HomeMy Public PortalAbout6.5.2006 Joint Public Hearing01994 Town of Hillsborough
AGENDA
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD and PLANNING BOARD
Monday, June 5, 2006
7:00 PM, Hillsborough Town Barn
ITEM #1: Call public hearing to order.
ITEM #2: Annexation/Zoning/Master Plan request for Old 86 Commons to annex 11.26
acres on the west side of Old NC 86 and request Entranceway Special Use
Zoning. A Master Plan has been submitted for the site proposing 3 office
buildings of 24,000 sf; 17,000 sf; and 4,000 sf (TMBL 4.49.A.2, 2e). Special Use
Permits will be required before any building is constructed.
ITEM #3: Zoning Ordinance Text amendment to create "outlet sales" as a defined and
permitted use within the General Industrial and Light Industrial districts.
ITEM #4: Zoning Ordinance Text amendment to amend the definition of "junk car" to
coincide with the Town Code definition.
ITEM 45: Zoning Ordinance Text amendment to Section 3.8, special exception permits
for building heights.
ITEM 46: Close public hearing, adjourn Planning Board, convene Town Board meeting
ITEM #7: Provide direction to staff regarding July meeting schedule
ITEM 48: Budget Workshop
Please call the Clerk or Planning Department if you cannot attend
732-1270 ext. 71 or 73
Both lines are connected to voice mail
101 East Orange Street • P.O. Box 429 • Hillsborough, North Carolina 2 72 78
919-732-1270 • Fax 919-644-2390
MINUTES
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, June 5, 2006
7:00 PM, Hillsborough Town Barn
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mayor Tom Stevens, Commissioners Frances Dancy,
Evelyn Lloyd, Mike Gering, L. Eric Hallman, and Brian Lowen. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
PRESENT: Chair Matthew Farrelly, Jim Boericke, Edna Ellis, Neil Jones, Paul Newton, Eric Oliver,
Dave Remington, Toby Vandemark, and Barrie Wallace.
STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Eric Peterson, Assistant Town Manager/Public Works Director
Demetric Potts, Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Engineer/Utilities Director Kenny Keel, and
Police Chief Clarence Birkhead.
ITEM #1: Call public hearing to order.
Mayor Stevens convened the meeting and passed the gavel to Planning Board Chair Matthew Farrelly
to conduct the public hearing.
ITEM #2: Annexation/Zoning/Master Plan request for Old 86 Commons to annex 11.26 acres
on the west side of Old NC 86 and request Entranceway Special Use Zoning. Planning Director
Margaret Hauth was sworn in and stated that because this was a quasi-judicial process, all speakers
must be sworn in. She provided a brief summary of item and the materials submitted by the applicant.
She noted the applicant was present and prepared with a presentation. Mr. Farrelly asked if there were
questions from Board members.
Responding to a statement from Commissioner Ellis, Ms. Hauth noted that large-scale plans were
signed and prepared by an engineer. Commissioner Ellis asked if this was the only review plan that
the Board would receive. Ms. Hauth said yes, because if the Board were to approve the rezoning and
Master Plan, it did not entitle the applicant to do anything, other than to install the infrastructure. She
said the applicant would still need to come back and obtain a Special Use Permit for any of the
individual buildings before they could actually receive any building permits. Ms. Hauth said at that
point we would see detailed construction drawings.
Mr. Farrelly began calling on speakers, beginning with the applicant. He reminded each speaker to
swear in by raising their right hand and reading the statement provided at the podium, and to print and
write their name on the list provided.
Sheila Pierce, the Applicant, was sworn in. She said they had requested the annexation of the 11.62
acres and the rezoning to a Special Use district. She said they had submitted a Master Plan, and there
was not Special Use Permit associated with this request. Ms. Pierce said they had an identified user,
DeWitt Health Care Services, whose due diligence protocol required that zoning be in place before
they start funding the process.
Ms. Pierce said they had tried to provide as much information as possible in the materials submitted.
She said this property have 1,300 feet of road frontage, much of which overlooked Cates Creek. Ms.
Pierce said she planned, if approval was granted, to produce a professional office -based high quality
development, which she said would be sensitive to the environmental features of the property. She
Joint Planning Hearing, 06-05-06 1 of 20
said this project promised to bring new and high-quality jobs to the community, increase the
commercial tax base, and without demanding the Town's resources.
Tony Whitaker, Civil Consultants, Inc., was sworn in. He said the site was 1,300 feet long by a few
hundred feet deep on a very important corridor entering Hillsborough, a fact of which they were well
aware. He explained some of the features of the site, including old home sites and the location of the
higher points and lower areas by Cates Creek. Mr. Whitaker said the creek was environmentally
sensitive and important, and their plans sought to preserve that stream buffer, preserve the floodway,
and make limited intrusion into the flood fringe area as allowed to facilitate construction of the
buildings and parking. He displayed a drawing of the site and pointed out particular features,
explaining layout, lines of sight, and service areas for dumpsters and HVAC units.
Mr. Whitaker noted that the planned users of this property were traditionally low-water users, which
was important for the Town. He said the floor area ratio was quite low at about 10%, and the total
impervious area was also quite low at about 35%. Mr. Whitaker noted they had submitted a traffic
study even thought it was not required at this point, so that any issues regarding traffic could be
addressed early on. He noted that NC Department of Transportation had already approved the site for
the driveways, noting they were considered to be a safe condition for people entering or exiting the
site. Mr. Whitaker added they were providing a sidewalk along Old Highway 86, and a stormwater
impact analysis that the Town's consulting engineers had given their seal of approval.
Ms. Ellis said questioned the combination of the properties. She said she had researched that issue and
found that the previous owner had requested that the property be sold as three individual lots and not
be recombined. She asked Mr. Whitaker to explain the recombination of these lots. Mr. Whitaker said
they had not accomplished a recombination as shown on the plat, noting they were proposing to take
two existing lots and to appropriately recombine to ultimately create three lots, consistent with the
Town's subdivision ordinance and State law. He said he was not sure of the history Ms. Ellis had
mentioned, but during the survey that was conducted nothing had been identified that would preclude
them from their plans.
Ms. Ellis said regarding the right-of-way, the plans were showing a variable right-of-way on Old
Highway 86 of 50 feet, but the sidewalks was not indicated. She said if there was a sidewalk to be
indicated, she believed it would be within the State's right-of-way, since 50 feet was needed measured
from the centerline of the roadway. Ms. Ellis stated that Waterstone required an additional 50 feet of
right-of-way for a total of 100 feet. She said she had found a 1997 chart from NCDOT that stated they
had an existing 100 -foot of right-of-way.
Ms. Ellis said taking that into account it would appear that the sidewalk would be in the roadway. She
said a sidewalk should be at least five feet wide, so she had a problem with the design. She said she
was also concerned because the street between the buildings had not been indicated on the plat, and
asked was it an alley, one-way, two lanes, or something else. Mr. Whitaker responded he believed he
had indicated that street on the plat.
Ms. Ellis stated her other concern was that the existing neighborhood not be disturbed anymore than
necessary, and asked if the buildings could be moved to the back of the property to less any impact on
the neighbors. She stated that regarding the parking, that if a problem developed with people prowling
that lot at night, it would be impossible for the Police to patrol it. She said the parking lot needed to be
closer to the street to allow the Police to see it.
Joint Planning Hearing, 06-05-06 2 of 20
Mr. Whitaker said it was conventional practice to place a sidewalk in the NCDOT right-of-way, as far
away from the edge of the pavement as practical. He said that was what they had done, and was
showing it as being predominately against the edge of the 50 -foot right-of-way from the centerline of
Old NC 86. Mr. Whitaker said there was one point over the creek where the shoulder was narrow, and
if they were to put the sidewalk at the edge of the right-of-way it would be in the creek. So, he said, in
keeping with minimizing stream impacts, it was prudent in that one location to pull the sidewalk closer
to the roadway and then curve back.
Ms. Ellis said she did not believe the NCDOT would approve having that portion of the sidewalk that
close to the road, and it should not be near the ditch because she believed people would use it as a
walking/biking trail. She said she believed there was a trail planned to follow Cate's Creek. Ms.
Hauth said the planned trail would be located within the buffer and not in the public right-of-way
Mr. Whitaker stated they would keep an open mind when discussing these issues, noting the next step
in the process would be to come before the Planning Board for consultation and review of things that
might need to be adjusted, and then responding. He said then they would do the same before the Board
of Commissioners.
Mr. Whitaker noted that the plans indicated a common driveway, which would be a private, common
two-lane roadway, expanding to three lanes at the roadway to allow for one incoming and two
outgoing lanes. He said it would be protected by restrictive covenants regarding its use and
maintenance.
Ms. Ellis said that Mr. Chuck Edwards had provided recommendations, but they had not been provided
for this meeting. She said Mr. Edwards had indicated that when Old 86 was widened that it would
have a median, and there would be a right-in/right-out entranceway similar to that at Oakdale Village.
Mr. Whitaker said they were aware of that, noting it was an existing condition that they would work
with. He said when the roadway was eventually widened, there would not be median break at this
location that would force that entrance to be a right-in/right-out only, adding the applicant was well
aware of that and accepted it.
Ms. Ellis said the chart of expected employees indicated 70 for Lot 1, Lot 2 had 60, and Lot 3 would
have 20. She said if you did not know who would be occupying these buildings, how did you estimate
the number of employees. Ms. Ellis said the peak traffic entering Lot 1 where you have 70 employees
indicated a peak of 53. Again, she said, with Lot 2 you show 50 employees but a peak of 40, and for
Lot 3 you show 20 employees but a beak of 15. She asked what the rationale was for that. Mr.
Whitaker said the number of employees and the number of peak hour traffic trips estimated was
educated guesses. He said this was a Master Plan, and was not intended to be a specific plan with
specific buildings or users. Mr. Whitaker said this was about getting the property annexed, and getting
it ready for development within the Town. He said rezoning came with annexation by law, and by
ordinance a Master Plan was required for the rezoning in this particular rezoning district. Mr.
Whitaker said that was why they were present tonight, not to talk about specific uses because they did
not yet know what they would be.
Mr. Whitaker said they did have one user waiting for the applicant to get past the Master Plan stage so
that they could commit their funds to the Special Use Permit process. He said we were not yet at that
Joint Planning Hearing, 06-05-06 3 of 20
point, so tonight they were talking about development parameters for this site to give the Town enough
comfort to annex and rezone the property and to approve this Master Plan.
Ms. Ellis said on the Master Plan, it was stated the property would be a combination use. She asked
what that meant. Mr. Whitaker responded an example would be a medical office that had offices set
up for different doctor groups that were complimentary to each other. For instance, he said, one might
be a general practitioner, one might be for X rays, or one might be an optometrist who also sold
eyeglasses which was a retail use but would be an accessory retail use. He said that accessory retail
use was called a combination use. Ms. Ellis said they had also listed an accessory use, and asked was
that part of the combination use. Mr. Whitaker said the term combination use came from the Town's
ordinance, and he was not aware of the background of that term.
Mr. Oliver said three buildings were planned on Lots 1 and 2 with the possibility that the buildings
would split. He asked under what circumstances they envisioned that those buildings might split and
to where they would split. For example, he said, would they be 20 feet apart, would they move
backwards or forwards, or how would the Master Plan change if they decided to split them.
Mr. Whitaker responded that the most likely scenario was for the two building masses to continue to be
building masses, and then each one of them might split into two smaller buildings within the same
footprint zone. He said they would be no closer to the street and not any further back. Mr. Whitaker
said there was flexibility written into the language, because they wanted to place parameters and
boundaries around what could be done so that there was a clear understanding, but not burden the
Town with them coming back for each small change.
Mr. Whitaker said he envisioned the same building mass and in the same footprint area, which may be
split into two buildings closely spaced on one lot.
Commissioner Gering said the information provided indicated that certain criteria and components
may not meet the presumptive requirements of the use. Mr. Whitaker said the entranceway special use
district had certain requirements, and if those requirements were met it was presumed that you met the
intent of that district. He said the Town Board had the authority to waive certain of those requirements
if in their judgment it was justified.
Mr. Whitaker said one way that this planned development did not meet the presumptive requirement
was that smaller building at the south end of the site did not meet the 50 foot setback, noting it was
shown at 40 feet in an effort to pull that building as much as possible off the most sensitive area in the
rear of the property to provide additional buffer. He said they believed that was a reasonable thing for
the Town Board to approve that varied from the presumptive requirements but was a good thing to do
nonetheless.
Mr. Whitaker said the other difference to the presumptive requirements was the requirement for a 20 -
acre minimum lot size. He said this project was 11.2 acres, similar to what the Town had approved
further north in the same district on a lot less than 20 acres. Mr. Whitaker said they believed it was
appropriate for the Town to consider this lot in the same light.
Commissioner Gering said regarding the allowable uses, did they intend that any subset of those
potential uses, including a drive-through bank, would be on this property. Mr. Whitaker said he did
not see this as a primary site for a bank, although it could be. He said it had not been programmed as
Joint Planning Hearing, 06-05-06 4 of 20
such, and none of the building masses were intended to portray a bank. He said a bank was not the
most likely use. Commissioner Gering asked why bank was on the list if it was not a likely use. Mr.
Whitaker responded to keep the flexibility that it might happen.
Mr. Oliver said the building heights of all three buildings had been identified as 40 feet. He asked how
many stories that would be. Mr. Whitaker responded that the buildings were intended to be primarily
single -story, but up to 25% of the floor area for each building could be on a second level. He said the
possibility of approach the 40 -foot height was low, and would most likely be around 32 feet for a
second story.
Commissioner Gering asked if Mr. Whitaker had read the County's review. Mr. Whitaker noted he
had. Commissioner Gering said one of their recommendations concerned lighting, noting the County
had suggested that lighting could be ultra -traditional open four to six -sided lights. Mr. Whitaker said
he was not exactly sure what was meant by that, noting he believed it was describing a lantem-type
light on a post that cast light out. He said they had proposed standard shoebox lighting with the proper
controls to cut off baffles that would not permit light to travel back, and managing the height and flow.
He said they also would have a flat lens so that you would not see the light protruding down.
Commissioner Gering said the Cornwallis Hills residents had expressed concern about the HVAC. He
asked how those would be shielded. Mr. Whitaker replied that the HVAC units would be placed on the
ground, which would have either shrubbery or some other barrier to shield it.
Commissioner Gering asked if Mr. Whitaker knew any of the Cornwallis Hills property owners. Mr.
Whitaker said he had meet with them on December 15 of last year, and had met with the Homeowners
Association at one of its regular meeting and at a second meeting on January 28 of this year at one of
the neighbor's home. He said it was important to them to consult with the neighbors, noting he had
roots in that neighborhood and it was important to him to understand their concerns and respond to
them. He said it was their intent to be good neighbors.
Responding to a comment by Barrie Wallace, Mr. Whitaker said the County had made a comment
regarding the sediment pond location, which they were inferring because they had not yet shown a
sediment pond location on the plans. He said the County inferred it would be down or against the
creek and when it rained, and you would really want to be doing good erosion control at that time, the
creek would be flooding and the sediment pond would not be working. He said that was not the
situation that would be proposed, noting the pond would not be placed in such a low-lying area. He
said those details would be worked out prior to the construction phase.
Ms. Wallace asked which lot the County was referring to. Mr. Whitaker responded Lot 2. Ms.
Wallace asked where they might propose to put the sediment pond. Mr. Whitaker responded it was
proposed to be in the general location of the stormwater management pond, but that was a construction
detail that would be decided much later on,
Ms. Wallace stated that the County did not allow building in the floodplain. Mr. Whitaker said the
National Flood Insurance Program, administered by FEMA, had certain guidelines regarding what
could or could not be done in floodplains. He said what had been established was that a floodplain
where water would most likely flow to in a 100 -year storm or a 50 year -storm, that some the fringe
areas of that flooding area could be encouraged upon safely and reasonably without much impact on
the flooding levels of the creek.
Joint Planning Hearing, 06-05-06 5 of 20
He said the National Flood Insurance Program had established something called a floodway, which
was a subset of the floodplain, which was a strip of land that you must not encroach upon except in
extraordinary conditions, but you could encroach in the fringe area with minimal impact on flooding.
He said that was a nation-wide standard, and that was what they were proposing for this site. Mr.
Whitaker said some jurisdictions adopt more strict standards, which Orange County had done, but the
Town had not. He said it was an entirely safe and common practice to do this if the guidelines were
followed, and they would be here.
Commissioner Hallman said the Town was interested in adopting the Neuse River buffer rules, and
asked if Mr. Whitaker was familiar with those rules and how would they impact this development. Mr.
Whitaker responded he was aware of those rules, and there were two phases to them. He said one was
the stream buffers that had been in place in Hillsborough for some time, and those stream buffers
would be. honored. Commissioner Hallman said the Upper Neuse River rules, if adopted, would
extend those stream buffers to 100 feet, although Ms. Hauth was indicating that was not the case.
Mr. Whitaker stated that the second phase of the rules had to do with nutrient loading, trying to protect
the quality of the water. He said that was not currently in effect for the Town, but may be in the future.
He said if they were build a stormwater management pond that meet Town regulations and Neuse
regulations at this time, they would not have to do water quality controls, meaning a wet pond. Mr.
Whitaker said if they were to do it two years from now, they would most likely have to have a wet
pond. He said at the time the Special Use Permit was applied for, the prevailing rules at that time
would be applied.
Commissioner Hallman said the Board may ask that they meet the future standards. Mr. Whitaker said
that was understood.
Commissioner Lloyd asked what problems they believed they might cause to the people living nearby,
such as refuse trucks coming during nighttime hours, HVAC noise, light pollution, or any other change
to their environment. She said for instance, Mr. Whitaker had said earlier that light would not shine
upwards. Mr. Whitaker said that was correct. He said they had taken steps and shown many kinds of
protections to the western property line that could be reasonable provided. He said there may be
variations that could be discussed, but he believed they were providing good buffers and providing re -
vegetation in a healthy manner of those buffers that were cleared, which was not even half of the buffer
width. He said they were putting limitations on lighting as well. Mr. Whitaker said they believed the
uses were neighborhood -compatible. He said there would not be much if any activity at night. He said
there may also be an occasional dumpster truck, and it would be heard just as you would hear an
airplane flying over. Mr. Whitaker said the Special Use Permit process would delve into those
specifics and give the Town the opportunity to make sure that the public health, safety and welfare
were preserved.
Mr. Farrelly asked if Mr. Whitaker envisioned any of the uses to have nighttime hours at all. Mr.
Whitaker responded potentially. He said if a medical facility with an urgent care service were located
there, he believed the community would want some nighttime hours, although those hours would be
limited.
Mr. Farrelly said he believed the neighbors were going to request a wall be built to minimize those
types of issues. Mr. Whitaker said they did not like the idea of a wall as it had been described for
Joint Planning Hearing, 06-05-06 6 of 20
many reasons. He said the Homeowners Association was asking for an eight -foot high brick solid wall
along the entire common property line between the project and the neighborhood with no openings.
Mr. Whitaker said first of all, the wall could not be built in the stream buffer and creek areas. He said
it also was not the neighborly thing to do. Ms. Pierce, the applicant, said she felt that such a wall
would not give the appearance that they believed was wanted to people coming into the Town. She
said an eight -foot wall, regardless of what it was built of, was to her unfriendly and gave the
impression that there was some problem. She said a vegetation buffer was much friendlier and much
more in tune with the natural look of the property. Ms. Pierce said they were trying to preserve the
green look and green space, and a wall would destroy that look. Ms. Pierce said she believed a wall
was counter-productive to what the neighbors were asking for as far as security, noting it provided an
opportunity to walk around the wall and hide and blocking view. She said she believed a vegetation
buffer would ultimately be a better sound barrier and a better visual barrier because it would ultimately
be higher. Ms. Pierce said she wanted this to be a win-win situation and was open to conversation
regarding this, but she did not believe a brick wall was in everyone's interest. She said she understood
the concerns behind the request, but that was a drastic step to take before you knew whether you even
had a problem.
Mr. Oliver said site included a connection to Bonaparte Drive and he had two questions about it. He
said first it was set up for a temporary force main, and asked why a temporary force main had to be
used. He also asked what they would do with that access to Bonaparte Drive; if they every planned to
use that access, noting he was also like to hear what the neighbors thought about that.
Ms. Pierce said initially the neighbors had brought up whether or not they wanted there to be some
kind of pedestrian or bikeway located there, and the members they had spoken to did not. So, she said,
their plans were indicating that the area be kept natural.
Mr. Whitaker said if a brick wall were placed there, that where the topography changed the wall would
meander down and up again as the land shifted, so it would appear taller in some places and shorter in
others. He said a brick wall would artificially be imposing itself on the natural topography, and
aesthetically was a reason not to erect it.
Mr. Whitaker said the small fork of land was a leftover piece that had been recombined with the parcel
years ago, and it did touch Bonaparte Drive. He said they had immediately seen it as a pedestrian
connection to Bonaparte Drive, but neighbors did not want that.
Mr. Whitaker apologized to the neighbors because he had originally told them that the small fork of
land would not be disturbed, but an issue had come up regarding sanitary sewer service for this project
that required them to disturb that land. He said small 10 -foot wide strip would need to be used to
construct a temporary sewer line to connect to the sewer on Bonaparte Drive, because the Cates Creek
Outfall was not yet built. Mr. Whitaker said until it was built, they needed to install a temporary pump
and a temporary small diameter force main, both of which would later be abandoned, connected to the
sewer on Bonaparte Drive. He said the area disturbed could be replaced, since this was not a long -tern
utility.
Ms. Ellis said she was in agreement with the neighbors regarding the placement of a brick wall, in
order to cut down on noise and improve safety. She said the parking lot could not be seen from the
street, and someone could easily travel through the shrubbery into the neighborhood. Mr. Jones said
vegetation was a seasonal thing. He asked if they had considered a combination of both the wall and
Joint Planning Hearing, 06-05-06 7 of 20
the vegetation to get the buffer you were looking for. Also, he said, look at it as a good neighbor to
give neighbors privacy, so why not provide the brick wall or provide both. Mr. Whitaker said they had
thought about that, noting the natural vegetation would thin out in winter. He said the vegetation they
were proposing was evergreen, upright hollies. Mr. Whitaker said you could be both, that is a wall and
a substantial evergreen screen. But, he said, if you were doing a wall to prevent passage through it,
then the vegetation would be different.
Commissioner Hallman said as part of the Master Plan application would they see some signage and
design standards. Mr. Whitaker said they had not planned on doing that, noting that at this point they
did not have enough knowledge of the users, and they wanted the signage to match the buildings in
terms of architectural style. He said the Special Use Permit process was the time to get into those
kinds of details. Commissioner Hallman said they wanted to have some consistency across the entire
site. Mr. Whitaker agreed, noting that these buildings could be developed separately with separate
Special Use Permits, so the first one that came would have the burden of establishing the architectural
style for the rest. He said that heavy review would be accomplished by the first Special Use Permit.
Mr. Newton said sometimes good fences do make good neighbors. He said it was obviously important
to residents of Cornwallis Hills to have some sort of boundary. Mr. Newton suggested that when they
come before the Planning Board that they make an earnest effort to address the wall. Mr. Whitaker
said he agreed that good fences made good neighbors, but he did not believe that an eight -foot wall
was a good fence. He said they would address that issue when it came before the Planning Board.
Commissioner Gering said the Town was in the process of completing plans for the Churton Street
corridor, which included this property. He requested that even though it was not yet codified, that Mr.
Whitaker read it and provide the Board some feedback about what it might mean to him, and whether
or not he would have trouble complying with those guidelines. Mr. Whitaker agreed to do so.
Mr. Farrelly said they would now begin to call on members of the public who had signed up to speak.
He reminded speakers that they would need to swear in and print and write their names before
commenting.
Vic Knight was sworn in. He said he is the Manager of Old 86 Commons LLC, a family -formed
limited liability corporation, said he and the family were in support of the applicant's request. He said
they had a great deal of interest in positively moving towards an eventually approval for the medical
facility. Ms. Ellis asked if Mr. Knight had a share in the LLC. Mr. Knight responded he owned a 1%
interest, the minimum legal requirement to be the Manager.
Cheryl Pochinski was sworn in. She is a resident of 106 Pointe Place in Cornwallis Hills, said the
development of the property behind their homes would destroy the homes of our feathered friends and
other "critters." She said her main concern was increased crime, which came with growth and
expansion. Ms. Pochinski said during her tenure as a Security Monitor in Chapel Hill, she had found
that the highest risk areas for crime were behind buildings and in isolated parking lots. She said she
could only image the possibilities of what could happen on the semi -secluded strip of land that
adjoined their backyards. Ms. Pochinski said compounding the problem was their location between
two major interstates. She said living in such proximity to those two roadways made it an ideal
meeting place for undesirables to go about performing bad deeds behind buildings and in parking lots
with easy escape routes on either interstate.
Joint Planning Hearing, 06-05-06 8 of 20
Ms. Pochinski said speaking of undesirables, there were 81 registered sex offenders living in Orange
County. She said 23 were in Hillsborough, 24 in Chapel Hill, and the other 47 living throughout the
County. She said Durham County had 241. Ms. Pochinski asked how easy would it be for any of
those 322 individuals in just these two counties to sit inside their cars in the parking lots planned for
this development and observe them through their windows or watch their children play in their yards.
She said how long before they reach out to what appeared to be easy prey that was close by, again with
easy escape routes in either direction. Ms. Pochinski asked that the Board help maintain the excellent
quality of life they currently enjoyed in Cornwallis Hills, while preserving the integrity and charge of
Hillsborough.
Margo Pinkerton was sworn in. She said before moving to Hillsborough she had been the president of
a 32 member bi-state regional planning commission, and was also secretary of her state association of
planning commissions. She said she provided that information so that the Board would know she
spoke with some experience. Ms. Pinkerton said she was appalled when she saw Master Plan
application, noting it was inconsistent with County regulations. She said while they were asking for
annexation, it was not yet annexed nor was there any guarantee that it would be. Ms. Pinkerton said
the Master Plan contained vague wording, and tonight she had heard the applicant use such words as
envision, probably, intended and maybe, which she said was nebulous for a major proposal.
Ms. Pinkerton said the Master Plan contained many loopholes. She noted that the County's regulations
regarding wetlands were more stringent that the Town's, noting the Town required a 50 -foot buffer,
whereas the County required the buffer from the 100 -year floodplain mark. She said if you looked at
the plat it was a huge difference in the amount of space the developers had to work with. She asked
had the appropriate EPA 404 Permit request been filed as yet, determining that it had not been.
Ms. Pinkerton asked why it was so important that the property be annexed, which would mean that the
Town would have to provide utilities. She said the Town's water was already overtaxed, and many of
the residents feel that the drinking quality of the water was already questionable. She wondered who
would pay for these utilities, noting most likely it was raise all of their taxes, and for what purpose.
She said that area was a wonderful green space, with a good portion of it in the 100 -year floodplain.
Ms. Pinkerton said some neighbors were concerned about the lack of proper notification for the last
hearing, and it made it appear as if "someone was trying to push something through." She said they
wanted to be assured that this would not happen again, and that ample notice would be given so that all
interested parties could attend and participate.
Ms. Pinkerton then addressed the Master Plan paragraph by paragraph, noting that her statements were
supported by many of the residents in Cornwallis Hills. Regarding the first paragraph, the quoted,
"The buildings will be designed to blend with the existing businesses to the north...." She asked what
buildings that statement referred to. Continuing the quote, she read "appearance controls will be
enforced through restrictive covenants to be established... ." She asked when would they be
established, and who would approve them and would the neighbors be notified well in advance. She
read "landscape standards," and asked when would they be presented.
Regarding the second paragraph, Ms. Pinkerton said the requested zoning district had already been
addressed, but it concerned her and others that the conversation tonight had assumed that annexation
was a fait accompli, which she found to be inappropriate. Ms. Pinkerton said regarding the
entranceway special use zoning, she was concerned that in the future when this road went from a two -
Joint Planning Hearing, 06-05-06 9 of 20
lane to a four -lane road and divided, where would people coming from the south turn around. She said
she believed people would have to turn around at the entrance to Cornwallis Hills, and the questioned
the sensitivity of that.
Ms. Pinkerton quoted "...special emphasis on professional office and medical office users." She said
there was not definitive usage, and asked what if the intended use changed and would neighbors be
notified. She asked what else would that loophole allow, and who would approve it. Ms. Pinkerton
said flexibility for extended office hours was mentioned, but it had not been defined. She said she and
others believed that professional offices in most medical facilities did not need extended business
hours. Ms. Pinkerton said if urgent care was provided, then the issue of sirens and other noises was an
issue.
Ms. Pinkerton said the Master Plan stated there would be no unusual levels of impact, and asked what
was considered unusual for a project planned to abut a residential neighborhood. She asked who
would determine what was unacceptable, and by what benchmark.
Ms. Pinkerton said the Town and County required one parking space per three hundred square feet of
building. She said that would make 137 parking spaces for the two main buildings, and yet the
applicants were proposing about 50 extra parking spaces. She asked why the inconsistency.
Ms. Pinkerton said there was no effective barrier planned between the commercial and residential
areas. She said they had concerns about the vermin associated with waste generation and with
construction. She said in the original plans the dumpsters were placed far too close to the property
line, but that had since been corrected.
Ms. Pinkerton said safety had been addressed previously by a speaker. She said trees being planted
would not prevent their children from traveling through the greenery and being at danger from cars
speeding in the parking lot or accosted by others. She said it was common knowledge that parking lots
could attract undesirables.
Ms. Pinkerton said noise issues had been brought up as well. She said without a brick barrier those
issues would remain. She said copperheads during construction brought up safety concerns, noting
when you disturb land the animals had to go elsewhere. Ms. Pinkerton asked how would the developer
deal with felled trees and the resultant stumps.
Regarding lighting, Ms. Pinkerton said 30 -foot poles had been mentioned and it was noted that
Cornwallis Hills was higher than the proposed development. She said that was only true for a part of
Cornwallis Hills. Ms. Pinkerton said the elevation map showed that some of the abutters were
approximately 20 feet below some of the higher places in the proposed development. She said that
made a 30 -foot lamp pole actually 50 feet for those residences.
In the third paragraph, Ms. Pinkerton quoted "fully preserve and integrate much of the existing
vegetation..." She said that was too vague, and asked what was meant by integrate? She said
regarding the drainageway within the buffer zone, there was a small stream that was very close to that
drainageway. She said that would impact the water that went into the watershed that flowed into the
Neuse River Basin.
Joint Planning Hearing, 06-05-06 10 of 20
Ms. Pinkerton wording regarding the river said it "follows horizontally along Old NC 86" and she did
not understand that. She asked for an explanation. Mr. Whitaker said if you look at the plan and the
way it was oriented, there was a stretch by the creek adjacent to the right-of-way, and it was shown
horizontally on this plan. Ms. Pinkerton said then he meant parallel. Mr. Whitaker said it was parallel
but it was horizontal as well.
Ms. Pinkerton said regarding preserving existing trees, the County regulations mandated a buffer of 40
to 50 feet for small lots, but must be non -land disturbing and which may not be out and replanted. She
said that was a concern when the County regulations clearly say no cutting within the buffer.
Ms. Pinkerton said in paragraph four they were talking about reducing the 50 -foot buffer to 25 feet
because of paving concerns. She said either it was a buffer or it wasn't, and it was troublesome to the
residents. She said either the regulations were in place or they weren't. She said why have regulations
if we continue to chip away at them.
Ms. Pinkerton said another phrase used in the Master Plan was "to the extent practical
the existing vegetation would be left undisturbed. She said that was a major loophole, and asked who
would deem it practical, who would monitor it, and would abutters be notified well in advance.
Ms. Pinkerton said that replanting the buffer zone was not a legal option, yet the developers were
proposing that they cut down and replant. She said if they were given permission to do this, what kind
of trees would they replant, how closely would they be replanted, and no one was addressing the fact
that it takes trees a long time to grow.
Ms. Pinkerton said the noise issue would not be addressed by a few trees. She said a study was
conducted recently regarding noise reduction in residential areas, and the best reduction was a brick
wall or a stone wall, and they were proposing a brick wall. She said there would be additional noise by
the very fact that they would have to cut down trees to construct the buildings, so that noise buffer
would be lost between Old 86 and the neighborhood. She said it would bring increased traffic as well,
so it was a double-edged sword.
Ms. Pinkerton asked about the 10% of floor area ratio to the site. She asked was it 10% of the entire
site of only the area not covered by the 100 -year floodplain. She said the same could be asked about
the impervious surface at 35%.
Ms. Pinkerton asked what was mean by "level spreaders." Mr. Whitaker said in the Neuse buffer
requirements there was a requirement that stormwater runoff must enter through the stream buffer in a
diffused manner, not in a concentrated. He said level spreaders were a recognized and common device
to accomplish that. Ms. Pinkerton asked what would prevent the construction dirt from going through
that. Mr. Whitaker said level spreaders were typically built at the end of construction when the site
was stabilized so that did not happen. Ms. Pinkerton asked what about during construction to prevent
pollution of the stream. Mr. Whitaker stated that was a construction technique that he would be happy
to explain if the Board wanted to take the time tonight. Ms. Pinkerton said she did not need to know
tonight, but she believed the residents of Cornwallis Road and the entire Town would want to hear the
answer to that. Commissioner Lloyd asked if Ms. Pinkerton was an abutting property owner. Ms.
Pinkerton responded no, but she had a friend who was. Commissioner Lloyd asked if Ms. Pinkerton
lived in Cornwallis Hills. Ms. Pinkerton replied yes, on Lafayette Drive.
Joint Planning Hearing, 06-05-06 11 of 20
Ms. Pinkerton asked why if was so necessary to place this development here. She asked what was
wrong with a green space access. She said there were many vacant spaces in Town, and she believed
the Town should concentrate on filling those before allowing new development. She said she and
others would like to see proof that this development would increase the commercial tax base without a
large demand on Town resources.
Ms. Pinkerton said she believed the traffic impact figures were taken from the Waterstone figures, and
it also seemed to be too much for a two-lane road. She said the statement that "this development will
integrate with other developments along Churton Street" was verbiage that was too vague. She said
there were not many good arguments for something of this nature to be built here, but there were many
other uses for this land, including parks and other activities. Ms. Pinkerton said regarding lighting,
Duke Energy did have some approved lighting, and they would not like to see mercury vapor lights or
sodium vapor lights.
In summary, Ms. Pinkerton stated they had grave concerns regarding safety, environmental impacts,
privacy, noise, and traffic. She seemed this proposal was too loose and too fraught with loopholes to
be responsibly approved. Ms. Pinkerton asked the Town to put a hold on this development until the
Town's Strategic Growth Plan was put in place.
Gayane Chambless was sworn in. She said she is a resident of Cornwallis Hills, the Community
Watch chairperson and a member of the Board of the Homeowners Association. She said she was in
favor of increasing our economic base while not taxing our limited resources, but she had concerns that
she would express from the viewpoint of Community Watch. Ms. Chambless described the issues that
Cornwallis Hills had gone through over the last several years that had resulted in a Community Watch
being formed. She noted trespassing, vandalism, stop signs and street signs being stolen, drug deals,
and young adults from other neighborhoods arrested in their neighborhood on alcohol charges,
weapons violations, and possession drug paraphernalia.
Ms. Chambless said they had worked hard to clean it up, and it was now a peaceful residential
neighborhood that they wanted to keep that way. She said their concern was trespassers being able to
enter the neighborhood from this property. Ms. Chambless said having the parking lots in the rear of
the site would allow covert activities to take place. She said unfortunately, we do not have enough
police to address all the concerns that Hillsborough residents have. Ms. Chambless said unless the
Town was going to increase the number of police officers, they were concerned about annexing that
property into the Town limits and taxing police department with they already had so little manpower.
Ms. Chambless said light pollution was an issue, as well as noise pollution. She said she hoped that
the Board would also consider questions regarding the Economic Development District. She asked
why was it put into place and why were the specific restrictions addressed. Ms. Chambless said
another question was why should we allow new development when we had buildings standing vacant.
She asked could this development proposal not wait until the Strategic Growth Plan was finalized. Ms.
Chambless said there had been a request for an urgent care facility north of Town off of Highway 70.
She asked why the interested tenant was not looking in that area if they truly wanted to serve
Hillsborough. Ms. Chambless said she sincerely hoped that the annexation would not go forward.
But, if the Board did grant the annexation, she requested that an eight -foot brick wall be erected along
the length of the property and up the sides at least 10 feet to help address safety issues.
Joint Planning Hearing, 06-05-06 12 of 20
Mr. Oliver said regarding the fork of land that jutted out, what would her recommendation be. Ms.
Chambless said she was not a developer or an architect, and did not have a recommendation. Mr.
Oliver said she was recommending an eight -foot wall to go from one point to another point, and asked
what did she suggest doing with that fork of land. Ms. Chambless responded that she wanted to ensure
that Cornwallis Hills was protected, and did not know how to answer that question.
Will Anderson, of 116 Pointe Place, was sworn in. He echoed all of the statements previously made
by his neighbors. He said he had many concerns with the wildlife disturbance, and the continuous
developments happening throughout the Town, including this one. Mr. Anderson said what most
disturbed him was the safety of his family. He described how young adults who were not members of
the neighborhood traveled from Old NC 86 and through his property to access the neighborhood. Mr.
Anderson said they generally exit in the same manner. He said certainly with the size of this
development and the number of parking spaces, that his concern was heightened.
Mr. Anderson said another issue of great concern was flooding around and on his property. He said it
was ruining his backyard, creating galleys and holes. He distributed photos of his backyard after a
flooding incident, pointing out how close the water comes to his home. Mr. Anderson asked if the
structure that was proposed closest to his property would worsen the flooding he was experiencing.
Mr. Oliver said since most of Mr. Andersons backyard was in the stream buffer, then the brick wall
that had been suggested would not be able to be built there. He said he would assume that even his
house was within the 100 -year floodplain. Mr. Oliver wondered exactly where people expected an
eight -foot wall to be built, asking where it would start and stop. Mr. Anderson stated that he
personally liked the idea of a brick wall, but understood that it would not come to his area.
Mr. Oliver said he did not think a wall would help him at all. Mr. Anderson said the problem they had
now with trespassers was coming from homes along Old 86 and the young people that lived there. He
said his biggest concern was if the development was built, that it would encourage loiterers and
trespassers who would then access the neighborhood through his yard. Mr. Anderson said to him, the
way to stop that was not to put the development there. He said the young people who trespassed now
he could control with the help of the Police.
Mayor Stevens asked if trespassing was a daytime problem or a nighttime problem, or both. Mr.
Anderson said it was a little both depending on the season. He said during the fall when the creek was
lower it was more common.
Commissioner Lowen said the pictures Mr. Anderson had shared were quite alarming. He asked when
they were taken. Mr. Anderson said they were taken about 3 years ago, but every time they got a
substantial rain of a day or longer, that same situation occurred. Commissioner Lowen said then he
had a serious problem whether the development happened or not. Mr. Anderson said yes, and over
time he was going to have to address it in some way. He said his main concern was if the development
would force more water onto his property.
George Higgins, President of the Cornwallis Hills Homeowners Association was sworn in. He
publicly affirmed the Board's commitment to its members, particularly those who would be directly
impacted by this development. He said they supported the testimony heard thus far and that would
continue to be heard. Mr. Oliver asked Mr. Higgins to describe exactly what they wanted with the
eight foot fence. Mr. Higgins said that Jo Soulier would address that when she speaks.
Joint Planning Hearing, 06-05-06 13 of 20
Emily Ander, 108 Pointe Place was sworn in. She said she is an employee of the Triangle Land
Conservancy and stated that her yard floods each time they experience a substantial rain. She said that
studies indicated it was not a good idea to build in the floodplain, so why build more. Ms. Ander said
she believed only the higher ground should be developed. Ms. Ander said by honoring only a 50 foot
buffer, you really were not accomplishing any protection that was above and beyond what was
required. She suggested a 100 -foot buffer on either side was more appropriate. Ms. Ander said if the
Board decided to annex this property, she asked that they at least uphold the Orange County standards.
Jo Soulier, owner of adjoining property at 112 Pointe Place and a resident of Cornwallis Hills was
sworn in. She stated that this project should not be annexed into the Town. She said that Waterstone
would not be built until Old 86 was widened. She said this project would depend on the Cornwallis
Hills water tank to supplement them until then, and they already had poor water pressure. Ms. Soulier
said the lift station nearby had never worked, and the sewer frequently overflowed. She said she could
only imagine the problems with one positioned further down into the floodplain. Ms. Soulier said if
that temporary system failed, the Town would be liable for the pollution caused to the water supply.
She said the developer had spoken about connecting onto the Cornwallis Hills sewer, but the residents
were not interested in any form of ingress whatsoever.
Ms. Soulier said the third building should not be built, noting it was only 5,000 square feet, which was
double the size of some of the homes in Cornwallis Hills. She said the County had recommended
against that as well. She asked if the developer's need to make money supercede common sense. Ms.
Soulier used the posted map to explain where the resident's preferred for the brick wall to be built.
She said they did not object to the project, only to what it might attract to their backyards. Ms. Soulier
said the project was too grandiose for this piece of 1 and, and it did not meet the 20 -acre restriction.
She added that the parking was larger than what was needed.
Ms. Soulier said that 35% impervious surface had been mentioned previously. She noted that 35% was
of the entire lot, not of the buildable lot. Ms. Soulier said regarding the traffic analysis, it stated that
50% of the traffic to this development would come from the north. She commented there was already
too much traffic in Town.
Ms. Soulier said regarding the note on the Master Plan map referred to the fact that some plans may
not meet presumptive requirements. She remarked that the developers would cram whatever they
wanted through and the Board was supposed to approve it as is. Ms. Soulier said she believed that
language was a loophole. Ms. Soulier said the County had regulations in place for a reason, and
annexation would allow the developers to bypass much of that. She said that should not be allowed.
Ms. Soulier said with all that being said, if the Board went ahead and annexed it anyway, she asked
them to scale the project down. She asked what would happen if the development was sold to
someone else? Ms. Soulier said that much of the wording was too vague and there were too many
loopholes. She asked that the Board wait to make a decision until the Strategic Growth Plan was in
place, and then decide if we really needed this office space. Ms. Soulier commented that the plan
called for wall -mounted security lighting. She said she had visited Churton Grove Center who had
such lights mounted in the rear, and it was like daylight all night. Ms. Soulier said that was not a good
thing for the neighbors.
Al Soulier, a resident of Patriot Place and owner of property on Pointe Place was sworn in. He noted
that every point he had wanted to emphasize had already been commented on. He said the most
Joint Planning Hearing, 06-05-06 14 of 20
important points to him were the trespass issue, with people not of their neighborhood using their
property to cross into the area. He said they were at a crossroads of two major interstates, with
exacerbated their trespass issues. Mr. Soulier said another issue was the easy access this development
would promote if there were no wall erected.
Mr. Soulier said the placement of the parking lot shields it from view, particularly from the Police who
would be patrolling in the area. He mentioned the number of children who lived in the neighborhood,
as well as the presence of a day care center that would potentially be only a few steps away from a
shielded parking lot. Mr. Soulier said the neighborhood needed to be sealed off from easy access from
this development, adding his support for an eight -foot brick wall. He said noise was a concern, noting
the HVAC and dumpster service. He said that privacy and lighting were issues, noting that even if the
lighting were aimed down you would still have reflection off the buildings and cars that might be in the
lot at night. Mr. Soulier said this light would be directed into the kitchens and bedrooms at the back of
their homes.
Cindy Mihake, a resident of Pointe Place was sworn in. She said if trees were to be planted as a buffer,
why not just place a brick wall there instead. She said a brick wall was a good idea and becoming
more common. She said if they ever sold their property they wanted to make sure it was still a nice,
safe place to live.
Mr. Oliver said a neighbor had mentioned a drainageway that overflowed. He noted he was not sure a
brick wall could be built across a drainageway, but it was possible to plant trees. Ms. Mihake
wondered if there was a way to build a wall that was not flush with the ground, or that had "weep
holes" similar to a house to allow water to run through.
Mr. Oliver said he wanted to know exactly what she was asking for so that the Board would protect the
neighbors' interests. Ms. Mihake said residents asking for a brick wall was clear, and was not sure
why that did not answer Mr. Oliver's question. She said Mr. Oliver had asked where the residents
wanted the wall to be, and she believed the buffer area planned for new trees was the likely place. She
added it might be possible to use a combination of a brick wall and trees to lessen the harshness of
what a brick wall might look like to some.
Mr. Farrelly noted those issues would have to be worked out with the right people to provide guidance,
specifically engineers. He noted we had reached the end of the citizen comment period.
Mr. Whitaker said he would like to solicit comments and guidance from the Boards about how to focus
their efforts to respond to all of the concerns expressed tonight. He said they were real concerns that
affected quality of life. However, he asked that people not disproportionately assign responsibility for
some of those issues to this project. He said let's talk about the valid parts of these issues that were
attributable or appropriate to this project. Mr. Whitaker said he did not believe it was appropriate to
talk about people who might stop in who were traveling through the State to commit some crime in
Hillsborough and then leave. He said they just wanted to give an honest treatment to the issue, and if
we were not careful we would pass the honesty mark and get into dishonest territory.
Mr. Whitaker said in their meetings with Cornwallis Hills residents, they had been hopeful that some
of these issues would have come to light at this time, and he was disappointed that they had not. He
said they had tried to resolve some of these points with the neighbors prior to tonight's meeting, and
for whatever reason that did not happen. He stated they wanted to be good neighbors, were open for
Joint Planning Hearing, 06-05-06 15 of 20
discussion, wanted an honest treatment of the real issues this project should address, and did not want
to waste anyone's time with big picture, socio-economic demographic issues that they could not solve.
Mr. Whitaker said there were many points he wanted to respond to that deserved an honest answer,
although there was no time tonight. He asked what were the most important issues that they should put
their effort into.
Mr. Farrelly said there were issues they would like for them to address prior to coming before the
Planning Board, and asked for a thoughtful response on the major items. He stated he did not want
issues talked about tonight, such as crime, to be pushed aside. Mr. Farrelly said he understood there
were things Mr. Whitaker could not change, such as the nearby highways that might make it easy for
people to access the neighborhood, noting that might not be a realistic concern for the development to
address, but it was a sincere concern for the neighbors. He asked Mr. Whitaker to come back with
ideas that would address the heart of those concerns.
Mr. Farrelly said issues such as the County's remarks regarding the floodplain boundaries should be
responded to, as well as the Town's inter -growth and the viability of the project. He said the concern
expressed regarding "why here and why not somewhere else" should be address, since there were other
properties that were suitable. Mr. Farrelly said whether it was a wall of something else, there were
other innovative solutions that should be addressed.
Mr. Farrelly said the hours of operation and the anticipated uses should be articulated, particularly
regarding the urgent care facility and the questions around that such as operating hours and expected
flow, or other disturbances. He said worst case scenarios were the types of things the neighbors would
want to be aware of.
Mr. Whitaker said they did not set about to create a package of loopholes to get this project approved,
noting that was not their mission. He said they had set about to meet the ordinance, and to bring
something good to Hillsborough and do it in a way that made planning sense. Mr. Whitaker said they
wanted to follow the steps to get the Master Plan set up and allow reasonable flexibility for that, and
then to live by it. He said all of that was subject to proper public notice and proper public debate,
which would be true for any subsequent Special Use Permit for this property, no matter what happened
in the process they were engaged in now.
Mr. Whitaker said there were multiple levels of protections, and they were doing the prudent first step
and did not want to have second -step issues placed into the first step that make it doomed to failure
from the beginning. He said the process was sequential and they would be happy to discuss details at
the appropriate time. He reminded everyone they were at the beginning of the process, and were trying
to plan how the site would develop, not to detail and specify every aspect of the development.
Mayor Stevens said he would like to see this discussion left open, noting that issues of safety were a
concern as well as the floodplain, and these were issues that it was the Boards' responsibility to look
into. He said there were also questions regarding the effects on the commercial tax base as well as the
economic development impact. Mayor Stevens suggested that the discussion be continued.
Ms. Hauth asked if they wanted to continue the discussion to a date specific, noting there was another
hearing in July then another in October. She asked did they want to leave it open to see how long it
took to respond to the questions, which would trigger new notices.
Joint Planning Hearing, 06-05-06 16 of 20
Commissioner Hallman asked what the July agenda looked like. Ms. Hauth responded it was
beginning to fill up. She said if this issue were continued to the July hearing, it would be put ahead of
anything new that might come in before the deadline.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Lowen, seconded by Commissioner Gering, it was decided that this
issue would be included on the agenda for the July public hearing, scheduled for Tuesday, July 25.
The vote was unanimous.
Mr. Farrelly called for a short 3 -minute break before beginning the next item of business.
ITEM #3: Zoning Ordinance Text amendment to create "outlet sales" as a defined and
permitted use within the General Industrial and Light Industrial districts. Ms. Hauth noted the Town
had received a letter from Vietri regarding the proposed expansion of their operation on Elizabeth
Brady Road to have a routinely opened outlet sales facility, which the ordinance had not envisioned.
She noted that the proposed definition would be "ancillary sales by manufacturing or distribution uses
of products manufactured and distributed on the same parcel. Outlet sales may not exceed 10% of the
building space on the parcel, and the parking spaces shall be provided by the outlet sales area using the
same formula as retail and be conveniently located to the sales entrance."
Ms. Hauth said that was slightly different from the flex spaces they currently had, and it made sure that
people who wanted to have some sort of outlet were already dealing with the exact same product on
their property.
Commissioner Lloyd said she was in favor of this, but asked was there anything that we could get in
trouble with if we adopted this. Ms. Hauth said she not that she could envision. She noted that if a
company such as PHE, Inc. wanted to set up a retail outlet that would be an adult use, and would have
to go through the standard process for that because what they were selling would qualify differently
within the process. Commissioner Lloyd said then this would be safe. Ms. Hauth said it would not
preclude PHE from trying, but they would have to go through a Conditional Use process to do that,
making it harder.
Mayor Stevens said from Ms. Hauth's professional perspective, were there particular issues that the
Board should be looking at. Ms. Hauth said the reason you would not want to do something simple
like allow retail sales in the general industrial district because retail can usually outbid industrial uses
for land ideally suited for industrial uses. She said this would put a cap on the amount and would
require that whatever was being sold was also was being dealt with on the property.
Mayor Stevens asked would this still be a Conditional Use. Ms. Hauth said it would be a Use by
Right, and she imagined that in most cases people would renovate their existing building, so it may not
be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. She said if they proposed an addition to the property it
would be subject to review by the Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Gering asked if the
establishment next to Southern Seasons could take advantage of this. Ms. Hauth said it could.
Commissioner Hallman wondered about the 10%. Ms. Hauth said that was to provide a reasonable
size that was not large. She noted that Vietri was not planning to be anywhere near the 10% range
with their building. She said many of their industrial operations were 58,000 square feet and larger, so
10% was a good sized retail store as compared to some of the smaller stores around the Town.
Joint Planning Hearing, 06-05-06 17 of 20
Commissioner Gering asked if Ms. Hauth was comfortable with the vagueness of the word
"conveniently" in the definition. Ms. Hauth said they would look at that when it came before the
Planning Board and see if that was sufficient or needed to be changed. Commissioner Gering said
being as specific as possible was one way of staying out of trouble.
Ms. Ellis said at one time they had discussed flex space, and asked if these were free-standing
buildings, noting there was flex space all over Town and she did not want to see small outlets
everywhere. She asked if one of those small flex spaces happened to have a manufacturing shop,
would they also be allowed to have an outlet store. Ms. Hauth responded that under the conditions of
flex space they were already eligible to do that, and named some specific spaces. Ms. Ellis said she
would not like to see that all over Town, noting she did not like the word "flex." Ms. Hauth reminder
her that this would be only in the General Industrial and Light Industrial zoning districts. She said
much of the flex space was in the High Intensity Commercial district.
Jeff Black of Vietri, Inc., said one of the important things to them was their brand, and they had
worked hard to protect that for 23 years. He said the outlet store would allow them to control the sale
of their retired product, noting they had experienced a lot of success with bi-annual warehouse sales.
He said they would appreciate the Boards' consideration.
ITEM #4: Zoning Ordinance Text amendment to amend the definition of "junk car" to coincide
with the Town Code definition. Ms. Hauth said the primary change here would to amend the zoning
definition to refer to the Town Code definition so the possibility of them being independently amended
was removed. She said they wanted to provide an opportunity for the people contacted over the years
regarding potential junk car violations on their property to comment, noting she had notified them plus
homeowner associations about the potential text amendment.
Ms. Hauth said the Town Code definition currently stated that if your vehicle exhibited any of the four
criteria then it was considered junk, and noted the four criteria. She said currently they had
approximately 47 cars that met that definition because there was no current tag and inspection on the
car, and the vehicles look as if they otherwise could be operational.
Ms. Hauth noted many people believed this was a revenue generator. She said they had considered
that, and realized that the intent of the ordinance was to prohibit unsightliness, and not necessarily to
prohibit a reasonably well-maintained car from remaining in a driveway regarding of whether the State
and the Town was receiving revenue for it. Ms. Hauth said to that end, they were proposing an
amendment to the definition of a junk car so that a vehicle had to exhibit two or more of the criteria,
rather than one. She said she believed this definition would allow them to experience a higher
compliance rate and still meet the intent of the ordinance. Ms. Wallace asked if you could have only
one vehicle that fit the definition. Ms. Hauth said you could have only one. Mr. Jones asked how we
monitored that. Ms. Hauth said the Zoning Enforcement Officer would track this on a spreadsheet
database to keep up with people who had been cleared of violations by documenting compliance and
others who had not.
Kathleen Yarborough, representing the Hillsborough Heights Neighborhood Association, said that junk
cars were an issue in her neighborhood, noting they were working hard towards revitalization. She
said where there were houses with junk cars the neighboring houses could not be sold, even if they
were in pristine condition because of the perception. She added that unfortunately, perception was
reality. Ms. Yarborough said this was a real property value and quality of life issue. She said the other
Joint Planning Hearing, 06-05-06 18 of 20
issue was that there were many drivers in the area without insurance, and why encourage it by
lowering the barrier. She said this would have a direct impact on her neighborhood, adding they were
attempting to improve their neighborhood and that was a hard battle.
Mr. Farrelly asked if Ms. Yarborough had specific comments about the proposed text amendment. Ms.
Yarborough said they would like to see a stricter definition so that there was increased enforcement.
She said she knew that taxed resources, but this affected their quality of life and the overall quality of
the neighborhood. She said they wanted the ordinance to support that.
ITEM #5: Zoning Ordinance Text amendment to Section 3.8, special exception permits for
building heights. Ms. Hauth said a letter had been received from Orange County detailing this text
amendment and how it would impact the Courthouse expansion. She said the zoning ordinance
currently allowed what they called "special exceptions" permits for additions to buildings already in
setbacks and also some special exceptions for height limitations. She said this text amendment would
expand the scope of those special exception permits to allow additional height variances for buildings
that were built prior to the zoning ordinance that already exceeded the height limitation, and then come
forward for conditions that would possible meet or exceed the height of the existing building but not
all of its roof elements.
Ms. Hauth said in the context of the Courthouse, you had a roof that was at one height and then you
have a significant roof element, being a cupola that was 20 or so taller than the addition that may
exceed the main building height but not the height of the roof element. She said one provision that
might be added to this would be that a few of these buildings would be located in the Historic District,
and the Historic District did have design guidelines that spoke to building height as an addition to a
main building.
Ms. Hauth said there was often the question of who went first, the Board of Adjustment or the Historic
District Commission when there was a building that was reviewed by both. She said it might be
reasonable to in this case to say that the Historic District Commission should review the project first to
determine whether an addition that was going to exceed the height of a portion of the main building
was architecturally and historically appropriate before the factual issue was determined by the Board of
Adjustment. She added that the Historic District standard would be the harder standard to get by.
Mr. Oliver asked how many buildings besides the new Courthouse would qualify for this exception.
Ms. Hauth said the Justice Facility Building and the Whiffed Building. She said other properties that
may quality were this building and a couple of churches in the Historic District.
David Taylor, of Corley Redfoot Zack, Architects, and representing the County, stated that he would
let the letter from the County suffice as far as what was being requested. He said that this was a very
limited text amendment that would have little effect, and did not believe that the Historic District
Commission should have to sign off on this project before it came to the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Oliver said the Courthouse addition would have some difficulty, noting the land was lower and
may slope lower than the current Courthouse. Mr. Taylor said yes, it places. Mr. Oliver said the
measurements were taken from ground level, and asked if they would run into any special problems
where they were trying to reach the same height that they were at but it made them go five feet taller
because of the slope. He asked if that would be worked out with this text amendment.
Joint Planning Hearing, 06-05-06 19 of 20
Mr. Taylor said the standard this was based on was Section 3.8(f)(2), which stated "The total height of
the addition including any roof elements does not exceed the height of the maximum height including
any roof elements of the original, non -conforming building." He said in other words, they would not
go any higher than the existing cupola with the roof or any roof elements on the addition.
Mr. Oliver said then if the existing roof element was at 60 feet, and if the land was seven feet lower,
then you would have to go to 67 feet to line up with the existing cupola if you added an additional
cupola. Mr. Taylor said the question was whether we were talking about absolute height or relative
height. He said if the existing roof element was 60 feet off the ground, then to architecturally match it
may require the extra seven feet of height.
Mr. Taylor said first of all you had to look at all four sides of the building, and always take the worst
case. He said as far as he knew there was not a seven -foot difference that would come into play with
this property. Mr. Oliver said he did not want to adjust the ordinance, and then realize they did not
adjust it as much as was needed. Mr. Taylor said he understood that, and the County was willing to
work within the parameters of the wording.
ITEM #6: Close Public Hearings, Adjourn Joint Planning Meeting, Convene Town Board
Meeting
Upon a motion by Commissioner Hallman, seconded by Commissioner Lowen, Items 3, 4, and 5 and
the Joint Public Hearing were closed. The vote was unanimous.
Joint Planning Hearing, 06-05-06 20 of 20