphic design work 20555 7,583.00EBRADFORD 10-10-4200-5300-570 MISCELLANEOUS 03/08/2021 9,053.00 -2,600.00To cover replacement camera 20541 5,260.00EBRADFORD 03/08/2021 9,053.00 -72.00To cover graphic design work 20554 5,188.00EBRADFORD 10-10-4900-5100-020 SALARIES 03/08/2021 259,697.00 6,000.00To cover MPA intern 20534 265,697.00EBRADFORD 10-10-4900-5300-441 C.S./ENG REVIEW 03/08/2021 45,000.00 -12,000.00To fund temp staff 0 33,000.00EBRADFORD 03/08/2021 45,000.00 -6,000.00To cover MPA intern 20533 27,000.00EBRADFORD 10-10-4900-5300-570 MISCELLANEOUS 03/08/2021 2,500.00 12,000.00To fund temp staff 20535 43,700.00EBRADFORD 10-10-6300-5300-570 MISCELLANEOUS 03/08/2021 3,000.00 -1,000.00To cover pedestrian bridge 20536 310.00EBRADFORD 10-10-6600-5300-080 TRAINING/CONF./CONV. 03/08/2021 15,000.00 -2,000.00To cover AED repairs 20552 7,000.00EBRADFORD 10-10-6600-5300-330 DEPARTMENTAL SUPPLIES 03/08/2021 200.00 2,000.00To cover AED repairs 20553 2,200.00EBRADFORD 10-20-5100-5300-158 MAINTENANCE - EQUIPMENT 03/08/2021 500.00 -300.00To cover vehicle cleaning, graphics & rep 20544 200.00EBRADFORD 10-20-5100-5300-530 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 03/08/2021 200.00 50.00To cover membership renewals 20549 250.00EBRADFORD 10-20-5110-5300-158 MAINTENANCE - EQUIPMENT 03/08/2021 2,000.00 -500.00To cover vehicle cleaning, graphics & rep 20545 1,500.00EBRADFORD 10-20-5110-5300-161 MAINTENANCE - VEHICLES 03/08/2021 150.00 1,100.00To cover vehicle cleaning, graphics & rep 20547 1,250.00EBRADFORD 10-20-5120-5300-161 MAINTENANCE - VEHICLES 03/08/2021 500.00 -300.00To cover vehicle cleaning, graphics & rep 20546 200.00EBRADFORD 10-20-5120-5300-530 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS 03/08/2021 300.00 -50.00To cover membership renewals 20548 250.00EBRADFORD 10-30-5550-5300-163 POLICE VEHICLE REPAIR 03/08/2021 25,000.00 2,607.00To record insurance pymt 20551 27,607.00EBRADFORD 10-71-6300-5982-006 TRANSFER TO GEN CAP IMPROV FUND 03/08/2021 0.00 1,000.00To cover pedestrian bridge 20537 4,500.00EBRADFORD 10-80-3880-3887-000 INSURANCE PROCEEDS 03/08/2021 0.00 2,607.00To record insurance pymt 20550 2,607.00EBRADFORD 30-80-8140-5300-165 MAINTENANCE - INFRASTRUCTURE 03/08/2021 15,000.00 1,000.00Spare pump for Blair Dr. booster pump sta 20559 17,500.00JDELLAVALL 30-80-8140-5300-330 SUPPLIES - DEPARTMENTAL 03/08/2021 100,000.00 -1,000.00Spare pump for Blair Dr. booster pump sta 20558 97,573.00JDELLAVALL 60-03-3870-3870-000 TRANSFER FROM GF-CONNECTIVITY EBRADFORD 9:06:14PM03/02/2021 fl142r03 Page 1 of 2 Admin. Admin. Admin. Planning Planning Planning Public Space Safety & Risk Mgmt Safety & Risk Mgmt Police- Admin Police - Admin Police- Patrol Police- Patrol Police- I&CS Police- I&CS Fleet Maint. Public Space GF- Revenue Water Distribution Water Distribution GF- Cap. Proj. Fund March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 10 of 38 April 12, 2021 BUDGET CHANGES REPORT TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH FY 2020-2021 DATES: 03/08/2021 TO 03/08/2021 REFERENCE NUMBER DATE BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDEDCHANGE USER 03/08/2021 40,000.00 1,000.00To cover pedestrian bridge 20538 44,500.00EBRADFORD 60-03-3870-3870-002 BELLEVUE MILLS CONTRIBUTION 03/08/2021 0.00 8,000.00To record Bellevue Mill contribution 20556 8,000.00EBRADFORD 60-03-6300-5700-729 CONNECTIVITY INFRASTRUCTURE 03/08/2021 40,000.00 1,000.00To cover pedestrian bridge 20539 44,500.00EBRADFORD 03/08/2021 40,000.00 8,000.00To record Bellevue Mill contribution 20557 52,500.00EBRADFORD 23,214.00 EBRADFORD 9:06:14PM03/02/2021 fl142r03 Page 2 of 2 GF-Cap. Proj. Fund GF-Cap. Proj. Fund APPROVED: 5/0 DATE: 3/8/21 VERIFIED: ___________________________________ March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 11 of 38 April 12, 2021 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 UDO Sections 2.6 and 3 – Technical Review Committee 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): This amendment streamlines the review process, makes pre-application meetings mandatory and preserves the ability to appeal a denial to the Board of Adjustment. Adopted by the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners this _8th day of _March, 2021. Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent or Excused: 0 _____________ _________ Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 12 of 38 April 12, 2021 Ordinance #20210308-6.E AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ORDAINS: Section 1. The Unified Development Ordinance Section 2.6.1, Powers and Duties, is hereby amended to replace “authorized and directed to review and approve, conditionally approve or deny applications for Site Plan Approval pursuant to Section 3.13, Site Plan Review, of this Ordinance” with the phrase “an advisory group of Town staff members and outside agencies (as necessary) who meet to review and comment on development applications, discuss other matters related to the Town’s review and management of development” Section 2. Amend Section 2.6.2, Membership, to read as follows: The Technical Review Committee shall consist of at least three (3) members – the Planning Director, the Utilities Director, the Stormwater and Environmental Services Manager, and the Public Works Director or their designees. Representatives from other Town, Orange County and State departments, as well as local service providers (e.g., Duke Energy), may be asked to participate in meetings. Section 3. Amend Section 2.6.3, Rules of Procedure, to be titled “Meetings” and replace the language to read as follows: The Technical Review Committee shall establish a regular meeting schedule meeting frequently enough to act as expeditiously as practicable on matters before it. The Planning Director may adjourn a regular meeting on determining there are no agenda items for consideration and may call emergency or special meetings as necessary. Applicants may be invited to attend meetings as necessary to answer questions from, or provide clarifications requested by, Technical Review Committee members. Written comments of Committee members shall be filed with the Planning Department and delivered to applicants with projects under review. Section 4. Delete Section 2.6.4, Appeals. Section 5. Amend Section 3.5.4 to replace “Planning Director shall refer the request to the Technical Review Committee (TRC) for final review and approval” with “subdivision shall be reviewed as a Conditional Subdivision. The Planning Director has the authority to refer any minor subdivision request involving a new or existing private road to the Technical Review Committee.” Section 6. Amend Section 3.8.7, Pre-application and Section 3.9.5.2, Pre-application, to read to replace “are encouraged to” with “shall” and “Planning Director” with “the technical Review Committee.” March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 13 of 38 April 12, 2021 Ordinance #20210308-6.E Section 7. Amend Section 3.11.2, Applicability to change the general statute reference to 160D- 1402, delete reference to the Technical Review Committee, and delete unnecessary commas. Section 8. Amend Section 3.11.4.4 to delete reference to the Technical Review Committee and delete unnecessary commas. Section 9. Replace the language in Section 3.13.2, Applicability, to read as follows: Site Plan Review is the general term used to describe review of projects other than (a) the construction of or addition to single family dwellings on lots zoned for single family uses and (b) uses requiring a Special Use or Conditional Use Permit, as Site Plan Review is built into the Special and Conditional Use Permit review processes. The Site Plan Review process is applicable only to proposed development involving: (a) The disturbance of 10,000 square feet or more of land and/or i. the construction of new structures consisting of more than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area, or ii. additions to existing structures consisting of more than 2,500 square feet of gross floor area in any general purpose residential or non-residential zoning district. Any development exceeding this threshold in a general-purpose residential district is required to pursue a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the standards and provisions established by Section 3.9, Conditional Use Permit, of this Ordinance; and (b) the construction of attached dwelling units in any general-purpose zoning district that does not otherwise exceed a threshold above. Section 10. Amend Section 3.13.4.2, Pre-application Conference, by replacing “should” with “shall,” “Planning Director” with “Technical Review Committee,” inserting “concept” before “plan,” adding a comma after plan, and adding “and other Town Requirements” to end the sentence. Section 11. Amend Section 3.13.6.1 to delete “of” after the word “all” and replace “where (a) less than 1 acre of land will be disturbed by the proposed development, (b) no new structure consists of more than 2,500 square feet of gross floor area, and/or (c) no addition to an existing structure consists of more than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area” with “in any general-purpose zoning district. Approval or denial of the Site Plan shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of a complete application.” Section 13. Insert Section 3.13.6.2, Completeness review, to read as follows: Upon receipt of a Site Plan Review application, the Planning Director shall first determine whether the application is complete, including the payment of all required application fees. The Planning Director shall have five working days in which to determine application completeness. If the Planning Director determines the application is not complete, he shall notify the applicant in writing of the reasons for such determination. March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 14 of 38 April 12, 2021 Ordinance #20210308-6.E Section 14. Amend Section 3.13.6.3, Technical Review Committee, to read as follows: Upon determination that a complete application has been filed, the Planning Director shall refer the site plan to the Technical Review Committee. The Technical Review Committee shall review the plan at its next regularly scheduled meeting. Written Committee review comments shall then be forwarded to the applicant. Section 15. Delete Section 3.13.6.4, Section 3.13.6.5, Section 3.13.6.6, and Section 3.13.6.7. Section 16. Amend Section 3.13.7, Decisions on Site Plan Applications, have it read as a single sentence as follows: The Planning Director shall have the authority to approve site plans, or to deny site plan approval on the grounds that the site plan submitted fails to comply with any specific requirements of this Ordinance. Section 17. Amend Section 3.13.8.1 to remove reference to the Technical Review Committee and add “consistent with North Carolina General Statues Section 160D-405 at the end of the first sentence. Section 18. Amend Section 3.13.8.2 by deleting the second sentence. Section 19. Amend Section 3.13.8.4 by deleting the reference to the Technical Review Committee in the last sentence. Section 20. Delete Section 3.13.3 and renumber subsequent sections. References above are prior to the renumbering. Section 21. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed. Section 22. 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 8th day of March, 2021. Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent or Excused: 0 Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 15 of 38 April 12, 2021 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 UDO Sections 3.8 and 3.9 – Waivers and minor changes 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): This amendment clarifies an important distinction in the review process while introducing a small degree of defined flexibility that staff can administer when needed. Adopted by the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners this 8th day of March, 2021. Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent or Excused: 0 ______________________________ Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 16 of 38 April 12, 2021 Ordinance #20210308-6.F AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ORDAINS: Section 1. The Unified Development Ordinance Section 3.8.4.4 is hereby amended to delete 5 phrases reading “or modification(s)” in the paragraph. Section 2. Section 3.9.4.3 is amended to delete 5 phrases reading “or modification(s)” in the paragraph. Section 3. Section 3.8.22, Applying Criteria, is added to read as follows: Minor changes and modifications are reviewed only after a permit has been approved. The criteria shall be applied as follows: a) When the requested change creates a situation of non-compliance with a quantified standard in the ordinance but does not qualify as a modification under 3.8.21, staff may approve the request as a minor change without triggering a waiver. b) When the requested change modifies a feature or required standard with an approved waiver, the relief granted in the waiver is fixed and not subject to flexibility in 3.8.21. c) When the requested change is for relief similar to that in an approved waiver, but in a different location, that approved waiver cannot be applied to a different location. Staff may review the requested change independently and determine if it is a minor change. d) If the requested change qualifies as a modification under 3.8.21 and creates a non- complaint situation, it must be treated as a waiver and a modification. Section 4. Section 3.9.14, Applying Criteria, is added to read as follows: Minor changes and modifications are reviewed only after a permit has been approved. The criteria shall be applied as follows: a) When the requested change creates a situation of non-compliance with a quantified standard in the ordinance but does not qualify as a modification under 3.9.13, staff may approve the request as a minor change without triggering a waiver. b) When the requested change modifies a feature or required standard with an approved waiver, the relief granted in the waiver is fixed and not subject to flexibility in 3.9.13. c) When the requested change is for relief similar to that in an approved waiver, but in a different location, that approved waiver cannot be applied to a different location. Staff may review the requested change independently and determine if it is a minor change. d) If the requested change qualifies as a modification under 3.9.13 and creates a non- complaint situation, it must be treated as a waiver and a modification. Section 5. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed. Section 5. 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 8th day of March, 2021. March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 17 of 38 April 12, 2021 Ordinance #20210308-6.F Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent or Excused: 0 Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 18 of 38 April 12, 2021 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 UDO Section 6.7 – Design Requirements 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): This amendment streamlines the design requirements to eliminate duplication and focus on the most important aspects of site and building design that reinforce the vibrant public space and human scale deserved in Hillsborough. Extending the applicability of the standards to multi- family dwellings improves the integration of these units into the broader community. Providing flexibility to large scale commercial projects that are auto-dependent allows for this desired land use as well. Adopted by the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners this 8th day of March, 2021. Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent or Excused: 0 _____________ _________ Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 19 of 38 April 12, 2021 Ordinance #20210308-6.G AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ORDAINS: Section 1. The Unified Development Ordinance, Section 6.7, Design Requirements For All New Non- Residential Buildings, is amended to be titled 6.7, Design Requirements For New Non- Residential And Multi-Family Buildings. Section 2. Section 6.7 is wholly replaced to ready as follows: 6.7.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT It is the intent of this section to protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by regulating the appearance of non‐residential construction in order to protect and preserve the appearance, character, and value of adjacent properties. These requirements help create a pedestrian scale environment to encourage walkability and connect people to the built environment. 6.7.2 APPLICABILITY The following principles will apply to all new non‐residential buildings and multi‐family buildings containing 5 or more dwelling units. Some of the standards dependent on the building gross square footage. When a numbered standard contains a phrase “On buildings with at least one tenant space 30,000 sf or larger,” only the language that follows this phrase applies to larger buildings for that numbered standard. If there is no language regarding building size, the numbered standard applies in all circumstances. Section 6.7.11, Parking and Circulation, Site Layout, applies only to buildings without a tenant space 30,000 sf or larger and multi‐family buildings containing 5 or more dwelling units. These requirements are applied during development review. If renovation occurs that is non‐compliant with these standards and such renovation did not require a zoning compliance permit, the town may issue a stop work order or notice of violation to bring the building back into compliance. Subdivision or changes to parcel lines that impact compliance with these requirements but trigger no development will not create an illegal non‐conformity and is not sufficient reason to deny a subdivision application. 6.7.3 ARTICULATION 6.7.3.1. The facade shall be articulated with bays, recesses and projections, door and window rhythm, columns, piers, and/or varied rooflines to divide the building mass. 6.7.3.2. Design elements such as bays, recesses and projections, door and window rhythm, columns, piers, and/or varied rooflines shall be kept consistent along the front façade. 6.7.4 DRIVE‐UP WINDOWS, CANOPIES, AND PORTE COCHERES 6.7.4.1. Drive‐up windows, canopies, and porte cocheres shall be located on the side or rear of the building. 6.7.4.2. Drive‐up windows, canopies, and porte cocheres shall feature architectural materials and design elements that match the primary building. 6.7.5 FENESTRATION 6.7.5.1. Buildings shall not have a blank wall oriented to a street. 6.7.5.2. Openings such as windows and doors shall account for a minimum 50% on the ground floor of the façade and 30% of the upper floors of the facade. On buildings with at least one tenant space March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 20 of 38 April 12, 2021 Ordinance #20210308-6.G 30,000 sf or larger, openings such as windows and doors shall account for a minimum of 30% of the front façade. 6.7.5.3. Street level glazing shall be visually transparent, although UV coatings are permitted. Mirrored glass is prohibited. 6.7.5.4. Windows shall have a vertical‐to‐horizontal ratio of 1:2 except where storefront glass is employed. Two or more vertically oriented windows may be grouped together provided windows grouped are the same size. This does not apply to buildings with at least one tenant space 30,000 sf or larger. 6.7.5.5. Design treatments intended to simulate windows that have been covered or filled in are prohibited. 6.7.6 MATERIALS 6.7.6.1. Changes of building materials shall occur at a change of plane, such as a recess, projection. 6.7.6.2. Buildings shall not have material changes at their outside corners. 6.7.6.3. Dominant building materials shall consist of wood, brick, stone, fiber cement, pre‐cast concrete, ceramic tile, or glass. Concrete block, stucco, EIFS, plywood, metal and vinyl siding are prohibited as exterior finishes. Architectural metal may be used as a secondary building material to accent or complement the dominant building material. 6.7.7 MULTISTORY BUILDINGS 6.7.7.1 The first floor shall be architecturally differentiated from upper floors using porches, colonnades, canopies, awnings, storefronts, or other design features. 6.7.7.2 The front façade shall be integrated with the overall building architecture. False facades are prohibited. 6.7.8 ORIENTATION AND BUILDING ACCESS 6.7.8.1. The primary building access for non‐residential and mixed‐use buildings shall be oriented toward and clearly identifiable from the street or if located on a corner lot may be oriented toward the corner that is nearest the street intersection. When there is more than one street in the vicinity, staff shall determine which street is applicable to meet the purpose and intent of this standard. 6.7.8.2. The primary building access for residential buildings shall be oriented toward and clearly identifiable from the street and the intended residential parking area. 6.7.8.3. ADA compliant sidewalks shall be provided between building entrances and public sidewalks. 6.7.8.4. ADA compliant handicap ramps shall be provided where sidewalks intersect streets or parking areas. 6.7.8.5. Crosswalks shall be provided where sidewalks intersect streets or parking areas. 6.7.9. POSTS AND COLUMNS 6.7.9.1 The proportion of structural elements such as posts, piers and columns shall be appropriately scaled to the weight they appear to be carrying. 6.7.10. ROOF PITCH 6.7.10.1. Flat roofs shall be capped by a parapet wall. 6.7.10.2. Sloped roof structures must maintain a pitch of at least 5:12, not including awning, canopy, entrance, or porch roofs. 6.7.10.3. Rooftop equipment shall be screened from view when standing at ground level 20 feet from the structure. March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 21 of 38 April 12, 2021 Ordinance #20210308-6.G 6.7.11 PARKING AND CIRCULATION, SITE LAYOUT 6.7.11.1 Applicability This section applies to all buildings unless at least one tenant space within a building is 30,000 sf or larger. A building size equal to or exceeding 30,000 sf but divided into smaller tenant spaces, the presence of multiple buildings, multiple primary buildings, or buildings oriented in different directions does not affect applicability. If multiple buildings are considered primary, the requirements will be applied to each building to the extent that such application does not create a clear violation of these requirements for the site overall. 6.7.11.2 The preferred location for parking areas is behind a line projected from the building façade. However, if needed, one row of parking and a two‐lane drive aisle for vehicular circulation may be located between the primary building and the right‐of‐way. Parking areas shall be placed to the side or rear and behind the front façade of the primary building(s). 6.7.11.3 Primary buildings shall be placed along the right‐of‐way at the front of lot or immediately behind any allowed parking or circulation areas, sidewalks, and landscape areas. 6.7.11.4 On corner lots, primary buildings shall be placed along the right‐of‐way at front or front corner of the lot or immediately behind any allowed parking or circulation areas, sidewalks, and landscape areas. 6.7.12 SERVICE AREAS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 6.7.12.1 Delivery areas shall be located to the side or rear of the building. 6.7.12.2 Service bay and garage doors shall be located to the side or rear of the building. 6.7.12.3 Solid waste areas shall be constructed primarily of masonry. 6.7.12.4 Accessory buildings shall not be located between the front façade of the primary building and the street. 6.7.12.5 Accessory buildings shall be architecturally compatible with the primary building. Section 3. Section 5.2.2.1.d and 5.2.38.1.d are amended to read “Drive-up windows shall be located on the side or rear of the building.” Section 4. Section 5.2.40.1.c is amended to read Section 5. Section 5.2.40.1.d is amended to read “Drive-up windows shall be located on the side or rear of the building.” Section 6. Section 5.2.44.1.d is amended to read “Drive-up windows and their menu boards shall be located on the side or rear of the building.” Section 7. Section 6.16.3.2.c is amended to read “Air handling units, condensers, satellite dishes and other equipment that is placed on the roof shall be screened from view when standing at ground level 20 feet from the structure.” Section 8. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed. Section 9. 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 8th day of March, 2021. March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 22 of 38 April 12, 2021 Ordinance #20210308-6.G Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent or Excused: 0 Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 23 of 38 April 12, 2021 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 UDO Section 6.21 - Streets 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): This amendment provides an important cross-reference for safety that might not otherwise be found by applicants until the end of the design process. Adopted by the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners this 8th day of March, 2021. Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent or Excused: 0 _____________ _________ Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 24 of 38 April 12, 2021 Ordinance #20210308-6.H AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ORDAINS: Section 1. The Unified Development Ordinance, Section 6.21.3.8 is amended to replace “Appendix D of the Fire Code” with “North Carolina Fire Prevention Code” for clarity and consistency. Section 2. Section 6.21.4.2 is amended read as follows: Any private road within a minor residential subdivision must be designed in compliance with the North Carolina Fire Prevention Code, which generally requires a twenty-foot wide improved travel way. Associated drainage facilities must be located in the right of way. Underground utilities may be located within the road right of way or in a separate utility easement. Factors such as the length and alignment of the road and the use of sprinklers in individual buildings may impact the travel way or right of way required by the North Carolina Fire Prevention Code. Section 3. Section 6.21.4.3 is amended by deleting the last sentence. Section 4. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed. Section 5. 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 8th day of March, 2021. Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent or Excused: 0 Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 25 of 38 April 12, 2021 Ordinance #20210308-7.A AN ORDINANCE CHANGING A STREET NAME IN HILLSBOROUGH CITY LIMITS THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ORDAINS: Whereas a petition has been made to change the name of an existing public street in the Hillsborough city limits; and Whereas the petition meets the standards in Town Code Section 7-37; and Whereas the Town Board called a public hearing on the request and notice was provided are required in Town Code Section 7-37; and Whereas the Town Board has considered all testimony from that public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained as follows: Section 1. The street known as Thomas Ruffin Street shall be renamed and known as Lydia Lane on the effective date of this ordinance. Section 2. The town shall notify each affected property owner and the notification list for address assignments of this action as soon as practicable. Section 3. All Town Code references to Thomas Ruffin Street shall be updated to reflect the name change. Section 3. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed. Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective on May 7, 2021 to allow time for new street sign installation and other activities to ease the transition. The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote received the following vote and was duly ADOPTED this 8th day of March, 2021. Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent or Excused: 0 Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 26 of 38 April 12, 2021 March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 27 of 38 April 12, 2021 March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 28 of 38 April 12, 2021 H. Carlton McKee, Jr. 225 Caine St. Hillsborough, N. C. March 9, 2021 To: Members of the Hillsborough Town Board Re: Thomas Ruffin Street As a lifelong resident of the neighborhood that includes Thomas Ruffin St. I watched with interest the discussion about re-naming the street. While my neighbors bring up factual points and passionate arguments regarding Chief Justice Thomas Ruffin (1787-1870) and his interpretation of 19th century law it is in this case moot. For Thomas Ruffin Street was not named for the Chief Justice, it was named for his 8th child and 4th son Thomas Ruffin, Jr. (1824-1889). Thomas Ruffin, Jr. like his father was an attorney and he did also serve a two year term (1881-1883) on the N. C. Supreme Court, though he was never the Chief Justice. He practiced law in his early career primarily in Caswell and Rockingham Counties, and later after the Civil War in Alamance and Guilford. It was not until December 1870, almost a year after the death of his father, when he returned to his native Hillsborough. In 1858 he had married Mary Clack Cain (1827-1908), also a Hillsborough native and upon their return they purchased property and built a home on St. Mary’s Rd. a quarter mile east of the then town limits. The house is still standing today and is now addressed as 311 St. Mary’s Rd. The property in addition to the home and dependencies also had a modest amount of acreage. After the deaths of Thomas and Mary Ruffin, the property was acquired by Mr. A. S. Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell (1868-1949) made his home there and with his wife Carrie Moorefield Mitchell raised a family. Mr. Mitchell owned and operated a hardware store at the NE corner of King and Churton Streets. The business after his death was operated by two of his sons and remained a downtown fixture into the 1960’s. Another of Mr. Mitchell’s enterprises was real estate. In the late teens or early twenties of the last century he developed the property that he had acquired with his home from the Ruffin estate. In the course of this development he would create 3 new streets and extend an existing one. East Queen Street was extended from its ending with Boundary St. (now known as Cameron), Cain Street named for Mrs. Ruffin was the northern limit of the development and the two north-south streets he named Ruffin for Thomas Ruffin, Jr. and Mitchell after himself. The first house in this new development on the outskirts of town, for it was not annexed by the town until the late 1960’s, was the house located at 229 E. Queen St. and was built in 1922-23. Growth was slow and it really wasn’t until after WWII that the development finally filled out. The streets remained unpaved until the mid 1960’s. For the first 50+ years of its existence, Ruffin Street was just that: Ruffin St. Hillsborough had a Ruffin St. and West Hillsborough, which at that time was an un-incorporated mill village with its own Post Office had a Ruffin Ave. In the period around 1968-1970 the Postal Service decided that Hillsborough had grown enough to warrant door to door delivery of mail. Prior to that time if you lived in Hillsboro and received mail you could only get it general delivery or by renting a P. O. Box at the Post Office. It was a few years after this in an effort to avoid confusion that the streets were assigned their “given names” of Thomas for the Hillsborough one, and Allen for the one in West Hillsborough. March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 29 of 38 April 12, 2021 In summary, Thomas Ruffin Street is located on land that was once owned by Thomas Ruffin, Jr., and developed by the successive owner of that property. The developer being 2 years old when Thomas Ruffin the elder died and in all likelihood never having even met the man had no reason whatsoever to commemorate the Chief Justice with the naming of a street. He did have reason to do so with Thomas Ruffin, Jr. who he succeeded as owner. Further, were it not for confusion of postmen, it never would have gotten the “Thomas” added to it at all. If it is the decision to the Board to rename Thomas Ruffin Street, I would respectfully ask that it not be renamed for the reasons outlined in the public hearing last night. My friends and neighbors have the right to feel comfortable in their address, but facts matter and the fact is that Thomas Ruffin Street is not named after the Chief Justice. If it must be renamed do so, but the only fault of the elder Mr. Ruffin that may be assigned as reason is procreation. March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 30 of 38 April 12, 2021 COMMENTS ON HILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PLAN TO CHANGE NAME OF THOMAS RUFFIN STREET Presented here are truthful FACTS that are relevant to this discussion. These are FACTS I never learned in school, and since they are not part of Common Core curriculum or the current main stream news narrative, maybe these are facts that you never learned either? Have you ever found yourself in a difficult position, forced to do something you didn’t want to do? Judge Thomas Carter Ruffin was born in Virginia in 1787 (to Alice Roane Ruffin and Sterling Ruffin) father was member of Virginia House of Burgesses, a farmer and Methodist minister Thomas attended (prestigious) boys school in Warren County NC College of NJ (now known as Princeton), graduated with honors He moved to Orange County in 1807 to practice law in Hillsboro married a local girl, Anne Kirkland, in 1809 they had 14 children and eventually moved to Haw River in Alamance County 1830 He died 1870 considered very smart especially in areas of law, finance and agriculture well liked by members of the community and colleagues interested in politics Jeffersonian Democrat, “antifederalist” believed in original Constitution, natural law, minimal national government, self managing States (resisted giving more power to national government) (Constitution as written, stable, not a living document) (US struggled to adapt England’s common law into Constitution) (addition of Bill of Rights necessary to ensure natural law specifically incorporated) (question intent of Constitution, force answers written in Federalist Papers to clarify) believed in maintaining separation of powers as described in Constitution, between judicial and legislative branches of government and he served in both actively supported independence of judicial branch from legislative branch in NC (NC legislature attempted to constrain higher courts in various ways) 8 March 2021 Remarks regarding the renaming of Thomas Ruffin Street page 1 Anonymous public comment submitted 3/9/21 by former resident.March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 31 of 38 April 12, 2021 as NC Supreme Court justice, wrote particularly important opinion of the court (for Hoke v Henderson 1833) (General Assembly passed a bill calling for the democratic election of clerks of court 1832) clearly defined boundaries between legislative and judicial branches of NC government thereby protected higher courts from legislative efforts to constrain them Widely engaged in Civic Activities elected to legislature, House of Commons 1813 and elected Speaker of House 1816 trustee of University of North Carolina Chapel Hill 1813 - 1831, 1842 - 1868 gave land on Margaret Street where St Matthew’s Episcopal Church was rebuilt 1825 appointed president of State Bank of North Carolina 1828 left NC Superior Court to run the troubled bank brought it out of debt in one year, apparently saving it from bankruptcy left bank to join NC Supreme Court president of the North Carolina Agricultural Society 1854 - 1860 participated in secession conversation at state and national level, though struggled with the issue represented NC as the senior (eldest) member of the Peace Conference in Washington DC, early 1861 declared that he didn’t want war and that he supported the original Constitution “I came to maintain and preserve this glorious Government! I came here for Union and peace!” 1861 after attempts for compromise failed at the Conference, he was frustrated and disenchanted reluctantly shifted his position to what he called “sacred right of revolution”… “the right of a whole people to change their form of government by annulling one Constitution and forming another for themselves” attended Secession Convention in Raleigh, April 1861 (“by reason of various illegal, unconstitutional, oppressive and tyrannical acts of the Government of the USA, and of unjust acts of divers of the Northern non-slaveholding States, it is the settled sense of the people of this state that they cannot longer live in peace and security in the Union heretofore existing under the Constitution of the United States.”) 8 March 2021 Remarks regarding the renaming of Thomas Ruffin Street page 2 March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 32 of 38 April 12, 2021 (supported Confederacy because he believed southern states exercised a legitimate right to revolution by seceding from the Union) “[Ruffin] endorsed secession… only as a revolutionary act against an oppressive federal government that he believed had already destroyed the existing Constitution.” -- Timothy Huebner pardoned after the Civil War by Andrew Johnson, (before his death) Legal and Judicial Work despite all of these interests, accomplishments and contributions, Thomas is most recognized and noted for his legal and judicial endeavors known for speaking plainly, following the law as written (as opposed to his feelings), seeking precedent in previous cases when law was unclear, striving to represent best interest of the general public recognized as one of the best legal minds in American history, opinions widely cited especially in areas of eminent domain, trespass, private property practiced law in Hillsboro served on NC courts for about 25 years, including as Chief Justice of NC Supreme Court all together, heard over 1400 cases as judge and yet recently, ALL public discourse on Thomas Ruffin focuses on ONE opinion of the court that he wrote for the case State v Mann As we are all aware, this particular case addresses the rights of slave owners and is being used as an emotionally divisive tool in the current political environment. EVERYONE surely agrees that slavery of ALL types is WRONG (Irish children were first slaves arriving to USA) (slavery still exists today – rampant both here in USA and around world) EVERYONE surely agrees that the extraordinarily harsh treatment of Lydia in this case of State v Mann is ABHORRENT by any measure of law 8 March 2021 Remarks regarding the renaming of Thomas Ruffin Street page 3 March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 33 of 38 April 12, 2021 OK, so now, trying to keep our emotions in check let’s look at a few more FACTS that everyone may not yet realize What were Thomas Ruffin’s thoughts on slavery? He wrote a lot of letters while he was away at college, revealing some insights after having expressed misgivings about slavery in one letter to his father, his father replied: “I was not surpris’d at reading your sentiments on Slavery, as I was well aware of the impressions which a different mode of treatment than that pursued in Virginia, would make on a Heart, which I hop’d was capable at all times of sympathizing in the misfortunes of a fellow mortal.” yet his father also chastised his son for lamenting the “uncommon hard fate” of slaves without being able to ameliorate the situation, (writing: “You will not pretend to throw blame on the present generation, for the situation of these unhappy domestics, for as they are impos’d on us, and not with our consent, the thing is unavoidable.”) upon learning of Thomas’ decision to study law, a close friend in Virginia wrote: 1805 “My principal inducement for adopting this method of gaining a livelihood is the great aversion which I have to the manner of cultivating our lands in Virginia by slaves. I feel myself utterly incompetent to the task of managing them properly. I never attempt to punish or to have one punished but I am sensible that I am violating the natural rights of a being who is as much entitled to the enjoyment of liberty as myself. Under such impressions as these I can never be happy while I am forced to act in a manner which my conscience reproaches me for.“ Ruffin was known for including personal remarks in his legal opinions, so next, let’s read the thoughts he provided in both the introductory and closing remarks of the court opinion he wrote for the State v Mann case this opinion was written shortly after his joining the NC Supreme Court 1829 Court opinion opens with this introduction (direct quote): “A Judge cannot but lament, when such cases as the present are brought into judgment. It is impossible that the reasons on which they go can be appreciated, but where institutions similar to our own, exist and are thoroughly understood. The struggle, too, in the Judge's own breast between the feelings of the man, and the duty of the magistrate is a severe one, presenting strong temptation to put aside such questions, if it be possible. It is useless however, to complain of things inherent in our political state. And it is criminal in a Court to avoid any responsibility which the laws impose. With whatever reluctance therefore it is done, the Court is compelled to express an opinion upon the extent of the dominion of the master over the slave in North Carolina. “ Opinion eventually closes with these words, just before the judgment is delivered: 8 March 2021 Remarks regarding the renaming of Thomas Ruffin Street page 4 March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 34 of 38 April 12, 2021 “I repeat, that I would gladly have avoided this ungrateful question; but being brought to it, the Court is compelled to declare that while slavery exists amongst us in its present state, or until it shall seem fit to the legislature to interpose express enactments to the contrary, it will be the imperative duty of the judges to recognise the full dominion of the owner over the slave, except where the exercise of it is forbidden by statute.“ Did you catch that? He told us exactly how to eliminate the problem of slavery – the legislature must change the laws! Lastly, let’s look at the thoughts of the famous abolitionist, Harriet Beecher Stowe, concerning this very case and Judge Thomas Ruffin, himself 24 years after the State v Mann decision, Harriet Beecher Stowe featured the case in her book titled A Key to Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Presenting the Original Facts and Documents upon Which the Story Is Founded, Together with Corroborative Statements Verifying the Truth of the Work 1853 this book was a response to criticisms she had received from Southerners who challenged the depictions of slavery in her book Uncle Tom’s Cabin A Key to Uncle Tom’s Cabin contained research and commentary taken from actual legal cases across the various states, verifying her characterization of slavery She highlights Judge Ruffin’s definition of slavery as presented in the case of State v Mann… “This is what slavery is, this is what it is to be a slave!” (page 133)… recognizing that the term had not been so clearly defined before. But the real surprise: she SUPPORTED Judge Ruffin’s handling of the case, acknowledging the difficulties of the situation Here is the commentary in her exact words (direct quote): “No one can read this decision, so fine and clear in expression, so dignified and solemn in its earnestness, and so dreadful in its results, without feeling at once deep respect for the man and horror for the system. The man, judging him from this short specimen, which is all the author knows, has one of that high order of minds which looks straight through all verbiage and sophistry to the heart of every subject which it encounters. He has, too, that noble scorn of dissimulation, that straightforward determination not to call a bad thing by a good name, even when most popular, and reputable, and legal, which it is to be wished could be more frequently seen, both in our Northern and Southern States. There is but one sole regret; and that is, that such a man, with such a mind, should have been merely an expositor, and not a reformer of law.“ (pg 148- 149) 8 March 2021 Remarks regarding the renaming of Thomas Ruffin Street page 5 March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 35 of 38 April 12, 2021 It is that last line that clearly illustrates the Constitutional separation of powers involved between the judiciary and the legislature as she describes her “one sole regret,” that “such a mind” as Ruffin’s should have been “merely an expositor,” representing the judiciary, which is charged with interpreting, defending and applying the law “and not a reformer of the law.” representing the legislature, which is charged with making the laws Conclusion It is obvious that relevant FACTS are being withheld from the general public. Quite the contrary, outright FALSEHOODS are being spread instead. The record should show that Judge Thomas Ruffin contributed prolifically to his community, the State of North Carolina and his profession in many positive ways. He did NOT agree with slavery, was outspoken about his personal feelings on the matter as well as his professional predicament regarding the issue, and provided information on how to solve this travesty in a manner consistent with the Constitution. While his legal opinions often voiced personal concerns, he stressed the importance of following logic of the law and consistency -- even if it contradicted the heart -- because the whole structure of the system would collapse otherwise. (I don’t know why some are so fixated on smearing this man, but there are nefarious forces at play here whoever is involved, they are not American patriots. only an anarchist would prefer a system collapse.) Whether the discussion concerns portraits or statues, school names or street names, I ask you to remember the question I posed earlier: Have you ever found yourselves in a difficult position, forced to do something you didn’t want to do? Then consider: Would you want to be judged solely on your actions in those relatively few, most difficult moments? 8 March 2021 Remarks regarding the renaming of Thomas Ruffin Street page 6 March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 36 of 38 April 12, 2021 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 _David Morgan on behalf of the owner_ to amend the Town of Hillsborough Unified Development Ordinance as follows (insert general description of proposed amendment): To rezone 618 and 700 NC 86 N - 5.68 acres on the west side –from Residential 40 to Light Industrial (part of OC PIN 9865-83-2863 and 9865-83-4707) 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 area is designated Light Industry on the Future Land Use Plan. Despite the lack of water and sewer facilities in the vicinity, the zoning is consistent with uses to the north and south. The lack of sewer availability to the site will limit the development potential. Adopted by the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners this 8th day of March, 2021. Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent or Excused: 0 _____________ _________ Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 37 of 38 April 12, 2021 Ordinance #20210308-7.B AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ORDAINS: Whereas an application has been made for the rezoning of the property herein; and Whereas the application has been referred to the Town Planning Board for its recommendation and the Planning Board has provided the Town Board with a written recommendation addressing the consistency of the proposed rezoning with the Town’s comprehensive plan and such other matters as the Planning Board deemed appropriate; and Whereas the Town Board has, prior to acting on the application, adopted a statement describing the consistency of the proposed rezoning with the Town’s comprehensive plan and explaining why the action contemplated by the Town Board as reflected herein is reasonable and in the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained as follows: Section 1. The Zoning Map of the Town of Hillsborough is hereby amended to rezone 5.68 acres at 618 and 700 NC 86 N from Residnetial-40 to Light Industrial (OC PINs 9865-83-2863 and 9865-83-4707). Section 2. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed. Section 3. 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 8th day of March 2021. Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent or Excused: 0 Sarah E. Kimrey, Interim Town Clerk March 8, 2021 Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting Approved: ____________________ Page 38 of 38 April 12, 2021