HomeMy Public PortalAbout1.3.1991 Agenda & Minutes Planning Boarddawn of Rillshuruug4
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA
101 E. Orange Street
P.O. Box 429
(919) 732-2104
1. Exempt plat addition - see Jerry Stone case's attachment;
2. Extension of one year time period for the submittal of
a Final Plat on major subdivisions. (attachments)
3' S-1 n% P -F• !&,,.k - ope w v o ad
ITEM #6: Report from the Downtown Parking Committee regarding
problems and solutions to our parking'situtation.
ITEM #7: Consideration and possible vote to bring a Zoning Ordinance
Text Amendment to Public Hearing on January 22, 1991
regarding the parking requirements for offices.
ITEM #8: Rezoning Request to rezone approx 16.4acres of land
on the north side of Hwy 70 from R-40 to MF by Dr.
Joseph Gatewood. (attachments in Nov, agenda)
ITEM #9: Discussion of the France property and its possible
recreational/conservation use.
ITEM #10: Update on the VISION 2010 work.
ITEM #11: Update on the Durham water line.
ITEM #12: Discussion of possible meeting with Orange County Planning
Board to discuss our Thoroughfare Plans.
W 13
IMPORTANT If you are noC available by phone, please call
Janet or Joff at 732-2104. We need a quorum
for this meeting due to the Public Hearing
items.
AGENDA
PLANNING BOARD
Thursday, January 3, 1991
6:30 PM
Town Barn
ITEM #1:
Approval of the minutes of the October 23, 1990 Public
Hearing and the November 1, 1990 meeting (see Dec. agenda)
and December 6, 1990 meeting (attached),.
ITEM #2:
Consideration of additions to the agenda.
ITEM #3:
Comments from the Chair.
ITEM #4:
Request by the Town Board for a review of the Jerry Stone -
exempt -plat -approval -denied situation. (attachments)
ITEM #5:
Consideration and possible vote to bring a Subdivision
Regulation Text Amendment to Public Hearing on January 22,
1991 regarding:
1. Exempt plat addition - see Jerry Stone case's attachment;
2. Extension of one year time period for the submittal of
a Final Plat on major subdivisions. (attachments)
3' S-1 n% P -F• !&,,.k - ope w v o ad
ITEM #6: Report from the Downtown Parking Committee regarding
problems and solutions to our parking'situtation.
ITEM #7: Consideration and possible vote to bring a Zoning Ordinance
Text Amendment to Public Hearing on January 22, 1991
regarding the parking requirements for offices.
ITEM #8: Rezoning Request to rezone approx 16.4acres of land
on the north side of Hwy 70 from R-40 to MF by Dr.
Joseph Gatewood. (attachments in Nov, agenda)
ITEM #9: Discussion of the France property and its possible
recreational/conservation use.
ITEM #10: Update on the VISION 2010 work.
ITEM #11: Update on the Durham water line.
ITEM #12: Discussion of possible meeting with Orange County Planning
Board to discuss our Thoroughfare Plans.
W 13
IMPORTANT If you are noC available by phone, please call
Janet or Joff at 732-2104. We need a quorum
for this meeting due to the Public Hearing
items.
MICHAEL B. BROUGH & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law
Memorandum
TO: Hillsborough Plannint Board
FROM: Robert E. Hagemann
DATE: November 28, 1990
SUBJECT: Jerry B. Stone Property - Proposed Subdivision Text
Amendment.
As your recall, on April 5 and May 3, 1990, the Hillsborough
Planning Board considered ,an appeal by Jerry B. Stone of the
planning director's denial of his request for approval as an exempt
subdivision of a previously unrecorded plat. The issue before the
board at that time was whether certain recorded deeds that
described the property both by metes and bounds description and by
reference to lots depicted on the unrecorded subdivision plat
constituted a "subdivision" of the property into the "metes and
bounds" lots or the "unrecorded plat" lots. The planning director
concluded that only those lots described by metes and bounds in the
deed were created by the transaction, a decision supported by this
law firm and upheld by the planning board. On November 12, 1990,
Mr. Stone addressed the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners
regarding this situation. At the conclusion of Mr. Stone's
presentation, the board of commissioners referred the matter back
to the planning board for consideration and recommendations.
While the matter has been referred back to the planning board,
it is not for reconsideration of the previous affirmation of the
planning director's decision. Rather, it is our understanding that
the board of commissioners has requested the planning board to
consider whether it might be appropriate to recommend a subdivision
ordinance text amendment that would specifically recognize and
allow the exemption requested by Mr. Stone. The attached ordinance
would, if adopted, establish Mr. Stone's situation, and all other
like it, as being exempt from the subdivision regulations thereby
permitting Mr. Stone to record a plat depicting the lots shown on
the previously unrecorded plat referenced in deeds recorded prior
to March 13, 1978.
cc: Board of Commissioners
Jerry B. Stone
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO
EXEMPT CERTAIN PLAT RECORDATIONS FROM THE
TOWN'S SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
0
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ORDAINS:
Section 1. The Hillsborough Subdivision Regulations are hereby
amended by adding a new subsection (6) to the definition of the
word "Subdivision" found in Section 2 to read as follows:
(6) The recordation of a plat depicting lots previously shown
on an unrecorded plat, which lots and unrecorded plat are
specifically referenced in a deed recorded prior to March 13, 1978.
The intent of this sub -part is to exempt property conveyed prior
to March 13, 1978 in reference to an unrecorded subdivision plat.
Section 2. All ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are
hereby repealed.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective upon
adoption.
0
o w._N�� N �� r„s�o,to � N cSv 8a v �s •o �,._�°�6_v�.R �rioNs
3.D. Preliminary Plan
3.D.1 At least twenty (20) copies (separately-folded) of a
ed subdivision shall be submitted to the
Preliminary Plan of a propos
Planning Department for action by the Planning Board within eighty-
five (85) days of receipt of said copies. Failure of the Planning
Board to act in the eighty-five (85) days shall be deemed approval
of the said plan, unless the subdivider should waive this requirement
and consent to an extension of-the said period of A
Preliminary Plan with Planning Board recommendations shall be sub-
mitted to the Town Cormaission r their Board action meeting` at which (48) days of the of the Planning
the Planning Department's report is submitted to the
Planning Board. Failure of the Board to act
within forty-eight (48) days shall be deemed approval, unless the
subdivider should waive this requirement and consent to an extension
! of said period of time. One (1) copy of the Preliminary Plan,
accompanied by a notification of the action of the Planning Board
and the Town Commissioners shall be returned to the subdivider.
Approval shall be valid for one (1) year.
FRoI'f: MtCNl1 E. B gov6H 5 (JN 1F.,E D J)Ever 6p*ger r
(a) If a development is constructed in phases or stages in accordance with
this section, then, subject to Subsection (c), the provisions of Section 47
(No Occupancy, Use, or Sale of Lots Until Requirements Fulfilled) and
Section 61 (exceptions to Section 47) shall apply to each phase as if it were
the entire development.
(b) As a prerequisite to taking advantage of the provisions of Subsection
(a), the developer shall submit plans that clearly show the various phases or
stages of the proposed development and the requirements of this chapter
that will be satisfied with respect to each phase or stage.
(c) If a development that is to be built in phases or stages includes
improvements that are designed to relate to, benefit, or be used by the entire
development (such as a swimming pool or tennis courts in a residential
development) then, as part of his application for development approval, the
developer shall submit a proposed schedule for completion of such
improvements. The schedule shall relate completion of such improvements
to completion of one or more phases or stages of the entire development.
Once a schedule has been approved and made part of the permit by the
permit -issuing authority, no land may be used, no buildings may be
occupied, and no subdivision lots may be sold except in accordance with
the schedule approved as part of the permit, provided that:
(1) If the improvement is one required by this chapter then the
developer may utilize the provisions of Subsections 61(a)
61(c),
(2) If the improvement is an amenity not required by this chapter or is
provided in response to a condition imposed by the board, then
the developer may utilize the provisions of Subsection 61(b).
Section 62:
Completing Developments in
Phases
w
Z
C4
U
H
W
H
�i.
0
Z
H
S
a;
Section 63:
Expiration of Permits
4-1 O H M +W 3 U) U) 0
a
4rA'd.�-d00
P
C4
M
P!
0
a
,WO0Pcv'd
rd
•� �
W
a)
.N -H
ao
N
10>0M
u, •H 60;8r,
NM
CO
CuCeU
N
.d •r1
O
a)
.!
•ri 0'a
a) •rl r__q P
W
4-1
P.
Pa
>, U) P4 N O
CO
Ca
r= W
' 1:
P
r.."
P. P+ r -i
r-1.
O 4
0
040
m
ca ;J cc N
a
�4-W
CO
rq
4 U
4-1 O H M +W 3 U) U) 0
a
4rA'd.�-d00
C4
M
P!
•r1
a
,WO0Pcv'd
3
u, •H 60;8r,
CO
0
(aXcc•r1 ceW0WPa
a) •rl r__q P
W
4-1
P.
Pa
>, U) P4 N O
CO
CO
x4
' 1:
b
U)
O 0 a P +J
a)
•ri
m
.� H CD 0 CO
4J
0
H
CPC
Id
�U]
-Wro-H(-5 P.,
'�
0-0 • • .N 0
>N
Q)
W
�4
P •r1 rO .N P bo
r-♦
rO
P
CO
0 �4 :J CO a)
r--1
•r1
q
44 N U) ..P P+ t~
cd
�'d
-r+
ri CO �4 U) P4 d
0
4-1
-i
r•i CO a) G
ca
m
N
CO s4V.'d0)cv4J00)P
O •ri 0 .s~
co
O
1~
P+
wr��
u:a)
J
MEn
r. -q
'0r. v�0)
b
(Do
a)CO
r__4 a) P U a) bo
O
4J
Irl
r-{ , , P., �4 'H
m
k
.0
O CXR
ca u •ri r-1
a)
4J CO
,Z a) CO •rl 04 •r1
b
P
U) X 'd
a)
a)
O
a) ra
O
r1 N rl� a1
C"
-H
G2
ry a) a) b
.r,
U)
U)
0"
O b P >-W
U
v
4
•r1
�4 P a1 •ri r0
U
-W
r -i '_.,
P+ CO +W -W
+J
U
G
Pi r-1
P40 W 0•ri
0
0
0
040
<4 PCI rdmG3r.In0cah
(a) Zoning, special -use, conditional -use, and sign permits shall expire
automatically if, within one year after the issuance of such permits: '
(1) The use authorized by such permits has not commenced, in
circumstances where no substantial construction, erection,
alteration, excavation, demolition, or similar work is necessary
before commencement of such use, or
(2) Less than 10 percent of the total cost of all construction, erection,
alteration, excavation, demolition, or similar work on any
development authorized by such permits has been completed on
the site. With respect to phased development (see Section 62),
this requirement shall apply only to the first phase.
(b) If, after some physical alteration to land or structures begins to take
place, such work is discontinued for a period of one year, then the permit
authorizing such work shall immediately expire. However, expiration of the
permit shall not affect the provisions of Section 64. —------ -
(c) The permit -issuing authority may extend for a period up to six months
the date when a permit would otherwise expire pursuant to Subsections (a)
or (b) if it concludes that (i) the permit has not yet expired, (ii) the permit
recipient has proceeded with due diligence and in good faith, and (iii)
conditions have not changed so substantially as to warrant a new
application. Successive extensions may be granted for periods up to six
months upon the same findings. All such extensions may be granted
without resort to the formal processes and fees required for a new permit.
(d) For purposes of this section, the permit within the jurisdiction of the
council or the board of adjustment is issued when such board votes to
approve the application and issue the permit. A - permit within the
jurisdiction of the zoning administrator is issued when the earlier of the
following takes place:
(1) A copy of the fully executed permit is delivered to; the permit
recipient, and delivery is accomplished when the permit is hand -
delivered or mailed to the permit applicant; or j
(2) The zoning administrator notifies the permit applicant that the
application has been approved and that all that remains before a
fully executed permit can be delivered is for the applicant to take
certain specified actions, such as having the permit executed by
the property owner so it can be recorded if required under
[statutory citation].
(e) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of Article VIII (Nonconforming
Situations), this section shall be applicable to permits issued prior to the
date this section becomes effective.
Commentary: The principal reason for having provisions such as those in the foregoing
section is to enable the local government to evaluate a proposed
development in the light of current conditions and ordinance
requirements. A development may be appropriate and meet ordinance
requirements one year, but be inappropriate five years later when
conditions or the ordinance have changed. If the development has been
constructed, nothing can be done. But if it has never been built, the local
government should have the opportunity, ensured by this section, to
reconsider its original approval. A secondary purpose of this provision is
to discourage the submission of purely speculative proposals or proposals
submitted solely to avoid the effects of possible subsequent ordinance
amendments.
ITEM #6: Rigsbee reviewed the recent Town Board decisions on items
recommended by the Planning Board. She said Davis Road had been
removed from the Thoroughfare Plan. The rezoning of the William
France property, allowing eaves in the setback, and the new
planting details were all approved by the Town Board.
ITEM #7: Rigsbee reviewed for the Board's information the Meadowlands Minor
Subdivision of 4 lots and 2 new roads. Crowther asked if a
discussion of Item #5 would help this item and Rigsbee said
possibly. She said the consideration was that the one year time
period was too short for many subdivision applicants to complete
or begin their projects. She noted Town Attorney, Mike Brough,
had told her two years would be more appropriate.
ITEM #8: Rigsbee began the courtesy review of the proposed Orange County
MINUTES
PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 6, 1990
MEMBERS
Bill Crowther (Chair), Sam Jones (Vice-Chair), Wayne Tilley,
PRESENT:
Richard Simpson, Ken Chavious
MEMBERS
Cheshire Cole, Ida Louise Evans, Margaret Moore, Stephen Jones,
ABSENT:
Leif Deetjen, Wendy Olson (alt.), Jim Culbreth (alt.)
OTHERS
Jerry Stone, Wesley Hyatt, Bob Hagemann, Ken Redfoot, Glenn
PRESENT:
Corley, Joseph Gatewood, Norma White, Janet Rigsbee, Joff Coe
Crowther called the meeting to order at 6:45 PM. He announced
no quorum was present and information items would-be presented
first, noting that if a quorum was later available, those items
requiring a vote would be heard.
ITEM #1:
Crowther continued this item until later in the meeting.
ITEM #2:
There were no additions to the agenda.
ITEM #3:o
Crowther said he had comments on three issues. First, he said he
was a little upset the Town Board did not take full action on the
Board's recommendations for the Thoroughfare Plan. He said they
took Davis Road off the Plan but did not review the entire Plan as
requested. He said it was upsetting when the Planning Board threw
up a red flag and the Town Board did not look at the request.
Second, Crowther said the Vision 2010 Comprehensive Plan Committee
was moving ahead and requested an update be given at the next
meeting.
Third, Crowther said the Parks and Recreation Task Force should be
reactivated, especially in light of the possible public
acquisition of the William France property off Elizabeth Brady
Road.
ITEM #4:
Crowther continued this item until later in the meeting.
ITEM #5:
Crowther continued this item until later in the meeting.
ITEM #6: Rigsbee reviewed the recent Town Board decisions on items
recommended by the Planning Board. She said Davis Road had been
removed from the Thoroughfare Plan. The rezoning of the William
France property, allowing eaves in the setback, and the new
planting details were all approved by the Town Board.
ITEM #7: Rigsbee reviewed for the Board's information the Meadowlands Minor
Subdivision of 4 lots and 2 new roads. Crowther asked if a
discussion of Item #5 would help this item and Rigsbee said
possibly. She said the consideration was that the one year time
period was too short for many subdivision applicants to complete
or begin their projects. She noted Town Attorney, Mike Brough,
had told her two years would be more appropriate.
ITEM #8: Rigsbee began the courtesy review of the proposed Orange County
PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 6, 1990
PAGE 2
Government Services Building at the corner of Margaret Lane afid
Cameron Street by reporting on the Historic District Commission
meeting of December 5, 1990. She said the Commission had reviewed
the plans for the building with respect to its appearance. She
noted the Planning Board would want to consider whether or not the
building meets the town's requirements, especially for parking.
Rigsbee pointed out the Ordinance requires 187 spaces and only 83
had been provided, leaving a deficit of 104 spaces.
Redfoot and Corley, architects for the project, made a
presentation showing the two-story, 28,000 square foot building
with two roof options, including elevations and floor plans.
Redfoot said due to the slope of the lot they were able to have
ground level entrances from both sides. He showed the.
preliminary landscape concept and the pedestrian walkways. He
pointed out the existing parking lot had been restriped and 104
parking spaces were now provided, including the on -street spaces.
Redfoot said the building had been sited to preserve the maple
trees along Cameron Street and to avoid the floodplain along
the creek. He said the building would be red brick with a
standing seam metal roof and would have a skylight over the lobby.
Redfoot said the color of the roof had not been decided yet and
emphasized his firm had only completed about 15% of its work at
this stage.
Chavious said with Orange County Personnel and Land Records
Departments moving, more traffic would be generated. He said
the Sheriff's Department lot might be getting 14 extra spaces but
they would probably need more parking in the future also.
Redfoot said the plans were the result of many meetings and the
Downtown Parking Committee study had been considered. He said
they felt they could phase in parking as it was required by first
improving the existing gravel lot, and then by building a parking
deck later. He said they would like to see the project finished
by the spring of 1992.
Crowther said the Board would like to have a report from the
Downtown Parking Committee. Rigsbee noted the proposed parking
deck was also short of spaces and said a text amendment might be
necessary to allow for phasing. Corley said they were very
limited on the site by the floodway and the desire to preserve the
maple trees in front, leaving little flexibility for the siting
of a 28,000 square foot building.
Crowther asked Redfoot and Corley if they would like to propose
possible solutions at the next meeting or would they rather have
the Planning Board have a work session to look for alternatives.
Redfoot said they would like to have the Board's input but could
also make a proposal for the next meeting. He said he felt by
working together something more beneficial would develop for
Hillsborough. Corley said they would like to be able to let the
building out for bids in the spring.
PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 6, 1990
PAGE 3
Crowther noted the matter would have to decided at the January
meeting in order be on the January Public Hearing agenda. Crowther
recognized Hagemann and asked the members if they thought an
attorney was needed to discuss the parking issue and there was a
concensus they did not. Crowther noted Hagemann was at the
meeting �o discuss the Jerry Stone situation (Item #4) but that a
quorum was not present.
By concensus, Items #1, #4 and #5 were tabled until the next
meeting. Having no further business, Hagemann leaves the meeting.
Simpson said if parking was required, it should be installed and
suggested the parking deck should be built first. He said
everybody was breaking the rules if they were bigshots while the
little guy was getting strapped with all the regulations.
Chavious agreed, saying there was a constant double standard being
applied and the situation was ludicrous. Crowther said the issue
was like the cart before the horse.
Tilley questioned whether or not the building was even needed, and
if so why did it have to be crammed into a space where it didn't
fit. He said considering the Board's lack of knowledge about the
project, what does the general public know.
Rigsbee said the building appearedto be the largest building in
Downtown Hillsborough. Simpson said in spite of the drawing he
thought part of the building was in the floodway because he had
seen the creek at very high levels in the past. Tilley agreed
saying the power company had to cut power to the area in the past
because of heavy rains shorting out the transformers. Chavious
said the flood plain was a big concern and the Board shouldn't
allow public money to be spent on the project if it was going to
flood.
There being no further discussion, Crowther adjourned the meeting
at 7:34 -PM.
Joff Coe, Secretary
•
MINUTES
PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 3, 1991
MEMBERS Bill Crowther (Chair), Sam Jones (Vice -Chair), Stephen Jones, Ida
PRESENT: Louise Evans, Margaret Moore, Kenneth Chavious, Wayne Tilley,
Wendy Olson (alt.)
MEMBERS Richard Simpson, Chesire Cole, Jim Culbreth (alternate)
ABSENT:
OTHERS Jerry Stone, Wesley Hyatt, Blake Dickinson, Sim Efland, Betsy
PRESENT: Tilley, Janet Rigsbee, Joff Coe
Crowther called the meeting to order at 6:35 PM.
ITEM #1: Olson moved to approve the minutes of the October 23, 1990 Public
Hearing and the November 1, 1990 and December 6, 1990 meetings.
Tilley seconded the motion.
VOTE: Unanimous.
ITEM #2: Rigsbee asked to add Item #13, Distribution of the Annual Planning
Activity Report, to the agenda and the members agreed.
Sim Efland said he owned property in West Hillsborough and said he
had heard about the possiblity of a road going through his
property. He said he would like to know where it was going and if
it would allow him access to his property. Crowther said the
subject could be put on the agenda for future discussion about
transportation issues but could be added to the agenda as Item #
5-C for information purposes and the members agreed.
ITEM #3: Crowther had no comments.
ITEM #4: Rigsbee summarized the Jerry Stone situation noting it had been
discussed at the November Town Board meeting and had been sent
back to the Planning Board for further review. She said Michael
Brough, the Town Attorney, had submitted a text amendment to the
Subdivision Regulations (agenda) which would allow Stone's
subdivision plat to be recorded. She read the proposed
amendment and noted it would be difficult to find out how many
other lots in Town were in the same situation.
Olson asked if the term recorded was defined and Rigsbee said yes.
Olson asked what if lots subject to this amendment did not conform
to the Subdivision Regulations and Rigsbee said non -conforming
lots with contiguous frontage and the same owner are considered
one lot for zoning purposes. Olson said she had spoken with
Orange County Register of Deeds Betty June Hayes. Hayes had she
was generally in favor of the change and offered to speak to the
Board if necessary. Olson asked if the non -conforming lots would
be grandfathered and Rigsbee said no, but it was possible to build
on an existing non -conforming lot.
Stone said at the Town Board meeting he had pointed out case law
confirmed that a deed that refers to a plat incorporates that plat
and that a plat description overrides a metes and bounds
PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 3, 1991
PAGE 2
description. He said he understood the Town Board had sent the
matter back to the Planning Board to approve ministerial approval
of his application. Stone said the law was clear to him and cited
several examples of case law that supported his argument. He said
there were two cases supporting the argument that when a deed
refers to a plat, the plat doesn't have to have been recorded and
because of this he said he felt the application should have been
approved ministerially in the first place.
Olson said she wanted to know why the Town Attorney disagreed with
Stone's opinion and Crowther and Chavious agreed. Stone said at
the meeting Brough gave no reason for his disagreement and only
said he agreed with the Planning Director's decision and submitted
the proposed text amendment. Stone said he felt Brough understood
the issues as he had spoken with him on several occasions and
pointed out that Richard Ducker had said the law in North Carolina
was not well-developed on this issue. He said in no case would a
local ordinance override state law.
Chavious said he wanted more information on the case law and Olson
agreed, saying she wanted to read NCGS 32.9 cited by Stone.
Stone said he had additional information and would leave the
meeting briefly to get it for the members.
Rigsbee said both Brough and Ducker agreed with the Planning
Director's decision and knew about the case law Stone had
mentioned when they wrote their opinions. Chavious asked if this
process could be done for property belonging to someone else and
Rigsbee said it could with this text amendment. Chavious said he
did not want to vote on the item unless Mrs. Rook was present or
had spoken to the Board.
Crowther said the Board still had the option to send the ordinance
change to Public Hearing. Jones agreed with this option and
suggested further review of Stone's information and to send the
ordinance change to Public Hearing in the interim.
Olson moved to sent the ordinance change to Public Hearing.
Tilley seconded the motion.
VOTE: Unanimous.
ITEM #5-2 Rigsbee said she had noticed the Hampton Point subdivision
approval had expired. She said she had talked to Michael Brough
and he had suggested two years would be more appropriate for a
single application or more for a phased project. Rigsbee reviewed
the proposed text amendment and asked if the Board was interested
in sponsoring the change.
Crowther clarified the fact that this was for major subdivisions
only and because of the wording "and", all three criteria would
have to be met before an extension was allowed.
Tilley moved to send the item to Public Hearing.
PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 3, 1991
PAGE 3
Moore seconded the motion.
Olson said she would like to run the wording by the Town Attorney
but Rigsbee pointed out the deadline for advertising the Public
Hearing. Rigsbee said the wording for the advertisement could be
in a general fashion allowing Brough to review the text amendment.
VOTE: Unanimous.
ITEM #5-3 Sim Efland showed his property on the map and said he was
interested in any road that was to be built that would allow him
access to the property. Crowther suggested he talk with the
Planning Director and get on the agenda for the next meeting when
transportation issues could be discussed.
ITEM #5-1 Crowther re -opened this item as Stone had returned. Stone
distributed additional material to the members and Crowther told
him the Board had voted unanimously to send the proposed text
amendment to public hearing. Stone said he had been in
administrative law since 1954 and he said his opinion had been
supported by case law since 1911. He added although some states
may view the case law differently, he felt the law in North
Carolina clearly supported his case.
ITEM #6: Rigsbee reviewed the Downtown Parking Committee's report that was
presented at a meeting in the Colonial Inn. She said they had
split the downtown area into 4 sections for analytical purposes
and had concluded there was indeed a parking problem downtown.
She said the Committee had come with 9 goals to help solve the
problem, how to implement them, and who should be responsible for
accomplishing these goals. She said the Committee would be
working with many agencies and a more complete review would be
available after the final report was delivered next week.
Crowther asked Rigsbee to have the Committee consider parking for
the new Orange County office building. He reviewed the situation
and noted the County could just keep paving green space until they
met the requirements.
Olson noted additional green space could be paved over because
parking was allowed in 50 percent of the buffer. She said this
was not the intent of the ordinance and said now people were using
up all of the 50 percent allowance for parking.
Crowther said he felt the Board should send a message to the Town
Board that the Planning Board was willing to grant a delay on the
requirements in order to save the green space. Olson agreed
pointing out there was no ordinance to protect the river from
runoff.
Rigsbee said she didn't think there were any provisions for
granting a delay and this could be done only through a ordinance
amendment. Tilley said he felt the issue is providing the right
number of parking spaces and if you were not going to allow
V
PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 3, 1991
PAGE 4
private citizens delays, then you should not allow them for the
county either.
Olson said she had a problem with the parking ordinance and would
like to see it stiffer concerning buffers and runoff. Rigsbee
noted currently the first 1/2" of runoff had to be detained in the
stream buffer areas. Olson said although this might be done, the
runoff still goes into the storm water sewer and then to the Eno.
Crowther said he was hearing a concensus that the ordinance be
kept intact and the members agreed. Olson said a business
associate was working on the problem and it was possible to
utilize greenspace elsewhere on the lot. She added orange County
also was trying to preserve the greenspace and was trying to get
together a coalition of communities that would like to have Tom
Perry, a natural systems consultant, to give dimensioning figures
for required plantings.
ITEM #8: The rezoning request by Dr. Joseph Gatewood to rezone
approximately 16.4 acres on the north side of Hwy 70 from R-40 to
Multi -Family was presented by Rigsbee. She said the Board had
seen this application before but she wanted an additional review
before the Public Hearing on January 22, 1991. She reviewed the
sketch plan but noted it was not required for a rezoning. Tilley
asked if another plan could eventually be submitted and Rigsbee
said yes it could.
ITem #9: Rigsbee reviewed the status of the France property, noting it was
possibly for sale and there was a possibility it could be
converted to park or conservation usage. Olson said funds might
be available from the Eno River State Park and Crowther said it
was possible and the Mayor was involved with the project.
Olson moved to recommend the Town Board actively seek funding to
buy the France property for Town or public domain use.
Chavious seconded the motion.
VOTE: Unanimous.
ITEM #10: Rigsbee reviewed the progress of the Vision 2010 Committee and
read the Mission Statement from the draft (agenda). She said
the Committee was currently working on goals and objectives and
noted the completed draft would go to Public Hearing, adding now
would be a good time to give the Committee input before the draft
went public. Crowther asked if it would replace the 1977 Plan and
Rigsbee said it would, becoming a new guide to future development.
ITEM #11: Rigsbee said she had spoken with the Town Manager and the Mayor
concerning the Board's request for an update on the Durham
Pipeline. She said the engineer's work had been completed but it
is stalled for the location of a pump station, state approval and
bond approval. She said an updated estimate of cost was needed
before a bond referendum could be held. She said as of now there
was no provision for tapping on as the pipeline is to be used for
emergency purposes, but it was possible taps might be allowed in
PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 3, 1991
PAGE 5
in the future as growth occurRed. She said the Town would be
buying treated water and Durham would sell it to us when available
and only for emergency situations, adding the Mayor wanted to let
contracts in March.
Tilley said if the Town went ahead with the pipeline it could stop
the reservoir project and Rigsbee said not necessarily, but it
would require a larger bond referendum. She added the the water
fund was constantly accumulating but could be used for either
project.
ITEM #12: Rigsbee reviewed possible dates for a joint meeting with the
Orange County Planning Board to discuss the Hillsborough
Thoroughfare Plan. Crowther said they would also be looking at
the Transportation Improvement Plan and Rigsbee said she would
check with Gene Bell, Orange County Planner, to see if a quorum
was needed for the meeting.
Crowther said he did not want to hold the meeting without Town
Board authorization. Rigsbee said she would put the item on the
Town Board agenda and would try to schedule the meeting for the
end of February.
ITEM #13: Rigsbee reviewed and distributed the 1990 Planning Activities
Report, noting copies were available for all members.
There being no further discussion, Crowther adjourned the meeting
at 8:05 PM.
Joff Coe, Secretary-