The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About7.26.1993 Joint Public Hearing0nwn of Rtffsboroup4 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 101 E. Orange Street P.O. Box 429 (919) 732-2104 AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD AND PLANNING BOARD Tuesday, July 27, 7:00 pm, Town Barg3 ITEM #1: Comments from the Chair. ITEM #2: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments:(attachments) a) To add state -mandated watershed regulations for the Upper Eno watershed. This includes creating and designating overlay districts. b) To clarify .Section 4.3.A: Required findings ,of fact for conditional uses c) To include location of buildings in the Historic District Commission's review ITEM #3: Preliminary hearing on proposed changes to permitted uses in commercial districts. ITEM #4: Adjournment. Substantive changes in the proposed amendments may be made by the Town Board following Public Hearing. It is essential to have a quorum present at this meeting. Please call the Clerk or Planning Department if you cannot attend. 732-2104 MINUTES JOINT PUBLIC HEARING July 27, 1993 :.4f PRESENT:Allen Lloyd, Evelyn Lloyd, Bob Rose, Remus Smith, Bill Crowther (Chair), Wayne Tilley (Vice -Chair), Kendall Abernathy, Wendy Olson, Stuart Munson, Quanda Turner, Louise Long, Pat Shannon (Alternate), Dr. Robert Murphy (Alternate). ABSENT: Horace Johnson (Mayor), Carol Lorenz, Leif Deetjen, Sam Jones, Ken McLeroy. OTHERS: Evelyn Bateman, Dorothy Holloway, Lisa Jacobs, Jennifer Hall -Tilley, Jack Payne, Ray Gronberg, WCHL reporter, Eric Swanson, Margaret Hauth. Rose called the public hearing to order at 7:10 pm. He noted that this is the public's turn to have input into planning issues. He passed the gavel to Crowther, chairman of the Planning Board. Crowther said that since so few people were present, the meeting would be rather informal. ITEM #2: Hauth briefly described the proposed watershed protection regulations mandated by the state. She said there would be two districts and cover the area west of West Hill Avenue and south of US 70 West. She added that a minimum ordinance must be adopted by municipalities of less that 5000 by October 1, 1993. She said the ordinance was based on Orange County's proposed ordinance, for uniformity in within the watershed. She noted that property owners in the watershed received the full text and a map of the area. In short, she said those in the Critical area are affected the most, with a 50% reduction in residential density, i.e. one dwelling unit for every 2 acres. She said those in the protected watershed would see little impact as the residential density was left unchanged, i.e. one dwelling per acre. Hauth said a large portion of the ordinance deals with detention facilities, which will be required if non- residential uses are proposed. She noted that the affected area is currently zoned agricultural residential. Olson asked why the critical- area doesn't follow the shape of the river. Hauth said the critical area is a one halfNuffer from the pool elevation. The boundary is based on a non- existent reservoir along this portion of the Eno River. She asked why it goes right to the river at the dam. Hauth said only the area above the dam is a designated watershed and this ordinance only affects the area behind the dam. The state has not classified the town as a protected watershed. Smith asked if this was related to the town's request for strict regulation of the upper Eno valley, near the proposed reservoir. Hauth noted that this is the same watershed, but that the town's jurisdiction ends at the planning jurisdiction and does not extend to the reservoir area. Hauth said this is the same basic text the county will adopt and if we have comments they need to be submitted to the county before their January 1 deadline for adoption. Smith asked what rights the Orange Alamance water system would have to set separate standards. Hauth said they will fall under the county's jurisdiction. Rose noted that all of this is state mandated and the town has no choice but to adopt an ordinance meeting minimum requirements. Smith noted that the town could choose to make the ordinance more restrictive. ., Joint Public Hearing July 27, 1993 Page 2 Holloway asked why the districts do not extend into the Dimmocks Mill Road and Rex Drive area. Hauth noted that the designated watershed ends at the Ben Johnston dam and that the state has not designated a protected watershed along the river as it flows through town. Smith noted that we are only mandated to protect upstream from the dam, not downstream. ITEM #2b:Hauth introduced an amendment recommend by the town attorney regarding the findings of facts the Board of Adjustment makes when reviewing Conditional Use Permits. One of the standards currently used is that the use will not materially endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. Hauth said that judges have found that the term "general welfare" is too broad a term to be reviewed by an appointed board and that it is unconstitutional for the town board to delegate that determination, of what is in the "general welfare" to an appointed board. She said the attorney recommends removing the reference. ITEM #2c:Hauth introduced a text amendment to specifically allow the Historic District Commission the authority to look the location of a building on the lot in the review of an application for Certificate of Appropriateness. Due to recent events and an interpretation by the Board of Adjustment that the HDC does not have that authority, Hauth said she and the HDC asked the town board if an amendment to specifically grant the authority should be drafted. The town board was in favor of and amendment. The two amendments cover both additions and new construction. Hauth said she had consulted with the State Office of Historic Preservation for an opinion. She said they felt the current ordinance did grant that authority, but that the amendments do make it more clear. Crowther asked the origin of the amendment. She said the Commission and herself had drafted it and brought it to the planning board to send to hearing. E. Lloyd said she felt it is a good idea and its too bad it had -not been done earlier. Crowther said the planning board would make recommendations regarding these items at their meeting on Tuesday and the town board would make the final decision on August 9. ITEM #3: Hauth described the process proposed to make significant changes to the commercial zoning districts. She said the planning board had been working a long time on this item and tonight would be the first of two hearings on the uses and requirements for the new districts. She said that the new districts, if approved would not be applied to properties until after the first of the year. Hauth said CC would remain mostly the same, NB would be replaced with GC1 and GC would become GC2. Shannon asked where greenhouses would fall, noting the difference between Multiflora and a small business. She said GC2 and AR, but noted that home occupations are allowed anywhere. Payne said he may be out of order, but asked what had happened to the request from the town board to the planning board to study whether single wide mobile homes be allowed in residential areas. Crowther said he was out of order, but if he would talk to Hauth after the meeting, she could update him. Joint Public Hearing July 27, 1993 Page 3 Crowther said this was a major revamping on the commercial categories and that the item would be discussed again in October, with performance standards. He passed the gavel back to Rose to adjourn the meeting. Rose noted that written comments could be submitted and considered as part of -the record anytime before the planning board meeting on Tuesday. Rose closed the public hearing and adjourned the meeting at 7:25 pm. Respectfully submitted, Marg4t A. Hauth, Secretary