HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-20-2011 Minutes PB Joint Public HearingOctober 20, 2011
Joint Public Hearing
Approved: __________________
Page 1 of 14
MINUTES
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD AND PLANNING BOARD
Thursday, October 20, 2011
7:00 p.m. at the Hillsborough Town Barn
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mayor Tom Stevens, Commissioners Mike Gering,
Frances Dancy, Eric Hallman, L. Evelyn Lloyd, and Brian Lowen.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Bryant Warren, Vice Chair Kathleen Faherty,
Rick Brewer, Dan Barker, Janie Morris, Elizabeth Woodman, Erin Eckert
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney T.C. Morphis
ITEM #1: Call the Public Hearing to Order and.
Mayor Stevens called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He did not read the public charge but asked
that everyone abide by it.
Mayor Stevens stated there were several items to discuss. He said they had a long track record of
having very to the point, open, and very respectful conversations and he feels they will all continue
that tradition tonight.
ITEM #2: Consideration of Additions or Changes to the Agenda
Mayor Stevens asked if there were any additions or changes to the agenda and there were none.
Commissioner Hallman moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Dancy seconded the motion and
upon a unanimous vote, the agenda was approved and motion was passed.
Mayor Stevens then turned the gavel over to Planning Board Chair Bryant Warren.
ITEM #3: Request from SLF II Waterstone LLC to amend the Master Plan for the
Waterstone development to impact the permitted uses, development standards,
and pod layout for pods 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 as shown on the
approved Waterstone Master Plan and the elimination of Town Center Road
(continued & unchanged from July hearing).
Planning Director Margaret Hauth reminded everyone that the discussion was started at the July public
hearing regarding adjustments to the various pods in Waterstone. She indicated on a map which was
displayed the requested changes. She also pointed out where Town Center Drive was to come through
in a shallow arc and a parcel adjacent to Durham Tech and then another parcel th at was configured
slightly differently. Ms. Hauth told the Boards with some of the changes to the medical office, the
owners have brought back a different proposal. She said the bulk of the conversation in July focused
around what exactly and to what intensity parcel 17 could be developed. She said this was the parcel
that was previously the Continuing Care Retirement Center but is now proposed to be either a business
park or multi-family or some combination thereof.
Ms. Hauth told the Board that after the last hearing, the Boards asked the applicants to meet with the
residents on Stagecoach Run and bring back either a new agreement or some discussion. She said they
October 20, 2011
Joint Public Hearing
Approved: __________________
Page 2 of 14
did meet and she was not sure what they were bringing to the Boards tonight but they w ere present.
She also indicated the residents there for Stagecoach Run had a document for the Board members to
review.
Ms. Hauth stated that the Boards’ packets contained the relevant pages out of the agreement between
the developers and the residents on Stagecoach Run. She pointed out for the record that this is an
agreement between two private entities and the Town has no obligation to enforce that no the authority
to enforce it. She said to the extent the Boards ma y want to add conditions to its approval of the
Waterstone development that mirror any of that agreement, the Town has that condition and that
authority to act on it.
Commissioner Hallman stated to Ms. Hauth there was one other issue when Carlo was there previously
that had to do with the Durham Tech campus and zoning between the two adjacent properties. Ms.
Hauth replied that Penny Gluck, the interim Director of Durham Tech, was present at the meeting and
could speak to the Boards about how this plan impacts Durham Tech. She said she had met with Ms.
Gluck briefly and brought her up to speed and asked her to come in case the Boards had any specific
comments or questions.
Penny Gluck came forward and introduced herself stating she is the interim Director of the Orange
County Campus Facility for Durham Tech. She stated they would like the Board to take into
consideration that the new configuration combining sections 15 and 16 may eliminate an access road.
She said they want them to be mindful as they continue to grow the campus that they will want and
need the capacity to provide public transportation and this may be limited in some way with this
combination.
Ms. Gluck told the Boards the second consideration they would ask the Boards to be mindful of as they
move forward with Waterstone is that with any adjacent properties, if there could be shared parking,
they would like to have that as an option as well depending on the types of facilities that are built. Ms.
Gluck stated these were the two concerns of the President and Vice-President after the July meeting
and the possible hindrance to their serving Orange County students.
Commissioner Gering asked Ms. Gluck if she had had any of these discussions with the Waterstone
developers. Ms. Gluck replied that she was not aware of any such discussions. She said she was not
new to Durham Tech but is new to her position. She also indicated there had been nothing in Carlos’
notes about any discussions with Waterstone. Ms. Gluck asked Ms. Hauth if she was aware of any and
Ms. Hauth said no.
Commissioner Hallman said he knew Carlo Robustelli had worked with some various people to
develop different plans on how the buildings on parcel 15 would interface with the Durham Tech
campus making sure there was an attractive interface between the properties.
Dan Shatz, Vice-President of the Stagecoach Run Homeowner’s Association, came forward and
introduced himself. Mr. Shatz told the Boards he has spoken at the July meeting after which they were
asked to meet with the Waterstone developers to see if they could reach some kind of agreement with
respect to the modification for parcel 17 as this was the particular concern their neighborhood had. He
said they did have an initial meeting with Mr. Ciao and expressed their concerns to him as well as how
October 20, 2011
Joint Public Hearing
Approved: __________________
Page 3 of 14
they would like to see parcel 17 developed. Mr. Shatz said they then had their homeowners meeting
and discussed the meeting they’d had with Mr. Ciao and the fact they had hoped to reach some kind of
agreement for some limitations or understanding of how parcel 17 would be developed. They
discussed that Mr. Ciao had indicated that while he understood their concerns, he did not think he was
in a position to agree to any type of binding limitations on how parcel 17 was developed. Mr. Ciao
also indicated he did not think the Town wanted him to enter into that kind of binding agreement in
light of everything going on with Waterstone.
Mr. Shatz told the Boards that since the July meeting, he saw the newspaper articles about Bank of
America taking the first step in the foreclosure and that the Town, Bank of America, and Waterstone
are in negotiations over the tax assessment district. He said he doesn’t know how that impacts
Stagecoach Run. Mr. Shatz said he had spoken with Ms. Hauth who advised him to proceed as if this
was not a roadblock at this point and they are hoping for the best. He said when Mr. Ciao informed
him they were not going to reach any kind of binding agreement as far as parcel 17, he spoke to the
neighbors and they put together a document listing what they would like to see; Mr. Shatz distributed
copies of this to the Boards.
Mr. Shatz stated their biggest concern was with the designation for multi-family residential housing.
He said as they had discussed at the July meeting, when Waterstone was originally being planned and
developed, this parcel was designated for multi-family for an apartment complex. He said as the plan
developed and the public hearings and negotiations took place, the designation was changed to the
current designation and a different parcel, which he believes is parcel 6, was designated for multi -
family. Mr. Shatz said parcel 3, which abuts their neighborhood, was then designated for townhomes.
He stated that at that time they reached a negotiation with the developer in which they released
portions of parcel 3 which were governed by their restrictive covenants so they could be used for the
townhomes.
Mr. Shatz said at that time they also reached the agreement which he understood from Ms. Hauth was
in the Boards’ packets. He indicated this had some limitations on parcel 17 designating it as for the
Continuing Care Retirement Facility although the document does not lock it in for that purpose. He
stated that obviously that does not seem to be working out. Mr. Shatz told the Boards their number
one concern would be if the parcel is redesignated, it would be for a business type use and not for a
multi-family residential.
Beyond that, Mr. Shatz told the Boards most of the concerns they have were to hopefully increase the
buffer a little bit and to limit the building height on the portion of that parcel nearest them. He said in
the document he distributed, they requested to increase the current buffer from 100 feet to 250 feet and
if there were to be buildings within 500 feet of the border of the neighborhood, that they not exceed
two stories in height.
Mr. Shatz stated that Ms. Hauth had indicated to him that the mixed use business designation might
include retail. Because of this, he said they also put in the document that they would be concerned
about any late night or 24 hour type of retail. He said he understood from the July meeting that parcel
15 and 16 would be where the bulk of any retail would be. Ms. Hauth spoke up and said she wanted to
clarify that the request for parcel 17 is for business park so that is different than originally discussed.
October 20, 2011
Joint Public Hearing
Approved: __________________
Page 4 of 14
Mr. Shatz replied they could then strike number 4 off the list as that was a misunderstanding and is not
a concern at all.
Mr. Shatz said other than those things mentioned to leave the agreement as it is regarding restrictions
on exterior building appearance, colors, and so on. He said the agreement called for some plantings to
create a visual buffer and if the undisturbed buffer is moved, to just move those along with it. Mr.
Shatz also stated in the context of a business park type designation, those would be the main concerns,
increasing the buffer somewhat as well as the building height for anything within 500 feet of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Shatz told the Boards their number one concern was that it is a business park designation and not a
multi-family residential. He said they feel there are already sufficient portions of Waterstone set aside
for that.
Mayor Stevens asked Mr. Shatz what about multi-family concerns them. Mr. Shatz said it was
primarily the density and volume of vehicular traffic. He said with a business park, they would not get
night time traffic or noise. He said some concern is also with appearance and while he doesn’t want to
speak for his neighbors, he thinks some of it is probably concern for property value. Regardless, he
said the primary concerns are noise, traffic, less control over what happens if it’s not a business type
setting.
Commissioner Gering asked since the previous CCRC designation was a type of multi-family why
they would expect more or a retraction from that at this stage. Mr. Shatz replied when they saw multi-
family residential, they just did not want a large apartment complex with a lot of units. He said the
CCRC was residential and multi-family but it wasn’t going to be high volume and all hours of traffic.
He said they would be quiet neighbors.
Commissioner Gering stated he was not aware of any place that requires a 250 feet buffer and he wants
to understand their justification for that request. Mr. Shatz replied he would have to go back and read
the buffer they put in between the townhomes in parcel 3 and their neighborhood but he believes it was
at least close to 200 feet. Mr. Brewer, reading from the packet, stated it was 100 to 180 feet. Mr.
Shatz said really part of that came from meeting with the Town and they knew exactly what was going
to be there. He also said part of their reaction this time is due to the uncertainty of what is going to be
on the border of their neighborhood. Mr. Shatz stated they may have some misconceptions about how
limited a business park designation is and maybe they don’t have as much to worry about as they think
they do, but they want to try to give themselves as much buffer as they can from an uncertain level of
development.
Mr. Brewer stated for clarification purposes that section 3 has a 100 to 180 feet variable buffer but that
also in section 2.1, item C, they’ve asked for a reserved 100 feet permanent natural buffer around
parcel 17. Mr. Shatz replied that in the current agreement there is a 100 feet buffer and then another
area of 200 feet where there are to be no roads, parking lots, dumpsters, utilities, so it is not a complete
undisturbed buffer. He said they anticipated there might be some buildings in between the
neighborhood and the parking lots and all the things out in that zone.
October 20, 2011
Joint Public Hearing
Approved: __________________
Page 5 of 14
Commissioner Hallman said these crises with buffers have come up before asked if they were to
consider extending the buffer beyond what it is now, since both sides benefit from a buffer, would the
people at Stagecoach Run be willing to contribute an equal amount on their side of the line for the
buffer. Mr. Shatz indicated they had not had that discussion but that they have residential lots that are
more limited. He said even as a neighborhood they cannot commit to what the individual people who
own those lots on the other side of the line do. He also stated that most of the homes are built towards
the back ends of the lots and he didn’t know that they would have the capacity to do that even if they
were willing to entertain it.
Mr. Shatz told the Boards when they drew up the list; they passed it around the neighborhood and got
comments. He said they are in no way locked into these numbers and they remain entirely open to
trying to negotiate more specific agreements with the developer. He said they would be happy to see
what they would propose if they were going to propose something specific.
Commissioner Gering asked, since this was presented as a neighborhood request, how many of the
neighbors had formally or informally agreed with the proposal and if everyone had seen it. Mr. Shatz
replied they have a neighborhood email list and the list has been floated around that way for
comments. He also indicated the homeowners had not formally voted on the terms but he felt it was a
consensus that everyone in the neighborhood is happy with. Commissioner Gering asked how recently
the list had been created and Mr. Shatz replied within the last two weeks in anticipation of this hearing.
Commissioner Gering told Mr. Shatz with all the requests that come before these Boards; they
appreciate having some advance information so they can prepare themselves. Mr. Shatz replied that he
understood that and he apologized. He indicated he had had some unexpected things to happen to
prevent him from getting it done sooner. He also said that they had also been a bit surprised at the
developer’s position that they were not going to reach any agreement.
Mayor Stevens said at the last meeting, he had a sense the developer was going to honor the previous
agreement and asked if anything different was discussed. Mr. Shatz said they fully expected to and
have indicated they have every intention of honoring the prior agreement. He said his understanding
from the last meeting was they were asked to meet and see if they could come up with a new
agreement that would make everyone happy with regard to the redesignation of parcel 17 as it seemed
to be a somewhat drastic change to the prior designation.
MS Faherty asked how many different property owners are members of the homeowners association.
Mr. Shatz replied there were 26 owners for 29 lots.
Dave Denison with Waterstone came forward and introduced himself. He stated that at the July
meeting they had discussed and acknowledged, as did the homeowners, there is a development
agreement that was done between the previous owner and the property owners. Mr. Denison said that
agreement goes with the property and when he was there in July, he had not reviewed it for several
years and was unprepared to speak on it. He said he has since studied it in detail several times and that
their intention is to meet all the terms of the agreement.
Mr. Denison said the development agreement provided for some restrictive covenants to be filed on the
Waterstone tract. He said those are written out and have been filed or they fully intend to file them if
they have not been already. Mr. Denison said the agreement on the Stagecoach Run part involved
October 20, 2011
Joint Public Hearing
Approved: __________________
Page 6 of 14
them releasing deed restrictions on some lots that are now part of Waterstone which were a part of
Stagecoach Run. He said it covers them agreeing to certain things with regard to a couple of roads and
involves buffers they are required to have between their property and Stagecoach Run. Mr. Denison
said those buffers range from 100 to 180 feet according to his notes and that was for trash dumpsters,
utilities, and so on. He also indicated there was one place where it was 200 feet on the north of
Waterstone parcel 17.
Mr. Denison also told the Boards the agreement involved landscaping requirements they agreed to
within those buffers. He said it involved a limitation in the north 150 feet of parcel 17 and they agreed
to limit that to one story single family homes. Mr. Denison also said they agreed to pay the
homeowners association $30,000 for possible well damage due to construction and that has been paid.
He said they agreed to pay up to $5,000 as the homeowner’s association’s attorney’s fees and that has
been paid. Mr. Denison said they also agreed to pay up to $7,000 into a buffer maintenance fund and
although he doesn’t know if that has been paid or not, it is part of the agreement and they will pay it.
He also told the Boards they had agreed to donate a lot out of one of the lots they bought to Stagecoach
Run, and while he’s not sure which lot, they had already donated it to the homeowner’s association
with the restriction it be used for a park for Stagecoach Run.
Mr. Denison told the Boards that both sides agreed to the abandonment of Fletcher Road and agreed it
would not extend into or connect between Waterstone and Stagecoach Run. He said they agreed to
screen the Kitrell property and that will be done although it will not be done until the property is
developed. He said they agreed to screen parcel 17 and to file certain restrictive covenants. Mr.
Denison explained those restrictive covenants cover the buffers, setbacks, and other activities from
Stagecoach Run, and it places the single family residence use restriction on the north 150 feet of parcel
17 so that it is a deed restriction on parcel 17. Mr. Denison also said the restrictions cover exterior
building colors and also has a provision that they would not extend utilities to a nearby property. Mr.
Denison stated the restrictions also restrict roads, utilities, parking lots, and dumpsters within 200 feet
of the north boundary of parcel 17.
Mr. Denison went on to say all of these things are covered in the agreement and they fully intend to
meet all of those requirements as it is a binding agreement. H e said so far they have done everything
they are supposed to do and will continue to do everything required of them in the agreement.
Mr. Denison stated the Durham Tech issue is a new issue to them. He said, however, that although
they do not have a plan for it tonight, they do not have a problem with making a roadway public
connection between parcel 17 and Durham Tech a requirement and it being designed and provided for
when they develop parcel 17. He said in looking at the map tonight, he already has an idea on how
they might do it. He said they already have a requirement that they run a road up the east side of
parcel 17 off of Waterstone Drive and it would be easy if it goes up (indicating on map) and stops and
since it obviously has to go somewhere into parcel 17, when that is designed, they could easily design
the road to curve and follow the boundary between parcel 17 and the retail center. He said it could
dead end or connect with Durham Tech. Mr. Barker asked if the concern about connectivity was with
parcel 17 or 15 to which Ms. Gluck replied it was with 15.
Mr. Denison said they would want to get back to Waterstone to have another access. Mr. Barker said
he was under the impression it was the big arc on the northwest side of parcel 15 that was not going to
October 20, 2011
Joint Public Hearing
Approved: __________________
Page 7 of 14
be constructed. Mr. Denison stated that from a planning standpoint, it appears to him the best thing to
do is bring that road around and Durham Tech can take it where they want to from there. He said it did
not have to be a public road. Mr. Denison said their concern was being able to get back down to
Waterstone Drive. He told them Waterstone was willing to commit to provide an access through there
with the exact design to be determined when either of these properties goes through the SUP process.
Mayor Stevens said he hears part of the concern as not only connectivity but a connectivity that would
be adequate for public transportation. Ms. Gluck confirmed this was correct. Mr. Denison said that
would have to be a public street. He said what they do with it once it goes on their property is their
business.
Mr. Warren said one of the reasons the road was put there was that they were discussing putting the
transportation buses and everything through there. He said this would circle them around and let them
come back out. Mr. Warren said at that time they didn’t know the hospital would be there but
whatever business was across the street they would be able to get to it. He stated that may be what
Durham Tech is talking about because one of the things Ms. Gluck mentioned was being able to handle
the transportation buses and other transportation through there.
Mr. Barker said that in general a bus should not go onto private land and that taking it to a dead end or
private land doesn’t let it turn around easily thus the arc shape. Mr. Denison said he didn’t make the
sale to Durham Tech so he can’t speak to what was said at that time but he is at a loss. He said he is
not totally sure what Durham Tech wants but Waterstone is willing to work with them to provide an
access.
Mr. Warren said they might want to get in touch with the County and transportation and see what type
of connectivity they would need there in order for the buses to run. He said he knew there was a lot of
discussion on it at the beginning because they knew eventually they would have bus routes through
there and they wanted to make sure they had all the roads covered.
Mr. Denison asked what was meant by “shared” parking. He asked if they meant Waterstone would
build parking and let Durham Tech park on it. He said if was truly shared parking, they might talk
about it, but they were not going to agree to build parking for adjacent property owners. He said he did
not feel that was their responsibility and it was not fair for them to be asked to do that. Mr. Denison
stated if they were talking about overflow parking for them or for Durham Tech, as long as they’re not
having to provide more parking than the zoning normally would require for that purpose, Waterstone
would not have a problem with that. However, he said they would not want to have a retail center and
then no parking because students were parking on it all day.
MS Eckert stated in reading the agreement, there is one restriction in section D which says new
buildings, etc… shall be no more than one story villas so they can be constructed within 120 feet of the
northern boundary of parcel 17. She asked with the uses being proposed if those no longer include
single family villas. Mr. Denison said he pointed out that restriction earlier and that it is also in the
deed restrictions on parcel 17. He said with the zoning, they’ve requested it allow single family back
in. Mr. Denison explained if zoning doesn’t allow them to build single family and the property is deed
restricted, then in fact they cannot build in the 120 feet. He said he believes they have a 100 feet
buffer required anyway. Ms. Eckert replied that there is a120 feet natural buffer and no buildings
October 20, 2011
Joint Public Hearing
Approved: __________________
Page 8 of 14
except for single family ones are to be built and she wanted to clarify that. Mr. Denison said if they go
forward with the request as it is there wouldn’t be anything built within that area.
Mr. Barker asked if they would be willing to continue the proposal but still keep Town Center Drive as
it was drawn. Mr. Denison replied that was one of the things they were trying to do and possibly some
of the Town Council would speak to this. He indicated this was to replace some of the potential retail
uses they lost because the hospital bought all of the retail property. Mr. Denison said they were trying
to create one tract over there large enough to have a shopping center which would be a major grocer
anchored shopping center. He said when you put that loop through, you cut it down to a much smaller
tract and then a band of something across the road. He said he did not think they could accomplish
what they and the Town were trying to accomplish with that.
Jim Ciao told the Boards when the master plan was done, the lines were drawn and that road was
created without having done wetlands, stream or topographical studies. He said the way the road was
originally designed it would have gone through a wetland or across a stream so it wasn’t practical. He
stated they tried to reconfigure it in relation to the hospital and that right now it would be reshaped
based on what they agreed to with the hospital. Mr. Ciao explained the reason they did it that way was
to create a four way intersection where Town Center Road would come down and intersect with the
main access to the property (indicating on map). Mr. Ciao stated this was all discussed before they got
into the discussion about use changes and eliminating the road but at that point they had already
shortened it, bent it, and had to reconfigure it because there was no way they were going to get a
permit to put it through a wetland or across the street.
Mr. Denison said he would like to respond to some of the proposals made by the homeowners. He said
they’ve already got 100 to 180 feet buffers between their property and Stagecoach Run and those are
buffers that they have to leave natural for the most part. He said they paid a lot of money for that
property and they agreed and accepted those buffers when they bought it. Mr. Denison explained to
increase those buffers to 250 feet with the additional 100 feet setback making it 350 feet, it would get
to the point that they Boards are letting people take their property. He said Waterstone may own it but
they would be denied use of it. Mr. Denison said he understood buffers and the need for them and he
knows they agreed to them in Waterstone, but he doesn’t know anyone around them that is required to
buffer their use from Waterstone. He stated for people to make an assumption that whatever
Waterstone does is not going to be as good or look as good as what’s on the adjacent property is not a
valid assumption to make. He said another thing in this particular case is the property east of
Waterstone does not have any zoning restrictions on it. Mr. Denison said that property owner is
protected by the Town Board’s authority to zone the property in the Town so there is someone they can
come and talk to in order to protect their property. However, Mr. Denison said if one or more of these
adjoining land owners get together and decide they want to sell their property to someone that is going
to develop whatever, there is no protection for Waterstone and they are paying taxes to the Town as
well.
Mr. Warren responded to Mr. Denison and stated that a lot could happen between now and that ever
being proposed. He said anyone doing that would have to come before them and they would have to
make some restrictions. Ms. Eckert said it would not be in their jurisdiction. Mr. Denison said they
have no zoning protection and while they are in the city and are paying taxes, they have no zoning
protection to the east.
October 20, 2011
Joint Public Hearing
Approved: __________________
Page 9 of 14
Mr. Denison stated that all that being said, he feels the restrictions and the development agreement on
Waterstone is what they are willing to do and they intend to do it. He said they did not mind the
agreement part of the zoning if necessary, they intend to abide by those. He said they will work with
Durham Tech and the hospital as they want them both to succeed. He said at this point they just want
their requests to go forward as submitted and they do not propose any changes.
MS Eckert asked Mr. Denison what they were trying to put on parcel 17. She said she did not have a
good understanding of what they are trying to attract and feels that knowing that might go a long way
towards concerns people have. Mr. Denison said they are looking at the uses that would be allowed in
the business park or the multi-family and that is what they would be trying to market to a developer.
He said at this point, however, they don’t have a prospect for any of parcel 17 so he cannot be more
definitive than that. Mr. Denison explained they’re trying to put a zoning there that would accomplish
two things and that would be something they could market. He said they found there is not a market
for the return on housing, not in Hillsborough, so they want something they can sell and that will
attract a developer.
Mr. Denison said he believes the Town’s goal was to try to replace some of the tax base that was lost
in the hospital land because they’re an exempt entity. He said some of the higher zonings produce
more taxes and that is retail and business parks and possibly some multi-families and that’s what they
are trying to accomplish. Mr. Barker asked Ms. Hauth on both parcels 15 and 17, if those would come
back as SUPs and Ms. Hauth said yes.
Commissioner Gering made a motion to close the public hearing on this item. Commissioner Dancy
seconded the motion. Upon a unanimous vote, the motion was passed and the public hearing was
closed on this item.
ITEM #4: Annexation request from Edmund and Anne Purcell for 12.24 acres on East
Corbin Street known as Corbin Creek Woods subdivision. No change in zoning or
development plan is requested. (OC PINs 9874-19-8448; 9874-29-3306; 9874-29-
3559; and 9874-29-4511).
With regard to this request, Ms. Hauth pointed out on the map in the packets that north was to the top
and where Highway 70 was marked. She also indicated the site was marked in yellow. She told the
Boards the red to the east is Corbinton Commons and the blue to the west was town cemetery and town
hall.
Ms. Hauth told the Boards they may remember when this subdivision came in for approval originally
one of the conditions was that they seek annexation before filing the final plat. She explained before a
subdivision can file their final plat they have to either construct the infrastructure and offer it for
dedication or bond 125% of the cost of the infrastructure. She said the applicant has not done either of
these yet but they are at the meeting seeking annexation as requested.
Mr. Warren asked if anyone would like to come forward and speak on this matter and no one did.
October 20, 2011
Joint Public Hearing
Approved: __________________
Page 10 of 14
Commissioner Lowen moved to close the public hearing on this item. Commissioner Hallman
seconded the motion. Upon a unanimous vote, the motion was passed and the public hearing was
closed on this item.
ITEM #5: Rezoning request from Orange County ABC Board to rezone .46 acres on Valley
Forge Road from Limited Office to High Intensity Commercial. This parcel is to
be acquired with the adjacent 1.5 acre parcel to the west to relocate the ABC
warehouse and administration facility (part of OC PIN 9874-42-5122).
Ms. Hauth told the Boards this parcel was adjacent to the former Employment Security Commission
building on Valley Forge Road (indicating on map). She showed the building that was drawn out as
well as the existing parking lot. Ms. Hauth said the parcel in question was marked with an arrow and
with “area to be rezoned” about 55 feet wide.
Ms. Hauth said the ABC Board is interested in acquiring both properties and developing it for the
purpose of an admin building and a warehouse. She said the parcel in question would be added to the
larger one and is just a small cut off of the piece of property that wraps around Leland Little’s
property. She said a lot of people were present for the applicant and that their counsel was present as
well. MS Faherty commented the property dips way down in the back towards the auction place. Ms.
Hauth stated when you are actually looking on Valley Forge Road; this parcel is extraordinarily level
with the building next door. Elizabeth Woodman asked if this property would be state owned to which
Ms. Hauth replied it would be state or county but she did not believe they were required to pay taxes.
Kim Steffan, counsel for the applicant, came forward. She said the Orange Count y ABC Board is an
independent governmental agency but they are not part of the county. Ms. Woodman asked if they
were non- taxable and Ms. Steffan replied that was her understanding.
Ms. Steffan told the Boards the ABC Board has outgrown its present space on Highway 70 and the 1.5
acre tract where the former EOC building was is not big enough. She said there is a request to include
.46 of an acre which would enable them to put the warehouse behind the building. Ms. Steffan said
she felt one of the main questions might be what it would look like from Highway 86 and Valley Forge
Road so she provided photographs to show this. The photographs were passed around to the Boards.
Mr. Warren asked if this would be owned by the Orange County ABC Board and Ms. Steffan said yes.
Ms. Steffan indicated that the top photograph was from standing at the intersection of Highway 86 and
Valley Forge Road. She pointed out the only part of this whole project you can see from that
intersection is the rooftop of the EOC building and that is only because it has two small silver
skylights. She said if it weren’t for that, with the dark roof, it would be really hard to see. Ms. Steffan
also pointed out you can see the treetops and said those trees were on the side towards 86 and would
stay there. She said she does not believe anyone will be able to see the warehouse building that would
go behind it because of the topography.
Ms. Steffan explained the front part of the lot they are cutting off of, if looking on the map, is being cut
off of the parcel that appears to the right. She said the rest of the parcel to the right, which comes all
the way to the intersection of 86 and Valley Forge Road, is such a high elevation that the view is
blocked. She does not think it will pose a problem from the standpoint of an entranceway plan issue.
October 20, 2011
Joint Public Hearing
Approved: __________________
Page 11 of 14
Ms. Steffan told the Boards the second and third photographs were views from a little higher up 86
closer to Interstate 85. She said you cannot see the subject property at all nor can you see the EOC
building rooftop. She said hopefully this is an easy zoning request in part because the use that is
requested for this property is very consistent with the uses that are already on Valley Forge Road. She
said there is a lumber distribution facility, a cabinet shop, a carpet supplier with a warehouse part to it,
a concrete plant, so the uses that are there are very consistent with warehouse distribution and
administrative offices the ABC Board would like to use the property for.
Mr. Barker asked if adding this land gives them enough space to construct not on the half acre but on
the existing parcel. Ms. Steffan said the warehouse facility would need to go partway onto the .46
acres so they do need that to be able to physically fit the warehouse space in along with being able to
drive beside it. Mr. Warren asked if the existing building is staying there and Ms. Steffan said yes.
She said it would be the administrative offices. Mr. Warren asked if they would still have parking on
the right side and in the back and she said they would on the right as the warehouse would be going in
the back.
Commissioner Hallman asked if there was a retention pond there and Ms. Hauth said yes. She said
there is one currently and she believes since it is on the property owned by the developer it is shared.
Mark O’Neal said it is an associated owned common area storm water pond. Commissioner Hallman
asked if this was part of the discussion when Leland Little was expanding and discussed putting his
business there. Mr. O’Neal replied they drained that whole which was originally a 7 acre parcel. He
said he was not part of that discussion but when the grading was originally done, Mr. Little was trying
to pull all that water around to the pond area.
Ms. Hauth reminded the Boards that at this point this was a rezoning request and they will see a site
plan when it comes in. She said she would caution the Boards about getting too attached to the
specific use because it is general purpose zoning which are all the uses listed in the packets.
Ms. Steffan told the Boards the one acre tract is already HIC but they need to have the zoning
consistent and have the small parcel match that to be able to merge the tracts and this is their first step.
She said she did want to note the property directly behind the subject property, which appears at the
bottom of the screen (as indicated) and is owned by the Sparrow group, is also HIC.
Commissioner Gering asked Ms. Hauth if this was one of the parcels on Valley Forge that is not within
the town limits. Ms. Hauth replied it is within the town limits.
Keith Cook from the ABC Board came forward and said the building they are in right now will be
returning to tax role.
Commissioner Hallman moved to close the public hearing on this matter. Ms. Faherty seconded the
motion. Upon a unanimous vote, the motion was passed and the public hearing was closed on this
matter.
ITEM #6: Text Amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance:
a. Section 9 to define “public events” that are allowed temporary signs
October 20, 2011
Joint Public Hearing
Approved: __________________
Page 12 of 14
Ms. Hauth said they adopted the UDO as diligently as they could and then found out some things they
didn’t quite wrap up. She said one of those things is to define public events they allowed temporary
signage for and banner space for. She stated some of this had been written in advance but the Planning
Board worked really hard trying to craft a good definition of a public event . She thinks this is where
they landed to require that the events happen within the jurisdiction of the ordinance, that they be
sponsored by non-profits or organizations, and that they not just be a commercial enterprise. She said
they could certainly be fundraisers, which was the intent for most of them, but not a commercial
enterprise to benefit a particular business.
Ms. Hauth told the Boards that what brought this to light was whether or not registration periods for
sports leagues would qualify and that is why they’re specifically called out as being included. She said
when they looked back at the usage for the banner space, they found out one of their heavy users of the
banner space at the Welcome to Hillsborough sign was HYAA registration periods and Orange County
recreation registration periods.
Ms. Hauth said she had given some examples of what qualifies and put on the list what does not
qualify so people could understand how they got to this point. Ms. Hauth said to try to make the sign
provisions for temporary signs and for banners to be more consistent, and now they are going to define
public events, they need to reference back to this in the ordinance so folks can look for those
definitions. She said they needed to talk about events that may last for a long period of time like
registration periods but they still want to limit the amount of time the signs could be put up. Ms. Hauth
said some of it is just getting the language consistent throughout to make sure they say things the same
way from place to place and to specify that a permit will actually be issued for these signs.
Ms. Hauth stated she had spoken with two or three groups about these signs and how this works,
they’ve issued a handful of the signs, and have talked to a number of folks who don’t qualify to have
these signs, and overall it has gone better than she expected. She said the people outside their
jurisdiction are disappointed. Ms. Hauth told the Boards this is just a matter of getting it nailed down a
little bit tighter, get it to where they wanted it to be, and hopefully continue the education process into
the future.
Ms. Eckert asked with the changes made if the Farmer’s Market would be compliant with putting their
temporary signs up because she sees them as events that do not qualify. Ms. Hauth said they do not
qualify under the part that occurs more frequently. She said it would be more likely they could put
their sign up on the specific day and they probably need to tweak it a little more to make sure it is
clear.
Ms. Eckert said she wondered if it was sponsored by a Hillsborough non-profit like the Jazz Festival,
which was part of the Hillsborough Arts Council, even though it wasn’t held in town, would it not be
fair to allow them because they are a town non-profit. Ms. Hauth said that was up to these Boards to
determine.
Ms. Faherty said as an aside, the streets look so much better. Ms. Hauth said they’ve probably only
had to do two pickups since all the letters went out. Ms. Faherty said she actually notices the signs
now and reads them and they are more effective. Ms. Hauth replied they were still working on the
folks at Churton Grove but they will get there.
October 20, 2011
Joint Public Hearing
Approved: __________________
Page 13 of 14
Ms. Faherty said they had discussed the notion of an event for the day like the Farmer’s Market and a
sign going up just for that day to say, “this way, one block” or whatever it needs to say for non-profits
so that was something she feels would make a difference for people like the Farmer’s Market and the
one day events. Ms. Hauth said they could take that up at the Planning Board and still add something
like that. She said they’re allowed to continue to tweak at the Planning Board.
Commissioner Hallman asked what happened if people did not remove their signs and Ms. Hauth
replied they picked them up. He asked if they become litter and Ms. Hauth said they can’t have them
become litter. Her understanding with the litter ordinance is you have to see it put out. T.C. Morphis
said he could get that information before the Planning Board and Ms. Hauth said they could address it
then and possibly in a future amendment.
b. Section 9, 6.13, and Table 5.1.6 to define the use “self storage”, permit the use in the Light
and General Industrial districts, and establish a parking requirement.
Ms. Hauth stated that in the zoning ordinance, they had a use called “indoor storage” and it was not
defined so Staff had felt comfortable applying it both to some of the warehouse operations but also to
self-storage. She said in the UDO, their consultant gave them a good definition of storage and
warehousing indoors which you could no longer stretch to include self-storage. She said now self-
storage is very interesting in the town of Hillsborough and they’re getting lots of phone calls so she felt
they might need a definition that speaks exactly to what a self-storage is. She said this would generate
allowing it in particular districts and establishing a parking standard for it. Ms. Hauth also said what
they have in their packets and the proposal was to only allow self-storage in the light industrial and
general industrial and then it would either be permitted or conditional because the buildings are going
to be over 10,000 square feet. She said they would need to set up a parking standard that is fairly
limited unless they have folks who get into two story or multi-story storage facilities with conditions to
storage that require a little more parking.
Ms. Eckert asked if it would be possible to carry over the restriction on the hazardous materials into
self-storage as well. Ms. Hauth said yes. Ms. Eckert said she was thinking someone might try to get
around the restriction and say they’d just rent a storage unit and put it there as it wouldn’t be illegal.
c. Section 6.5 and 6.16 to add cross reference between buffers and screening.
Ms. Hauth said this item is very simple and Town Attorney Bob Hornik would have probably told her
it did not require a public hearing. However, since buffers and screening are so closely related to one
another and they tried in this ordinance to break them very forcefully apart, she felt a cross reference
between the two sections would be helpful. This way, if folks read the buffer section and are relieved
they do not need a buffer but instead need a screen, they could not say they did not know this because
the cross-reference would send them back and forth between the two. She said it is not adding a
requirement, just adding a catch for a loophole.
d. Section 9.1.5 to establish a minimum setback from street rights of way.
Ms. Hauth said if folks looked at their permitted setback table, there are some districts where when
they’re adjacent to another zoning district, there is very limited or no setback . She said zoning goes to
the center of the street which folks may or may not have known. She stated with this, when you have a
high intensity commercial lot adjacent to another one that might be across the street, you could
October 20, 2011
Joint Public Hearing
Approved: __________________
Page 14 of 14
theoretically build right to the property line, i.e. the edge of the right of way. She said in central
commercial, she believes that is fine and that is what they want but there are other places where they
might not know how much right of way they need right now. Because of this, she said they might end
up building buildings where they need to acquire a right of way later or some other reason why they
might want to see at least a little bit of a setback for the building and not have it built right on the edge
of a road right of way. Ms. Hauth said she is suggesting they not allow the reductions or eliminations
of setbacks when adjacent to a road right of way.
Ms. Faherty moved to close the public hearing on Items 6.a. through 6.d. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Brewer. Upon a unanimous vote, the motion was passed and the public hearing was closed on
these items.
ITEM #7: Adjourn.
Mr. Barker moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Woodman. Upon a
unanimous vote, the motion was passed and the meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Hauth
Secretary