HomeMy Public PortalAbout9.5.2006 Planning Board Agenda and MinutesTown
AGENDA
PLANNING BOARD
gh Tuesday, September 5, 2006
7:00 PM, Town Barn
ITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum.
ITEM #2: Adoption of minutes from July 25 public hearing and August 1 meeting
ITEM #3: Additions to the agenda & agenda adjustment.
ITEM #4: Committee reports and updates
• Board of Adjustment
• Parks and Recreation Board
• Strategic Growth Plan
• Certificate of Appreciation for Jim Boericke
I'FBMAS----�„�ews-of-candidate&for in town vacancy— de -ho ff d
ITEM #6: Recommendation to the Town Board regarding Old 86 Commons project
Action requested: Recommendation to Town Board, including 160A-383
statement
ITEM #7: Recommendation to the Town Board regarding Churton Street corridor plan
Action requested: Recommendation to Town Board
ITEM #8: Consideration of subdivision creating 2 lots using a private road on Dimmocks
Mill Road.
Action requested: Recommendation to Town Board
ITEM #9: Discussion of text amendments to the Prevention of Demolition by Neglect
provisions
Action requested: Discussion, vote needed to send to public hearing
ITEM #10: Discussion of text amendments to modify the site plan process
Action requested: Discussion, vote needed to send to public hearing
ITEM #11: Discussion of text amendments to modify freestanding signs requirements
Action requested: Discussion, vote needed to send to public hearing
ITEM #12: Direction on text amendment inquiries
Action requested: Discussion
ITEM # 13: Adjourn
Please call the Planning Department if you cannot attend.
732-1270 extension 73 (this line is connected to voice mail)
101 East Orange Street • P.O. Box 429 • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
919-732-1270 • Fax 919-644-2390
Minutes
PLANNING BOARD
September 5, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Matthew Farrelly, Jim Boericke, Edna Ellis, Neil Jones, Paul Newton, Eric
Oliver, Dave Remington, Toby Vandemark, and Barrie Wallace.
ABSENT: Tom Campanella; absence excused.
STAFF: Margaret Hauth, Bob Hornik.
GUESTS: Tony Whitaker, George Higgins, Joe Phelps, Vic Knight, Sheila Pierce, Margo Pinkerton,
Evelyn Poole -Kober, Matthew Wayne.
ITEM #1: Call to Order and Confirmation of a Quorum.
Mr. Farrelly called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and confirmed the quorum.
ITEM #2: Adoption of Minutes.
MOTION: Mr. Newton made a motion that the minutes of the July 25, 2006 Public Hearing and the August
1, 2006 meeting be adopted as submitted.
SECOND: Ms Vandemark.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
ITEM #3: Additions,: to the Agenda and Agenda Adjustment.
Ms. Hauth noted that Item 5 was delayed until the October meeting. She noted that Item 8
should be removed because the applicant was unable to be present for tonight's meeting. She
stated this item would be placed on the agenda for a later date.
VOTE: The Board agreed by consensus to amend the agenda as described by Ms. Hauth.
ITEM #4: Committee Reports and Updates.
Board of Adjustment
The Board of Adjustment did not meet during August.
Parks and Recreation Board
Ms. Hauth said the update to the Master Plan was beginning, and the Board was looking at
beginning goals and objectives in the Plan. She said it would be about six months to complete
that update, and this Board would see it at a public hearing at some point. Ms. Hauth said
regarding Gold Park, they had completed a detailed topographical survey of the property, and
the designers were taking the Master Plan and preparing construction drawings. She said the
new schedule was that construction would begin next summer, with completion of the Park in
January 2008. Ms. Hauth said she believed we would see some action taking place on Turnip
Patch very soon. She said that grading would begin soon on the play structure.
Strategic Growth Plan
Mr. Newton said that Clarion and Associates had conducted an informal survey of residents
regarding what their opinions were on certain growth scenarios and similar things, and the
results had been received. He said they would soon post those results on the Town's web site.
Mr. Newton said the opinions received were not out of character with past public opinion.
Mr. Newton distributed several documents, including a map. He noted that they had received
updates on the analysis performed by Clarion on four different planning scenarios. He said one
set was focused on planning, with another one focused on transportation impacts. Mr. Newton
emphasized that these were still draft documents. He said Clarion had produced the map that
highlighted what they believed were potential areas for development in and around
Hillsborough.
2
Mr. Newton said one thing that had come out of the discussions was the possibility of amending
the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). He said that Orange County would actually like for us to
give up some of our ETJ that was close to the Eno River because it was in a floodplain and it
was in an environmentally sensitive area. Mr. Newton said in return, the County would allow
us to expand our ETJ on other sides.of Town. He said the Strategic Growth Plan had not yet
been factored into this, but the proposal indicated the County would be giving us more than
what they would take away. Mr. Newton said if we redrew the ETJ and it encompassed
neighborhoods, it could change the makeup of this work, since General Statutes required that a
certain percentage of ETJ residents serve on the Planning Board and the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Newton noted that this group would meet again on September 28 at the Orange County
Food Lab at 6:00 p.m.
Certificate of Appreciation for Jim Boericke
Ms. Hauth read the Certificate of Appreciate to Mr. Boericke, noting that tonight would be his
last meeting as a Planning Board member. Mr. Boericke stated he had enjoyed his work with
the Board and wished everyone well.
ITEM #5: Interviews of candidates for In -Town vacancy.
This item was delayed until the October meeting.
ITEM #6: Recommendation to the Town Board regarding Old 86 Commons project.
Ms. Hauth reminded the Board that these were quasi-judicial proceedings and while the public
period was open any written comments from the public should be provided at the public hearing
by the person making the statement so that it was sworn testimony. She said once the hearing
was closed there should be no more contact of any kind, so letters or other information received
should be disregarded.
Ms. Hauth reminded the Board that on September 25 at 7:30 p.m. training would be provided to
the Planning Board and others at the Holiday hin Express on this and other quasi-judicial
procedures. She noted that since this was a two-part process the Board needed to make a
recommendation with specific reasons on the zoning portion and then the Master Plan
component where specific conditions could be attached. Mr. Farrelly said at the last meeting
the wall, or barrier, was the primary topic. He said he had asked the applicant and the neighbors
to meet and sort out a compromise, which they had done.
Sheila Pierce, the applicant, said they had met with the Cornwallis Hills Homeowners
Association. She said based on some extensive research, they had proposed a vinyl -coated
fencing, possibly green or brown, with vegetative screening. She said after the meeting, they
realized that security was not the primary concern of the neighbors, but was sound and privacy.
Ms. Pierce said since the neighbors had not considered CPTED's view of opaque fencing; they
were continuing to request a solid wall fixture. She said they and the neighbors had not been
able to reach a resolution as to what sort of barrier should be erected.
Ms. Pierce said they had engaged the engineering firm to produce. diagrams showing the natural
contours of the land as well as the moving of some dirt to produce berms. She said with the
fencing for security with the heavy vegetative buffers, along with the natural contours of the
land and the berms that they could accomplish all three goals of safety, sound reduction and
privacy and still retain a natural look to the property.
Mr. Oliver asked about the proposal for the donation of property. Ms. Pierce said they were
prepared to discuss the reconfiguration of Lot 3 to make it a total natural area.
09/05/2006 Planning Board Minutes
Ms. Ellis asked about the sidewalk she had brought up in an earlier meeting. She said she had
contacted the Erosion Control Office to determine if the stream that ran through the northern
section of the property contributed to Cates Creek and if it had been visually examined. Ms.
Ellis said that could not be confirmed, but she believed it should be visually examined. Mr.
Farrelly said that Mr. Whitaker had noted that they were using the latest GIS information that
characterized the stream, and that it looked like an ephemeral stream but it was not classified as
such.
Ms. Ellis said we had run into this type of issue in the past, and it was important to determine
whether or not that stream contributed to Cates Creek. Ms. Hauth stated that the Neuse Rules
refer to two documents, the USGS Quadrangle Map and the Soil Survey. She said if the stream
did not appear in either of two maps, then they do not have the authority to require a buffer, and
the stream in question did not appear on either of those two maps.
Ms. Ellis asked if we could request a visual inspection. She said she was concerned about the
runoff into Cates Creek that reached the Eno and eventually the Neuse. Mr. Farrelly asked what
she was hoping to learn from such an inspection. Ms. Ellis said she was concerned that no
visual inspection had taken place. Ms. Hauth said conducting a visual inspection would not
trigger the Neuse Rules. She said they did not mean that the Board could not request buffering
on that stream, but it would be something that was in addition to any rule that we had. Ms.
Hauth said it would not be applying our Zoning Ordinance and it would not be applying the
Neuse Rules, but would be above and beyond. She said a site inspection by Soil and Erosion
Control would not generate the requirement for a buffer. Ms. Hauth said the Board would have
to require the buffer, noting it could not be triggered under our existing written regulations.
Ms. Hauth said they had addressed the issue with the plat requirement that it was two or three
lots, and that condition did not rise to an enforceable condition because it only spoke to intent.
Ms. Ellis said the plat showed a property line in the middle of the creek from the Rippy
property, and asked about the survey. Ms. Hauth responded that the survey had been included
in the packet of materials.
Mr. Farrelly said that given that the applicant and the neighbors had not reached a resolution, he
asked Ms. Pierce what she envisioned as the next step. Ms. Pierce said the Board had indicated
that if she and the neighbors could not reach a resolution, then the Board would decide, so that
was what she believed was the next step. She said she believed they were at an impasse.
George Higgins, Chair of the Cornwallis Hills Homeowners Association, said .that privacy was
an essential element of security; and that was why they wanted a solid perimeter barrier. He
said if you review OPTED, especially Task 3, paragraph 4 and 5, an impermeable barrier was an
essential element. He said in paragraph 5 it says that vegetation should not be considered part
of the perimeter barrier, which was what Ms. Pierce had just recommended. Mr. Higgins said
they continued to want a solid structure, and offered to share some photos of similar structures
with Ms. Pierce.
Mr. Farrelly asked Mr. Higgins to be more explicit about the structure he was proposing. Mr.
Higgins said they ideally wanted a permanent walled structure that faced the houses
interspersed with wrought iron between the houses so that runoff could pass through. He said
they would like to have the whole thing walled, but considering the topography and the stream,
it was essential that some pass through be provided for runoff to prevent flooding on either side
of the barrier. Ms. Hauth confirmed that they were proposing something like a 30 -foot barrier,
then 30 feet of wrought iron, then another 30 -foot barrier, and so on. Mr. Higgins said that was
correct.
09/05/2006 Planning Board Minutes
4
Mr. Higgins said they were not sure what the proposed vinyl fencing would look like, although
they had asked for a sample. He said they did not see how vinyl fencing could be considered as
an essential design element in that it would contribute to the "beauty" of the project. Mr.
Higgins reiterated that the residents wanted privacy.
Tony Whitaker, of Civil Consultants, Inc., said he wanted to offer some comfort regarding the
drainageway, which was not a stream but in fact a drainage feature. He said they were not
proposing to disturb that drainageway, but were in fact proposing to preserve it. Mr. Whitaker
said it would be cordoned off during construction to keep it clear of dirt or other debris, and that
no clearing would take place in or- near it. He noted that the parking lot had been pulled back
away from that drainageway by about 30 feet specifically so that it would not be disturbed.
Mr. Whitaker read a passage from the CPTED review by the TJCOG that spoke to the issue of a
physical barrier, not a vegetative or physical buffer. He said that review concluded that a
partially opaque fence between six and seven feet high was probably the best fit overall. Mr.
Whitaker said the CPTED review talked about the national standard being a chain -linked fence,
and the desire to have something that you could see through but not walk through. Mr.
Whitaker said they were proposing a vinyl -coated chain -linked fence, which was a common
practice. He said it was not for aesthetics, but because it was difficult to see and unobtrusive in
a wooded environment.
Mr: Whitaker said regarding the buffer, he was proposing a creative solution as requested by the
Board, to,help with the buffer situation. He said it had to do with Town parking -space sizes that
the Ordinance required, with was 180 square feet per parking space, usually 9 x 20 feet, or 10 x
18 feet. Mr. Whitaker said his experience was that was a generous parking space size, and was
larger than the average. He said they proposed to install smaller parking spaces, not narrower
but not as long. Mr. Whitaker said they were proposing parking spaces that were 9 feet by 18
feet, noting that would not result in the loss of any function or safety aspect of the parking for
the user, but it would gain an additional eight feet that could be added to the buffer and would
also reduce the impervious surface.
Mr. Whitaker said that additional eight feet would provide more flexibility in that area. He said
they proposed that as much as possible, to have at the edge of the parking lot a shoulder and a
berm that came up a few feet above what would be the edge of the parking. Mr. Whitaker said
in the lower drainage area they would place a slope on the backside and landscape that slope
with small trees, evergreen shrubs, or anything else that was desirable to act as a logical buffer.
He said the main component of this was at the top of that berm, they would place a good solid
tight evergreen hedgerow that would give even more height to that vegetative physical barrier.
Mr. Whitaker said that would allow all parking lot activities to be screened quite well from the
neighborhood.
Mr. Whitaker said if a car were to pull into the parking lot at night, the car lights would be
shining into the embankment or the berm that they were creating just beyond the edge of the
parking. He said they would keep the lights from entering the neighborhood, and would
provide a physical barrier that was meaningful and significant. Mr. Whitaker said they also
proposed that a chain link fence be added at or near the property line which was the appropriate
place, not at the edges of parking lots. He said they were willing to install at the edge of the
property line an eight -foot high chain-link fence, vinyl coated, color to be selected by the
interested parties, that would meander and be placed strategically around significant trees and
clusters of vegetation, to achieve the stated intent. He said it was not for looks because they did
not believe you would be able to see it since it would be buried in the woods. Mr. Whitaker
said it would be a physical barrier to prevent access between the two properties and discourage
foot traffic. He observed that the natural contour of the land continued to rise in that area even
thought it dipped in places, so that aided in providing for screening from light and noise, and
09/05/2006 Planning Board Minutes
added to the privacy. Mr. Whitaker said any noise or light from the parking lot would be
directed into the embankment rather than into the neighborhood.
Mr. Whitaker said the proposal for the parking spaces and the lot gave them the ability to do a
better job with that berm, in that it provided more physical room for a buffer for the
drainageway. Mr. Whitaker said there was one other thing they believed would make this even
better, if the Board wanted to consider it. He said the front setback for the buildings along Old
86 was 50 feet in this zoning district, and they believed it would be reasonable to take the
building and the parking lot, on both Lots 1 and 2, and pull them a closer to the road, about 10
feet, and provide ten more feet to the buffer. He said with the eight feet proposed from the
parking lot, the buffer would then be physicallyl8 feet wider than what was proposed
previously. Mr. Whitaker said they believed that extra 18 feet would help in many ways, and
they were willing to agree to that if the Board were interested.
Mr. Farrelly asked what elements of that proposal had been discussed with the neighborhood.
Ms. Pierce said the concept of a berm had been discussed when they met with the neighbors.
She said they believed this alternative was less disruptive to the natural vegetation on the
property than building a wall, which would require much more construction and clearing.
Ms. Ellis asked if there was a warranty on the vinyl fence. Mr. Knight stated that he had spoken
to representatives of several fencing companies, one of which had enough information that he
had visited their showroom. He had looked at various gauging and colors for that type of
fencing, and noted that the posts for the fencing would be the same color as the fencing that was
chosen. Mr. Knight said the life expectancy for this type of fencing was noted to be "forever,"
in that the fencing company said this type of fencing had been installed for over fifty years and
they had not yet had to replace any. He said the company had indicated the fence was last
indefinitely as long as it was not mangled or destroyed in some other way.
Mr. Newton asked who would be responsible for maintaining the fence. Ms. Pierce responded
the property owners, whoever that might eventually be. Mr. Remington asked if it was just the
chain link itself that was coated with vinyl. Ms. Pierce said every piece of wire would be
coated.
Mr. Oliver asked about the length of the fence and where it would be placed, keeping in mind
that Lot 3 was being considered for other purposes. He asked if Ms. Pierce had consulted with
the Cornwallis homeowners about how far the fence or barrier should go with that
consideration. Ms. Pierce said she believed that was discussed, but they believed that if the
noise and privacy issues were dealt with, then there was no reason for the fence to continue
down into the piece of property that they were not only not going to develop but ultimately may
be donated to someone who may not want it disturbed. And, she added, they certainly would
not want to disturb the creek or buffer area. Ms. Pierce said the eight lots that back up to this
property who would be affected by light and sound we would certainly want to help buffer.
Mr. Oliver said regarding the position of the fence along the property line, he understood it was
a natural inclination to place it there. But, he said, he did not see that the applicant had the
intent to use that property anyway, so why not move the fence closer to the parking lot. Ms.
Pierce said fences were used somewhat to delineate pieces of property, and whoever eventually
owned this property would have the right to have access to it. She said there was some
flexibility they were willing to use, but the owners had the right to access all of their property.
Mr. Oliver said it had been mentioned that the fence would be almost hidden, and to him that
reduced the security it offered in that you wouldn't see someone climbing the fence from the
parking lot or office building. Ms. Pierce responded that if someone was intent on climbing
over a wall or fence, they were likely do it anyway regardless of what the barrier was.
09/05/2006 Planning Board Minutes
R
Ms. Vandemark said from her experience, concerns about crime, in terms of people crossing
from one property to another, had a lot to do with immediacy or accessibility of that access.
And, she said, the pattern of a known path was alluring. Ms. Vandemark said people were
inclined to jump a fence in one place and continue onto an established pedestrian traffic pattern.
She said she believed that applied to this case as well. Ms. Vandemark said if there was a
situation that allowed a pattern of foot traffic, then that could lead to concerns about crime. She
said the fence was not so much something that could not be overcome, but was something that
was in the way the first time someone tried to walk through there and realized there was no
walking pattern there. She said that alone would be an impediment to someone climbing over
the fence.
Ms. Pierce said given the length of the fence, it was likely that someone would simply walk to
the end of it and go around it. Mr. Whitaker said the fence would be eight feet high, and the
intent was to make sure that the web size, or spacing, of the wire mesh would be small enough,
likely 2 inches, that you could not get a "toe -hold" with shoes on. He said that would make the
fence difficult to climb.
Ms. Ellis said she understood that the brick wall requested by the neighborhood was not just for
sound, but for the protection and safety of their children as well. She noted that many
communities around Jacksonville used such walls to provide protection from roadways. Ms.
Ellis said a solid brick wall would provide complete privacy, and she did not believe it was
unreasonable to ask for that wall. Ms. Pierce said in this case they were not attempting to
screen a neighborhood from a multi -lane roadway with a backyard that was 20 feet away. She
said there was plentiful natural vegetation plus about 50 feet or more, not to mention the
differential in height. Ms. Pierce said there was no direct line of sight from the parking lot into
a backyard now because of the trees, and that would become even more so once they completed
their plans.
Ms. Ellis said the fence was proposed to be placed on the property line. Ms. Pierce said yes, or
close to it. Ms. Ellis said it should be entirely on this property. Ms. Pierce said they were
proposing that it be slightly inside their property line, and in some places even more because
they planned to maneuver around existing trees.
Mr. Jones said he saw the width of the buffer, but asked what was the height differential as it
compared to the berm. Mr. Whitaker commented that his comments about this would be
preliminary, noting that there were no exact measurements as yet. He said based on what is
now known, the berm would be about 2 '/2 feet, or about four feet higher than the parking lot in
many locations, noting that in some locations it might be a little more or a little less.
Mr. Jones asked how did that compare to when you look towards the homes. He asked what
kind of barrier would that berm really be, if you were comparing it to where the homes were
sitting. Mr. Whitaker said their drawings indicated that the berm would appear to come up to
slightly lower than the top of a car. Mr. Whitaker said once you moved towards the
neighborhood, you would step off of that flat high portion of the berm and begin to walk down a
slope.
Mr. Whitaker said once you got on the other side of the fence, the land rose slightly, with the
front of the lots in the neighborhood mostly higher than the backs. He said the parking lot
would be cut lower than the elevation of the neighborhood, so the cars in the lot would be
shielded by the berm.
Mr. Farrelly said but in places the berm would only be two feet above the parking lot. Mr.
Whitaker said they. could make it a little higher, noting they worst case scenario would be from
09/05/2006 Planning Board Minutes
VA
2 to 2 % feet with shrubs on top. He said they could make it more if the Board was willing to
steepen the slopes, but they could not be too steep. Mr. Whitaker said they did not want to have
to clear any additional trees towards the neighborhood as well. He said this was why moving
the buildings forward ten feet could be a way to help that situation.
Mr. Farrelly said that two feet of height would not block some vehicles. Mr. Whitaker said that
was correct, and was hoping everyone would agree to having the berm at least three feet high,
but again the berm would also contain evergreen shrubs which would provide even higher
screening.
Ms Wallace asked if the berm would have any affect on the drainage. Mr. Whitaker said they
had studied that, and noted that there was no location that the kind of berming they were talking
about would cause a ponding problem. He said in fact, by keeping the drainageway
unobstructed it would continue to work just as it always had. Mr. Whitaker said it would still
receive the water from the upstream areas, and would not be impeded as it flowed through. He
pointed out on the map the proposed location of the stormwater management pond that would
receive water from the parking areas, which was be treated and released into the drainageway.
Mr. Whitaker said the water was released into the drainageway in order to comply with Neuse
rules for spreading the flow out and providing maximum chance of nitrogen reduction. He said
they would be using a level spreader device and an area to allow the water to spread and flow
naturally, which was into the drainageway rather than directly into Cates Creek.
Ms. Pierce reminded the Board that in that particular area was also where the widest vegetative
buffer was located. Mr. Whitaker said that 50 feet was the prescribed or expected width of a
buffer, but they had always envisioned doing more than 50. He said this proposal, at the
northern corner, was 58 feet from the edge of the parking lot to the property line, and that 58
feet was the closest point. He said at the southern end, it was 71 feet, so they were providing an
average of 64 '/2 feet of buffer with the parking lot adjustment. Mr. Whitaker said half of that
buffer would be completely undisturbed and would retain good quality wooded vegetation.
Mr. Farrelly said he appreciated all the work the applicant had done on this, but at the same time
he was frustrated that the 'applicant and the neighbors had not come to a mutually satisfying
solution. He asked Ms. Hauth did the Board have to make a recommendation tonight. Ms.
Hauth said if no decision were made tonight, then it would delay when the Town Board would
receive this. Mr. Homik said they were not compelled by any statute to make a decision this
evening.
Ms. Ellis said she was not ready to vote on this project, noting there were too many unknown
factors and too many problems that needed to be corrected. She said she believed the proposal
was too "vague." Ms. Hauth reminded the Board that this was a Master Plan, and this did not
authorize the construction of anything. Ms. Ellis said she was not yet ready to vote on the
Master Plan.
Mr. Oliver said he was ready to go forward with a discussion and vote on the two buildings, but
not for anything on Lot 3. He said if the Board asked the applicant to reserve that lot, did they
then have to come back with a revised Master Plan. He asked how they could vote on that now
without that actually being represented in the Master Plan. Mr. Oliver said that Lot 3 in the
Master Plan was not even the right dimension that have been talked about, and he was keen on
making sure that . nothing was built on that lot. He said he wanted to see the applicant
compensated for allowing that lot to remain natural, through tax credits or whatever.
Mr. Hornik said the easiest thing for the Board would be if they came back with those issues
ironed out. He said the Board could approve a Master Plan with conditions, that is, based on if
it was configured a certain way, or approve what they have and have them come back to amend
09/05/2006 Planning Board Minutes
N.
it. Mr. Oliver asked if that would have to go back through a public hearing. Mr. Hornik said it
would. Ms. Hauth said it could be a hearing that was tied to the Special Use Permit (SUP). She
said if the applicant came forward with an SUP that did not comply with the Master Plan, and
the Board approved it, then that would be an amendment to the Master Plan.
Mr. Oliver said he was ready to go forward with the project. He said there had been some
changes made to the cross-section being shown, such as the berm and the fence. He said he was
not in favor of moving 10 feet closer to the street or reducing the size of the parking spaces.
Mr. Oliver said we had standards in place for a purpose and he wanted to stick to them. He said
that meant that the setback would be down to 50 feet and 63 feet. He said the foliage with the
berm and the fence probably would suffice, but he would prefer not to have a chain -linked
fence. Mr. Oliver said he understood the costs concerns, but wanted something that looked
better. He said he understood that the fence would not be seen from the parking lot, but
wondered what it would look like from someone's backyard
Ms. Wallace asked what would be the problem with the proposed 40 -foot setback as well as the
reduced depth of the parking spaces. She said she was willing to compromise to protect the
aesthetics of the neighborhood, and wondered what the practical implications would be. Ms.
Hauth said in terms of the required setback, it was established to create " a feel" as you drive on
the roadway, in that there was a broader area and not as tight and urban in its feel. She
remarked that buildings in Oakdale Village would be much closer to the street than this. Ms.
Hauth said the issue was of design and did not pose any engineering concerns, adding that 40
feet was still plenty of room. She said most people would not be able to tell the difference
between 40 and 50 feet. Ms. Hauth said in terms of the depth of the parking spaces that
was debatable. She said there were many large vehicles in use, but also very small vehicles.
Ms. Hauth said she was more comfortable with a depth reduction than she was with a width
reduction.
Ms. Ellis asked if the berm would consist of new fill dirt, and would that be allowed that close
to Cates Creek. Ms. Hauth said yes, it would be allowed.
Mr. Jones said the only think holding this project up was the proposed wall, and asked why
there could not be a "meeting of the minds." He asked was the problem the expense, noting the
neighborhood was not fighting the development, but only wanted a wall. Mr. Jones said he had
concerns about the berm, in that it may create more flooding. He said he did not understand
why we couldn't just have a wall.
Mr. Boericke said he was fine with moving the buildings to provide more space, and suggested
that just a couple of rows of the parking spaces be reduced in depth, not all four. He said he
liked the idea of the berm, but that 2 feet didn't seem like enough. Mr. Boericke said he did see
that one of the difficulties in making it higher was keeping the plants alive so that drainage did
not become a problem. He said possibly the berm should be higher near the entranceway,
because vehicle headlights would always be pointing towards the neighborhood. Mr. Boericke
said he liked the idea of the vinyl fence, noting it was important that runoff not be obstructed by
a wall. He said such a fence would last well, it would not be easily seen, and would certainly
discourage foot traffic. Mr. Boericke said some consideration should be given to how the fence
was terminated, such as a turn to give the impression that the fence may continue.
Ms. Wallace said the vinyl fence appeared to be a better solution that a solid wall. She said if
she lived there she would want the fence rather than the wall„ to help keep the natural feel of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Newton said he was okay with the project as the applicant had presented it. He said he was
in favor of the proposal for the Lot 3 exchange, he was in favor of the vinyl chain -linked fence,
09/05/2006 Planning Board Minutes
W
he would like to see the buildings moved a little closer to the street in keeping with other
projects in the area and to increase the buffer, and he was in favor of the berm.
Mr. Newton said he believed he had asked the applicant to bring to this meeting with a new
drawing or representation of the project as it was now proposed, including the reduced setback,
the increased buffer, the addition of the berm, and the reduced depth of the parking spaces. Mr.
Newton noted his only remaining issue was that he was unsure about reducing the depth of the
parking spaces. He said he would be willing to vote on this tonight, but would still like to see a
final map or official drawing.
Mr. Remington noted he believed the wall was unwise from an erosion control standpoint. He
said he was comfortable with the vinyl -coated fence, and agreed that Lot 3, which was in the
floodplain, should not be developed. Mr. Remington said he was comfortable with moving the
buildings 10 feet closer to the street in order to provide a wider buffer, but was not sure about
reducing the depth of the parking spaces. He said it may make it too difficult to maneuver in
and out of parking spaces. Mr. Remington said he would have preferred that this development
take place elsewhere, noting the timing of it seemed like "sprawl."
Mr. Farrelly asked for a reaction from a member of the Cornwallis Hills neighborhood, in terms
of how the current proposal met the neighborhood's desires.
Margo Pinkerton, a resident of Cornwallis Hills, noted that the CPTED review was done
without any knowledge that a neighborhood was located close by, and that troubled the
neighbors because the study was done from one point of view. Ms. Hauth said she did not
believe that was a true statement, noting that TJCOG knew there was a residential neighborhood
located there, but did not evaluate the proposal from the neighborhood's standpoint. She
wanted to make it clear that they knew the neighborhood was there, noting they had received all
of the application materials.
A gentleman from the audience commented that when Jo Soulier, a Cornwallis Hills resident,
had contacted CPTED and mentioned the neighborhood, the reply was "what neighborhood?"
Ms. Hauth responded that the report did not indicate that.
Ms. Pinkerton said one idea brought forth tonight was the idea of a barrier at or close to the
property line. She said the CPTED review stated that:a perimeter barrier should be included to
delineate the territory, and that given the nature of the undistributed area, this barrier should be
around the parking lot or the edge of the buffer closest to the parking lot, not the property
boundary. Ms. Pinkerton said there was a considerable difference in elevation between parts of
the proposed development and the lower parts of the abutting neighbors, which caused grave
concerns in regard to privacy. She said the proposed chain -linked fence would allow people to
see through it into the second story windows of the homes.
In addition, Ms. Pinkerton said, the neighbors had proposed four different walls, and the
developers had proposed their own and had not considered the four proposed by the neighbors.
She said the neighbors had suggested a solid brick wall, but had agreed that it was too
expensive. Ms. Pinkerton said they had then proposed a cast-iron fence, also very expense. She
said a more reasonable solution was a block cement wall faced in stucco, but they had also
acknowledged that a chain -linked fence was a possibility but they did not consider it viable.
Ms. Pinkerton said when the neighbors had discussed the block cement, stucco wall, that
because of the watershed it made sense to have solid sections interspersed with fenced sections
where water could pass through. She said they had made it clear that part of their concern was
privacy as well as noise. Ms. Pinkerton said that many trees would have to be removed, and in
the winter there would be even less buffer which would result in even less protection.
09/05/2006 Planning Board Minutes
10
Mr. Farrelly asked how high a wall would be required to prevent someone in the parking lot
from seeing into the second story of the homes. He said from the maps a 15 -foot high way
might be necessary. Ms. Pinkerton said she realized such a height was not practical, but
believed an eight foot wall was reasonable. She said while an eight -foot wall would not address
all of their concerns, at least it was a substantial step in the right direction and was a
compromise under which they could live.
Mr. Remington said it appeared that was a compromise that did no good, because of the
visibility issue. He said he believed the berm with opaque vegetation and some sort of wall
added there would address the issue.
Ms. Vandemark asked how would the property owner get to his property behind such a barrier.
Ms. Pinkerton said the fence would not go all the way around the property, so the owner could
go around it. She said the CPTED review suggested the wall go around the parking lot and then
curve around at the end.
Mr. Farrelly said from a security standpoint, the chain -linked fence would serve as well as other
solutions. He said regarding the issue of light traveling through, the berm if constructed
properly and with the vegetation would prevent light from spilling over it. Mr. Farrelly said
regarding noise, no ambulances would be arriving at the planned medical facility on this site, so
no really obnoxious noises would be emanating from the property. He said given that the other
issues had been addressed, then possible noise pollution was the only remaining concern.
Ms. Pinkerton said a study had been done that indicated that a brick or stone wall had
infinitely more sound barrier capabilities than vegetation.
Ms. Ellis asked what the total height would be of the berm and the fence. Ms. Pinkerton said if
they had an eight -foot fence and a minimum two -foot berm, then that would result in ten feet,
which they believed was a good compromise.
Mr. Whitaker said if we had a brick wall at the edge of the parking lot then we would not need a
buffer, because the purpose of the buffer would have been achieved with the few feet that the
wall took up. He said that an eight -foot high wall was the same size as a building or house wall,
and it would be like building a building at the end of the parking lot, which was essentially what
the neighbors were asking for. Mr. Whitaker said it would have wide concrete footings, it
would weigh a ton, and would be subjected to tipping and would need structural stability. He
said that type of structure was not well-founded on top -of a topsoil berm two or three fee high
and not very wide. Mr. Whitaker said if they placed some kind of barrier against the edge of the
parking lot that would leave 50 to 60 feet of land that was unusable. He said if that was what
was approved they would likely change their plan and put more parking closer to the property
line.
Ms. Wallace asked what would be the height of the evergreen shrubs. Mr. Whitaker said they
had initially proposed Nelly Stevens Holly's that would grow to about 15 feet high when
matured. He said they were willing to do_ the kind of shrub or tree that made the most sense, but
the Holly was a good choice. He mentioned that other trees such as Wax Myrtles were virtually
evergreen, were durable, and the challenge was to keep them cut back. Mr. Whitaker said they
were willing to allow the stakeholders to have some say in the types of plants. He said they had
not wanted to decide specifics tonight, but only to get the Master Plan approved so they could
move forward. Mr. Whitaker said the SUP process was a more appropriate place to discuss
specifics.
Joe Phelps, a resident of Cornwallis Hills, said he preferred a solid fence to address the privacy
issue. But, in this case he said, Mr. Whitaker was correct in that placing a solid wall near the
09/05/2006 Planning Board Minutes
11
parking lot would require that footings be dug at least two feet deep to support the wall. Mr.
Phelps said that would disturb the natural buffer as well as likely injure and kill the roots of
nearby natural trees. He said the trees on both sides of the fence would be compromised, and
would likely die within a couple of years. Mr. Phelps said such a wall could not be built on the
berm, that it would have to be built on a solid surface and that would be near the property line.
Ms. Wallace asked what formula was being used to determine the number of parking spaces.
She said the number proposed seemed. odd, and that there was much wasted space. Ms. Hauth
said we were using the number required for office, not for retail. She said medical offices
tended to exceed the number used for standard office use.
Mr. Oliver said he would like to hear some language proposed that would answer the concern
for Lot 3 being redrawn and donated. Mr. Whitaker proposed the following wording,
"Applicant would agree to waive development rights on Lot 3, excepting the construction and
maintenance and necessary utilities, if: (1) Lot 3 is retained as a separate lot of record; (2) the
property line between Lots 2 and 3 will be reconfigured so that Cates Creek is contained
entirely on Lot 3; and (3) the originally proposed building floor area for Lot 3 will be
transferred to the extent practical to Lot 2.
Mr. Newton said we needed to keep in mind that anything that we say is permitted in terms of
the Master Plan most likely will happen. He asked if the floor area mentioned in the third
condition could be transferred to Lots 1 and 2. Ms. Pierce said they already had an identified
user provided for Lot 1 and were already in the design phase, and the additional floor area was
not needed on that lot. She said the additional floor area for Lot 2 would provide flexibility to
possibly add a second story to that building if the eventual user had a need for it.
A suggestion was offered that a condition be that the additional floor area not appreciably
expand the footprint for the building on Lot 2, and that the Board define or limit the amount of
gross floor area. Mr. Whitaker stated that the 5,000 square feet originally planned for the
proposed building on Lot 3 would be added to the 17,000 proposed for Lot 2, making it possible
to have 22,000 square feet maximum on Lot 2. Mr. Oliver said that should be clearly stated in
the conditions. He asked if that language was acceptable to the Planning Department for Master
Plan purposes. Ms. Hauth said she believed that was clear, that Lot 3 became a lot of record,
and the floor area transferred to Lot 2. She said regarding Lot 3 containing all of Cates Creek,
she asked for some language that spoke to whether the entire buffer was to be located on that lot
as well. She asked if we were prepared to be that specific tonight.
Some discussion ensued regarding the possible uses for the property based on the Master Plan.
Ms. Hauth noted that the uses were limited to the six or so that were noted in the Master Plan
proposal. She noted that there were two issues to be voted on, on being the zoning and the other
the Master Plan, so the proposed conditions would be added to the Master Plan. Mr. Hornik
read what G.S. 160A-383 said about Planning Board recommendations.
MOTION: Mr. Newton moved to recommend approval to the Town Board of the rezoning of the Old 86
Commons project based on the fact that this application was consistent with the Land Use Map
of the Vision 2010 Comprehensive Plan
SECOND: Ms. Vandemark.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Ellis asked if the Planning Board would receive a new drawing with the new proposals
included. Mr. Farrelly said obviously not before the vote. Ms. Ellis asked if they could limit
the uses that were allowed in the Master Plan. Mr. Farrelly said in terms of possible uses, those
were already indicated in the Master Plan. Ms. Ellis said she was concerned about leaving the
possibility of a drive-through window in that Master Plan. Mr. Farrelly said they were
discussing the zoning at this time, and that zoning included drive-through windows. Ms. Hauth
noted that could become a condition of the Master Plan to be considered shortly.
09/05/2006 Planning Board Minutes
12
VOTE: The vote was 8-1, with Ms. Ellis voting Nay.
MOTION: Mr. Oliver moved to recommend approval to the Town Board of the Old 86 Commons project
with the following stipulations:
1 - That the front setback from the road be decreased from 50 feet to 40 feet for the
buildings on Lots 1 and 2. With the decrease in the setback, that the additional setback
footage be used to increase the width of the buffer between the parking lots and the rear
of the property line;
2- That a vinyl covered chain -linked fence of eight feet in height be installed as shown on
the developer's proposal;
3- That the applicant waive development rights on Lot 3 as long as it remained a lot of
record, that it be redrawn to include the portions of Cates Creek from Lot 2 into Lot 3;
so that Cates Creek was wholly on Lot 3;
4- That an increase in the square foot allowed for the building on Lot 2 will not exceed
5,000 square feet, and it did not expand the footprint as identified on the Master Plan
for Lot 2.
SECOND: Mr. Newton.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Wallace asked if language to remove a drive-through business should be added. Ms.
Hauth noted that only a bank with a drive-through window was listed as a use, not any other
type of business, such as a pharmacy or other retail operation. Ms. Ellis asked if the buffer
could have a condition added that regardless of who owned the property, that the trees would
never be cut or removed, and that all vegetation remain. Ms. Hauth responded that the existing
buffer could be specifically noted on the plan as a required buffer of a particular type and that it
had to be maintained, as well as the fence.
AMENDED
MOTION: Mr. Oliver amended his motion to add language that would require that the existing buffer
would remain and be maintained in its current vegetative state except for good forestry
management practices.
SECOND: Mr. Newton as the seconder accepted that amendment to the motion.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Ellis should the property owners should not be allowed to cut the vegetation, but should be
restricted. Ms. Hauth said if a tree were dying it would need to be removed. Mr. Farrelly said
this project was consistent with the Vision 2010 Plan and in terms of the Strategic Plan. He
stated that the applicant was being creative, but he was concerned that the applicant and the
neighbors could not come to an agreement. Ms. Ellis said we had a duty to protect
neighborhoods, and she was concerned about the safety of the children in that neighborhood.
Ms. Wallace said she had the same concerns, but believed this plan did address those concerns.
She said she believed this was a good compromise.
VOTE: The vote was 8-1, with Ms. Ellis voting Nay.
ITEM #7: Recommendation to the Town Board regarding Churton Street corridor plan.
MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to recommend approval to the Town Board of the Churton Street
corridor plan with the amendments noted in the materials for tonight's meeting.
SECOND: Mr. Newton.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Ellis commented that there were still questions and concerns about the roundabout planned
at NC 86 and Highway 57. Mr. Remington pointed out that part of the implementation would
have a traffic engineer review all of that to make sure that the plan was workable.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
ITEM #S: Consideration of subdivision creating 2 lots using a private road on Dimmocks Mill Road.
This item was postponed to a later meeting due to the absence of the applicant.
ITEM #9: Discussion of text amendments to the Prevention of Demolition by Neglect provisions.
Ms. Hauth said that Mr. Hornik had taken the current language and addressed the operational
issues that arose when applied to certain instances. She said some of the language was not
"ordinance appropriate" and needed to be removed, while other amendments were aimed at
09/05/2006 Planning Board Minutes
13
streamlining and clarifying the process. Ms. Hauth said the changes would hopefully clear up
some of the vagaries.
Mr. Hornik said the effort was really an effort to streamline the process and make the language
more consistent, and to address some of the problematic provisions that we confronted in the
Colonial Inn litigation. In addition, he said, there were some provisions he was uncomfortable
with that had been built into the ordinance in an attempt to address some public concerns, and
they had attempted to address them in a different way.
Mr. Oliver said regarding "significant resource," how did something new get added. He asked
was it voluntary or something else. Mr. Hornik said he had the same question. He said under
Section 21.7.1, Intent, the last paragraph read "...or which has gained significance since 1996."
He said he did not know what that meant, and who would decide if significance had been
gained. Mr. Hornik said that was why he was proposing to add "...or which has gained
significance as determined by " with the hope that the Town Board, the Historic
District Commission or even the Planning Board would be the one to make that determination.
Mr. Oliver said if someone built a house that was built to look as if it was from a different time
period, would it all of a sudden become significant. Ms. Hauth said there were several factors
that came into play. First, she said, was the District nomination that put the entire district on the
National Register of Historic Places. She said it established a period of significance for the
Town, in years. Ms. Hauth said the Town's period ran up through 1939, in part because of
when it was written. So, she said, anything constructed after that would not be old enough to be
placed on the National Register. Ms. Hauth said then there was architectural integrity that an
historian would assign to a project based on how similar it was now to how it was when first
built. She said until their period of significance was updated, it was highly unlikely that
anything newer than 1939 would become contributing. However, Ms. Hauth said, it was
possible for an individual structure to be listed. She said the County was seriously considering
listing individually the new County courthouse because of the importance of the architect that
designed it in the 1950's. Ms. Hauth said perhaps the amendment should include language that
said it was based on the District's listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Farrelly asked about specific circumstances when structures built before 1939 were moved
into the historic district, such as on Occoneechee Street. Ms. Hauth responded that it was
highly unlikely a structure like that would be listed as contributing, because the National
Register frowned highly on relocating buildings, especially one that moved such as distance as
that one did. She said there was a standard process in place for those types of circumstances,
and everyone in the preservation community understood how that worked:
Mr. Hornik said he had a similar concern with the way the ordinance had previously been
drafted, which was why he had recommended the revision. He said in its present state it would
be problematic for us to defend that language in court. Mr. Farrelly asked if Ms. Hauth was
recommending that we vote on this to send it to public hearing before the Historic District
Commission considered it. Ms. Hauth said not necessarily; she was attempting to make the
Board aware of the text amendments that would be considered this fall.
Mr. Hornik said these suggested revisions were still in draft form, but he believed it was a good
start. He said he wanted more feedback, and after a public hearing he wanted to have
something in place that would address the stated concerns.
Mr. Newton said he had been opposed to this ordinance in the first place, and had reluctantly
voted for it. He said he believed it pitted the Town against property owners, stating that if it
was adversarial in nature it was also punitive in nature. Mr. Newton said not only was this a
failed policy, it was a bad policy because it depended on the unpredictable nature of the court
09/05/2006 Planning Board Minutes
14
system as its ultimate resolution. He said with that in mind, he did not believe there was any
amount of rewriting that could be done that would allow the Town to go into court and come
out with some desirable outcome. Mr. Newton said the Colonial Inn litigation was a good
example, noting we had spent a lot of time working on the iteration that was now in the
ordinance. He said he would be more inclined to remove this ordinance rather than to waste
more time on it.
Ms. Wallace said there were many places that had successful Prevention of Demolition by
Neglect ordinances. Mr. Hornik said there was no reported case law available, adding that the
models we had used were from Fayetteville, Raleigh and Wilmington. He said none of those
were as detailed as ours in terms of the process, although they were similar. Mr. Hornik said
there was statutory authority to have it, and some a few municipalities that had adopted
ordinances exercising that authority, but not a lot of detailed experience on enforcement.
Ms. Hauth said short of interviewing the staffs in those other jurisdictions, she did not know
how heavily such an ordinance was used. Mr. Hornik said that the statute had never been cited
in a case in the State. Ms. Hauth said the statute was only one sentence long, which might
account for that. She said it read, "Jurisdictions may adopt an ordinance to prevent the
demolition by neglect of historic resources."
Mr. Newton said this ordinance was an open-ended loophole. He said the very essence of the
ordinance was to protect historically contributing structures that were at risk but in very bad
shape. He said going to court and loosing did not accomplish much.
Mr. Boericke said he did not disagree that this was difficult to do, but believed we were in a
very special environment in a special town that had resources that not a lot of other places do.
He said although he recognized the shortcomings of the legal system to address this, and the
downside of the nature of the law in that it was a threat to the property owner, he believed it was
still an obligation of the Town to try and protect some of those things that made it unique. Mr.
Boericke said he did not see another alternative, and was willing to have the ordinance on the
books so that if needed, we would have something in place that would allow us to approach a
property owner and try to preserve the resource.
Mr. Farrelly said he did not believe this should go to public hearing until we had feedback from
the Historic District Commission. There was general agreement from the Board members.
ITEM 10: Discussion of text amendments to modify the site plan process.
Ms. Hauth said these amendments were to modify the site plan review process. She said that
although it had been discussed to rename the Board of Adjustment to a Site Plan Review Board
and have it wear two hats, upon more consideration that was determined not to be feasible. Ms.
Hauth said as well there was a strong interest by the staff to move responsibility for other things
into staff approvals. She said her concern had always been that after a public hearing and public
comment, there were very few conditions upon which the Board of Adjustment could turn down
a proposal. Ms. Hauth that set up poor expectations for the neighbors who came out in force to
oppose a project. She said the ordinance needed to have more "cut and dry" standards and less
flexible standards, so that if the staff were handling the process it would be very clear what did
or did not meet a standard.
Mr. Remington said under Section 5.28.3, was it true that all of the things listed would require
Board of Adjustment approval. Ms. Hauth said currently yes, but it could be amended to say
that if they met the size requirement that the staff would handle it.
Mr. Hornik .said the first review would be a staff review, then it would go to the Technical
Review Committee, then it would go to Conditional Use -2.
09/05/2006 Planning Board Minutes
15
Mr. Oliver said he was not sure what the public wanted the possibility of input on. He said if
something was 10,000 square feet, then that might be okay. But he believed that 15,000 square
feet should be the "clip level" rather than 25,000 square feet. Mr. Hornik said those numbers
were arbitrary and were there as talking points only.
Mr. Oliver noted that things that were reviewed by staff would not be advertised. He said the
appeals would go to the Board of Adjustment, and then there would be advertising of a public
hearing. Ms. Hauth said there was no reason why some sort of public process could not be
worked into the system, such as a notification that the project was under review. She explained
how some uses might trigger the Conditional Use designation, and how schools and churches fit
into existing neighborhoods. Ms. Hauth said we needed to spend some time thinking about the
redevelopment of existing sites, because that was becoming more prevalent. Ms. Hauth asked
for further guidance.
Mr. Oliver said what he had been concerned about regarding the staff having technical review
was that someone would have a kind heart for the downtrodden individual and waive a
sidewalk. Ms. Hauth said that was something that would have to be specifically spelled out in
the ordinance, that the staff did not have that authority.
Mr. Hornik said one of the reasons that had done it this way rather than having the Board of
Adjustment as a Site Review Board was because if someone did not like the Site Review
Board's decision they had to be able to appeal it to someone, and ordinarily that would be the
Board of Adjustment. So, he said, they would be appealing to the same board that had rendered
the original decision. Mr. Hornik said the other alternative was to have the appeal go to the
Town Board, but that was not explicitly authorized by the General Statutes. He said the Town
Board would likely not want to be involved in this way.
Ms. Hauth determined that the lower number of 15,000 square feet was more acceptable for
staff review. She said they would continue to work on this and provide more detailed language.
ITEM 11: Discussion of text amendments to modify freestanding signs requirements.
Ms. Hauth said in the course of completing the work on the Churton Street plan the Committee
members, particularly Commissioner Gering, felt that it was very important to make
adjustments to the freestanding sign provisions sooner rather than later, that is, not wait for the
Zoning Ordinance rewrite. Ms. Hauth said one confusion people experienced when looking at
the sign ordinance was that they saw that they had to do the 0.3 square feet for surface area for
the street frontage but then there were these other criteria that further limited the size. She said
as a result, she had provided some revised language to address that.
Ms. Hauth said they were also proposing to reduce the minimum freestanding sign size. She
said that 32 square feet was the size of a sheet of plywood, which was big. She said that she
had included the number of 20 square feet as the maximum for the commercial district, which
was an arbitrary number and open for discussion.
Ms. Hauth said the Churton Street Plan Committee had also addressed limiting the number of
freestanding signs, so that had been addressed in the modifications. She said one freestanding
sign would be allowed on each street along which the property had frontage. She said she had
also addressed what to do with corner lots. Ms. Hauth said the maximum height was set at 7
feet, noting it was currently set at 25 feet. She noted that the Entranceway Special Use District
allowed 7 feet. Ms. Hauth said she had added a provision that said no pole -mounted
freestanding signs were allowed, with the idea that the sign should be supported by the vast
majority of the horizontal lift. Ms. Hauth said the signage for outparcels and multi -tenant
developments had always been odd to her, so she had deleted most of it.
09/05/2006 Planning Board Minutes
Ms. Hauth said these modifications were prepared in an effort to address where the Churton
Street Plan Committee had been specific about signs, and it did not go into lighting or materials
or similar issues. Mr. Farrelly said regarding the 20 square feet size, many times things were of
standard dimensions that were common, and wondered if it would be helpful to talk to people
who manufactured signs. Ms. Hauth said she could, and agreed that would be helpful.
Mr. Newton said assuming that we go forward with this, in terms of enforcement should there
be anything added that would give anyone in the Town a specific time to comply, such as ten
years. He asked if everyone with a sign now would be grandfathered in, or could some
language be added to bring them in compliance in a specific time. Ms. Hauth said she could
expand the scope of these amendments because there were provisions in the ordinance that
called for a seven-year amortization period after notice.
Mr. Newton said he would want to consider shortening the amortization period, such as three
years for existing nonconformities and six years for previously conforming. Ms. Hauth said that
would mean that anyone compliant with the ordinance before it was amended would get six
years, and anyone that was noncompliant before that would get only three years. Ms. Hauth
said we had a lot of flexibility as to what that number should be.
Mr. Remington said they were also planning to have some incentives built into the ordinance.
Mr. Homik said he had seen cases with five and seven-year amortization periods, and the courts
had said that was long enough for a person to get their money's worth from the sign.
Ms. Hauth said this would capture nearly every sign in Town, because none of our freestanding
signs were at that load level. She said that even though the new Wendy's and Taco Bell signs
complied with the current standards, they would not comply with the new ones. She said there
were very few new signs that would remain. Mr. Farrelly said he believed that a five-year
amortization was long enough.
Mr. Remington said one thing under Section 8.18(a), he asked if the language that said that
multi -tenant developments may erect either a development identification or joint identification
sign meant signs like the one at huge on at Boone Square would still be allowed. Ms. Hauth
said yes, that a development .identification sign would be one like that seen in the Churton Street
plan, noting that we didn't have any in Town that just identify the development. She said a joint
sign would have the development name but would also have some additional listing. Ms. Hauth
said they would make further revisions and bring this back next month.
ITEM 12: Discussion of text amendment inquiries.
Ms. Hauth said she would like some guidance from the Board, noting it seems that there were a
number of unusual requests that had been received for text amendments that were difficult and
time-consuming to write. She said she had received a request from a property owner who was
interested in converting their home into a bed and breakfast that also offered space services and
hosted events. Ms. Hauth said when our ordinance was written in 1986 there was no such thing
as a Day Spa, so it was not an envisioned use. She said the current ordinance would not handle
such a use without significant rewrites.
Ms. Hauth noted that the issue of directional signage was still of concern. She said that the
Town had received a request from businesses on Elizabeth Brady Road to have directional
signage placed at the end of the street detailing the uses. Ms. Hauth said the Board had deferred
action on the request until the Churton Street plan was complete. She said they had realized that
one of the things that could conceivable be causing a problem with Vietri was that the Town
had chosen to use a No Outlet sign rather than a Dead End sign. Ms. Hauth said it was
conceivable that people would see the sign that said No Outlet, and assume that Vietri was not
there. She said they had changed that out and placed a Dead End sign there instead.
09/05/2006 Planning Board Minutes
17
Ms. Hauth said we were less than a year away from a massive ordinance rewrite. She asked if
the Planning Board wanted to continue to receive requests for minor adjustments they were
finding. She said we could require that individual to write it up and bring it before the Board,
but they did not want to do that.
Mr. Newton asked what was the fee. Ms. Hauth said $50.00. Mr. Newton suggested raising the
fee to $500 and then say there was no guaranteed outcome when you come before the Planning
Board. Ms. Hauth said did that mean that the Board was not interested in sponsoring any more
text amendments that were not fixing items that we find on our own. Mr. Newton added or that
was directed by the Town Board. Ms. Hauth said she did not believe that was any implied right
that this Board would take up very charge from every individual to amend the ordinance to
allow them to do what they wanted to do on their property and then have it affect the entire
Town.
Mr. Oliver asked what alternative would the individual have. Ms. Hauth said they could craft
an ordinance on their own, pay their fee, and then appear at a public hearing. Mr. Oliver asked
was there an alternative where they did not have to craft an ordinance, but simply go straight to
the Board of Adjustment and get a Conditional Use. Ms. Hauth said not for those types of
things.
Ms. Hauth said for the example she had used regarding the Day Spa, that person could apply to
have their house rezoned to a Commercial or Office/Institutional use. She said clearly a Day
Spa on its own would be a personal service. She said the fact that it was tied in the same house
with a Bed and Breakfast was the problem, because Bed and Breakfasts were not allowed in
non-residential zoning districts. Ms. Hauth said the property owner could apply to be a hotel,
an office or personal service, and then try to get it rezoned.
Ms. Hauth said she had agreed to bring this general concept to the Board and see whether or not
the Board was willing to undertake the work necessary to work with her to rewrite the
ordinance. Ms. Ellis said she would have to have more information before she could commit
herself to it. Ms. Hauth replied what had been provided was all the information she had. She
said there were three guest rooms and a spa in her private home. Ms. Ellis asked if the property
was in the Town. Ms. Hauth said it was out of Town in the ETJ.
Ms. Ellis said this was something that would affect the entire neighborhood. Ms. Hauth said
that was correct, and noted she had indicated to the property owner that there was little hope for
a rezoning because there were no nearby commercial properties.
ITEM #13: Adjourn.
MOTION: Mr. Oliver moved to adjourn the meeting.
SECOND: Mr. Newton.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
Mr. Farrelly adjourned the meeting at 10:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret Hauth, Secretary
09/05/2006 Planning Board Minutes