HomeMy Public PortalAbout8.16.2007 Planning Board Minutes and AgendaTowm
Of
HiSlIr"lln'4
■
ITEM #1:
ITEM #2:
ITEM #3
®1994 To of Hillsborough
Call to order and confirmation of a quorum.
AGENDA
PLANNING BOARD
Thursday, August 16, 2007
7:00 PM, Town Barn
Adoption of minutes from June meeting and July public hearing
Additions to the agenda & agenda adjustment.
ITEM #4: Committee reports and updates
• Board of Adjustment
• Parks and Recreation Board
ITEM #5: Discuss citizen's request to amend daycare requirements for outside play area
Action requested. Discussion
ITEM #6: Formulate recommendations to the Town Board regarding July public hearing
items:
a. Zoning Request from State Employees Credit Union to annex 3.26 acres at
2313 Old NC 86 and have it zoned Economic Development District. (TMBL
4.44.13.22 and 24).
b. Rezoning Request from the Town of Hillsborough to zone the 24 acres
known as Gold Park from Agricultural Residential to Office Institutional
(TMBL 4.38.B.34)
c. Special Use Permit modification for Eagle Enterprises to replace the
approved Huddle House restaurant with a Burger King with a drive through,
reduce the carwash to one bay and reduce the hours of operation at 620
Hampton Pointe Blvd (TMBL 4.45..4c).
d. Zoning Ordinance text amendment to remove the provision for a density
increase with a Conditional Use Permit from Section 5.4.d.
e. Zoning Ordinance text amendments to establish stormwater control
regulations to comply with the town's NPDES Phase II stormwater permit
ITEM #7: Review draft existing and future land use maps with Clarion and discuss
workshop meeting to work on future land use in detail.
Action requested.- Discussion & selection of workshop date
ITEM #8: Adjourn
Please call the Clerk or Planning Department if you cannot attend
732-1270 ext. 86
101 East Orange Street • P.O. Box 429 • Hillsborough, North Carolina 2 72 78
919-732-1270 • Fax 919-644-2390
MINUTES
PLANNING BOARD
August 16,2007,7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Matthew Farrelly, Tom Campanella, Edna Ellis, Kathleen Faherty, Neil
Jones, Paul Newton, Eric Oliver, and Dave Remington.
ABSENT: Toby Vandemark and Barrie Wallace.
STAFF: Margaret Hauth, Tom King.
ITEM #1: Call to Order and Confirmation of a Quorum.
Mr. Farrelly called the meeting to order at approximately 7:02 and confirmed a quorum
of the Planning Board.
ITEM #2: Adoption of Minutes from the June 21, 2007 regular meeting and the July 19,
2007 public hearing.
Mr. Remington said on page 3, 3Ta paragraph, last sentence of the June 21 minutes, he
clarified that he had not suggested having businesses back up to the road as they did at
Hampton Pointe, but was expressing concern and not advocating for that.
MOTION: Mr. Remington moved to approve the minutes as amended.
SECOND: Ms. Faherty.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
ITEM #3: Additions to the Agenda and Agenda Adjustments.
Ms. Hauth introduced Tom King, the Town's new Senior Planner who began work on
August 1. There were no additions or adjustments to -the agenda.
ITEM #4: Committee reports and updates.
Board of Adjustment: Mr. Remington stated the BOA had held four meetings since
the last update, which included two special meetings to deal with the asphalt plant
application. He said on August 7 the BOA had unanimously denied that application.
Mr. Remington said the BOA had recently approved an application for outdoor seating
and rear parking at the Rooster's Nest; approved a site plan for Dickerson's Chapel to
build a fellowship hall; approved a site plan for Hillsborough Plumbing to build a
contracting office; approved a CUP for Ray Atwater to build a duplex on North Nash
Street; approved a CUP for Orange County to install a communications tower on
Meadowland Drive at its new Emergency Management offices; approved two Special
Exception permits for additions to two non -conforming houses in the historic district;
approved a modification to a site plan for Thalle Construction for a building with
gravel parking/storage for an equipment rental operation at 890 NC 86 North; and,
conducted hearings for proposed office buildings on Meadowland Drive, for the
Krishna Temple to build 2 -story temple on Dimmdcks Mill Road, and for proposed
duplexes on King and Hassell Street, all three of which were held open.
Parks and Recreation Board: Ms. Hauth said in June the Master Parks and
Recreation Plan had been reviewed, and a public forum would be held next Wednesday
evening with the various entities that could be impacted by that Master Plan.
ITEM 5: Discuss citizen's request to amend Day Care Requirements for outside play area.
Ms. Hauth said that Ms. Lavorne Pratt -Walker and Mr. John Wright, who had property
on Cornelius Street that was zoned Commercial, were interested in operating a day care
center from that property. She stated there was a significant difference between the
State's requirements and the Town's requirements for outside play areas for day care
centers. Ms. Hauth said the State's requirement was 75 square feet per child, and the
Town's requirement was 200 square feet per child. She said she had understood that
the Board did not want to consider text amendments during the ordinance rewrite
period, but wanted to bring this to the Board's attention to determine the interest in
addressing it now or waiting until later.
Mr. Farrelly said he wondered how nearby jurisdictions addressed outside play areas in
particular zoning districts. Ms. Hauth said she had not researched it, but assumed it
would be close to the State's requirement. She said it was clear that Hillsborough's
ordinance was not in alignment with State requirements in several areas.
Mr. Remington said the State's regulation stated that in no event shall the minimum
required exceed 75 square feet per child, and it appeared the Town was in conflict with
that since they exceeded that requirement. Mr. Oliver agreed with that interpretation.
Mr. Farrelly stated it was strange to place a cap on space since you would want as
much space as possible for children to play. Ms. Hauth agreed.
Mr. Remington said it appeared that perhaps an error was made in the language
adopted by the State, in that it should state that the minimum required shall not be less
than 75 square feet rather than shall not exceed 75 feet. Ms. Faherty said she believed
it alluded to the ability to supervise a group of children in a large space. Mr.
Remington said he did not consider the Town's requirement of 200 square feet per
child to be excessive.
Ms. Ellis asked if current day care centers were meeting the Town's ordinance
requirements, noting there was one on Nash Street and one on Corbin Street. Ms.
Hauth said they were meeting the ordinance, noting the one on Corbin Street had its
entire backyard fenced in, and the one on Nash Street had come before the Board of
Adjustment for approval. She said there was one on Lawndale that had done the same.
Mr. Farrelly stated it was important to remember the Town's ordinance was from a
planning point of view, and had nothing to do with licensing which was the point of
view of the State.
Ms. Pratt -Walker said her purpose for being present this evening was to ask the
Planning Board if some reasonable range could be found to the Town's requirement,
since the State required 75 square feet per child and the Town required 200 square feet
per child. She said the property on Cornelius Street would not allow 200 square feet
per child.
Mr. Farrelly asked how many children she planned to serve at the day care center and
how much space would that require versus what was available. Ms. Pratt -Walker said
the available space would allow for only 25 children, if the 200 square foot
requirement was applied. She said that would also prohibit any future expansion.
Mr. Oliver said he had conducted some research on this topic and the standard did
appear to be 75 square feet per child, which was the national standard. He said one
Planning Board 08/16/2007 2 of 12
way to get around that would be to not allow all the children outside at one time,
meaning less overall space would be required. Ms. Pratt -Walker said they had planned
to stagger play times. Mr. Oliver said language addressing that should be considered
during the ordinance rewrite.
Mr. Remington said from a site plan approval process that would be difficult to do in
the context of the Zoning Ordinance, because they would not be looking at an
operational plan.
Mr. Oliver asked how many children Ms. Pratt -Walker planned to serve. Ms. Pratt -
Walker responded up to 40 when they fully expanded, but would begin with much
fewer. She said the building would be planned to house up to 40. Mr. Oliver asked
Ms. Hauth how long it would be before the ordinance rewrite was completed. Ms.
Hauth responded about 18 months, which was why Ms. Pratt -Walker was asking for
consideration now so that she would not have to wait to begin her project.
Mr. Farrelly asked Ms. Hauth to verify Mr. Oliver's research. Ms. Hauth said she
would check with four or five neighboring jurisdictions to see what they required.
ITEM 6: Formulate recommendations to the Town Board regarding July public hearing
items:
a. Zoning Request from State Employees Credit Union to annex 3.26 acres at
2313 Old NC 86 and have it zoned Economic Development District (TMBL
4.44.B.22 and 24).
Ms. Hauth provided a few brief comments describing the annexation and rezoning
request. Mr. Newton said he did not see in the site plan how people parking in the
parking lot would be able to walk to the building. He asked if a pedestrian would have
to walk through the lot and across the driveway to get to the building. Ms. Hauth said
that was how the plan was currently, but a vote on this tonight was for the rezoning
only, not the plan itself. Mr. Oliver asked why the parking lot was needed. Ms. Hauth
said because the plan was to expand the building which would include staff expansion
as well.
MOTION: Mr. Newton moved to recommended to the Town Board approval of the zoning request
from the State Employees Credit Union.
SECOND: Mr. Remington.
VOTE: Unanimous.
b. Rezoning Request from the Town of Hillsborough to zone the 24 acres known
as Gold Park from Agricultural Residential to Office Institutional (TMBL
4.38.B.34).
Ms. Hauth described the current zoning, which had been placed on the property prior to
the Town identifying a plan for the property. She said zoning the property to Office
Institutional was much more comparable to community -scale parks and allowed them
to reduce the setbacks slightly on the north side and bring the building further out of
the floodplain.
MOTION: Mr. Oliver moved to recommended to the Town Board approval of the rezoning
request from the Town of Hillsborough for Gold Park.
SECOND: Mr. Newton.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Planning Board 08/16/2007 3 of 12
c. Special Use Permit modification for Eagle Enterprises to replace the approved
Huddle House restaurant with a Burger King with a drive through, reduce the
carwash to one bay and reduce the hours of operation at 620 Hampton Pointe
Boulevard (TMBL 4.45..4c).
Ms. Hauth stated she had received an email today from the Chair asking about the
setbacks and exactly how that would work, noting the plan showed 50 -foot setbacks
and 30 -foot setbacks, in addition to a 20 -foot pedestrian easement. She reminded the
Board that the Master Plan placed setbacks for the outparcels to be smaller than those
for the Entranceway Special Use District. Ms. Hauth said the Entranceway Special
Use District required 50 -foot setbacks, but the Master Plan for Hampton Pointe
specified 20 -foot and 15 -foot setbacks for those outparcels. She noted that although it
was not specified in the ordinance, it was traditional that drive aisles were not
considered as structures.
Ms. Hauth noted that the applicant was requesting that the hours of operation for the
entire site be set at 5 a.m. to midnight. Mr. Farrelly stated that the carwash would
operate 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Ms. Hauth said the applicant had requested that amendment
at the public hearing.
Mr. Remington said another issue at the public hearing was the right in/right out and
the removal of the formal driveway connection to the adjacent lot. He said there was
some discussion of making a provision for that in the approval without specifying
where it had to be located.
Mr. Oliver said regarding the right in/right out, he was in favor of the right out only.
But, he said, the right in only was of concern because the street was wide enough to
have a left turn lane as you exit. He asked why it was restricted when the SUP was
approved. Ms. Hauth said because at peak hours the left turns traveling north on NC
86 would back up across the intersection, make a left turn into this site not possible,
and put it in conflict with vehicles turning left into the Home Depot. Mr. Oliver said
that made no sense as far as traffic patterns, because you had a left turn into Home
Depot which would protect the left turn into this property. He said if there was a back
up it would be past Home Depot to the roundabout.
Mr. Campanella said Mr. Oliver made a good point, noting that the way it was
configured it would be used only by vehicles coming in off of NC 86. He said it would
cause people leaving Wal-Mart and wanting to visit the Burger King or get gas to go
back out to NC 86 and make a U-turn. Ms. Faherty agreed, noting the configuration
would cause even more of a traffic snarl.
Mr. Newton asked Mr. Oliver if his concern was a left turn coming out of this property.
Mr. Oliver said no, he was advocating for a right out only, but a left in as you came
around the roundabout. Mr. Newton said he believed that was a good idea. He said
regarding connectivity to the adjacent parcel, such connectivity had been required in
the past and wondered why it had not been required here.
Ms. Ellis said the adjacent parcel's entranceway would be right in front of the
roundabout, and she had previously pointed out the real traffic problem that existed in
Planning Board 08/16/2007 4 of 12
front of the Home Depot. She also pointed out that the applicant had indicated that
70% of their traffic would be drive-through traffic, which would exacerbate the traffic
problems in the area. Ms. Ellis noted they must be cautious about what was approved.
Mr. Remington remarked that the applicant had clarified that they were not reluctant to
have the connectivity to the adjacent parcel, but having to specify where that
connection might be before knowing what the use was of the adjacent property would
be difficult. He said the applicant had wanted to wait until there was a use on that lot
and then determine where the connectivity should 'be placed. Mr. Farrelly agreed,
noting the applicant was open to providing it but did not know where to put it. He said
there was also some question of the width that connectivity needed to be, so if approval
was recommended to the Town Board then some width needed to be specified.
Mr. Newton said he would ask the Town and the applicant to look at the plans for the
Goodwill Community Foundation who had done that exact thing, and have this
applicant do something similar to what was done there. He said based on the current
configuration, they likely needed to put the driveway somewhere along the western lot
line.
Mr. Campanella asked if the origin of this particular entry configuration was a design
that the applicant came up with or was reflecting certain DOT regulations. Ms. Hauth
said the right in/right out was previously required by the Town.
Mr. Newton said Burger King would be a big draw, but because of the additional
traffic he questioned the right in/right out. He said people would find a way to make a
left turn. Mr. Remington disagreed, noting that with the appropriate barriers it would
make it more difficult for left turns to be accomplished. He said it was a good idea to
have right ins and right outs in certain places, but believed if there was room for a left
turn lane into the site then he was in favor of allowing that. Mr. Jones asked if the onus
was on this Board to change that, since they had previously required a right in/right
out. Ms. Hauth said the Board could let the applicant know they would entertain
something different, and believed the applicant would speak to that tonight. She added
the question of who would pay for that would need to be considered since it may not be
entirely the applicant's responsibility. Ms. Hauth said the Board had previously
discussed the Town having to restripe the pavement markings for safety.
Mr. Farrelly wondered how far traffic would back up, noting that the applicant had
stated the average time in the Burger King drive through was 2 minutes so it likely
would not back up too far. But, he said, you had to make a sharp turn to get into the
car wash.
Bob Brantley, the general contractor on the project and speaking for the
owner/applicant, Mr. Gandhi, stated that the right in/right out had been required by the
Town. He said they had not wanted to do it because in general such a configuration
did not work, particularly on the "in" lane. Mr. Brantley said NCDOT recognized that,
and frequently required that full access in and out be provided on State -maintained
roads, but come out with a steeper, more exaggerated right push. He said they would
welcome the opportunity to change the access to a two-way in, noting it would cause
less confusion for vehicles leaving the shopping center.
Planning Board 08/16/2007 5 of 12
Mr. Brantley noted the connection to the lot to the west had been removed so that
parking could be provided there. He said they had no idea what would be built on that
lot or how it would be configured, but would welcome a condition that would mandate
that when that lot had a plan for development that it show a connector that would be
mutually agreed upon with Mr. Gandhi. He said such a connection may require that
they give up three parking spaces, but they were willing to do that. Mr. Brantley said
they were also willing to put such a connection back into their plans now.
Mr. Newton said his preference would be to show that connectivity now rather than
working it out later. He said that would mean the removal of the three parking spaces
on the west side closest to the road. Mr. Brantley said they would agree to that.
Mr. Farrelly said the water projections were 69.5 gallons per day, which was under the
allotted water use. He asked Ms. Hauth how that allotment was arrived at. Ms. Hauth
said from the estimate determined by the Town in its projections of water
commitments, and was used as a "rule of thumb" and was not binding.
Mr. Farrelly asked where the estimate of 42 cars per day came from, where the 70
gallons per car came from, and the 70% reclaimed water came from. Mr. Brantley
explained the applicant would be using the Coleman recycling system, which from
personal experience he knew to be a very successful system. He stated in his
Goldsboro facility his water usage had dropped by 80% after installing a Coleman
system, but he had used the 70% figure as a conservative estimate.
Mr. Brantley said a typical automatic car wash would service at maximum of 70 cars
per day, and again they had used a conservative estimate of 42 cars per day because
they did not expect this to be a high use car wash. Mr. Farrelly asked if it would use 70
gallons of water per car. Mr. Brantley responded yes, noting it was a laser wash.
Mr. Oliver stated that crosswalks were needed across the entry drives. Mr. Brantley
said that would be done.
Ms. Ellis asked if a traffic count had been done for traffic coming in off of NC 86. Ms.
Hauth responded that was a Town street, so the Town could produce that information.
The Board agreed by consensus to have that information provided.
Mr. Farrelly asked if there were any concerns about the location of the drive aisle. Mr.
Oliver said the Board of Adjustment's policy was that no structures were allowed
within a setback. Mr. Remington said a structure would be a parking space, but not a
driveway. Mr. Newton said he had no problems with the location, noting he liked the
fact that it was a long driveway to allow for traffic backups.
Ms. Faherty agreed, noting it was tucked back. She said one concern was that people
were driving across the pedestrian route, and that it appeared to be awkward to have
people turn in and go around a car wash to get in the drive through lane. Ms. Faherty
asked why the drive through was located there. Mr. Brantley stated that food was the
primary destination, with the need for fuel being an impulse.
Planning Board 08/16/2007 6 of 12
Mr. Farrelly suggested that the gas pumps should be shifted away from the car wash.
Mr. Newton agreed. Mr. Brantley said there was room to do that, although room had
to remain for fuel deliveries as well as other delivery trucks. Mr. Farrelly said he had
suggested moving it so that it would line up with the edge of the building. Ms. Hauth
said she believed the Board was suggesting moving the loading area so that the awning
could be pushed even further to allow for better maneuvering into the drive through.
Mr. Newton said a possible solution was to move the car wash a little further into the
corner rather than moving the awning. Mr. Brantley stated he could not do that
because there was a restriction on the amount of paving that could be put on the lot,
and if he pushed the car wash over he would exceed that impervious surface threshold.
Mr. Farrelly asked how many parking spaces over the required number were being
proposed. Ms. Hauth said they had 39 regular spaces and two handicap spaces, and the
ordinance required 25. Mr. Farrelly said then a possibility was to reduce the number of
parking spaces to bring the impervious surface total into line.
Mr. Newton said because this was an SUP and the Board was allowed some flexibility,
in order to address the pedestrian concerns was it possible and was the Board willing to
consider forgiving a certain amount of impervious surface. Ms. Hauth stated it was a
restrictive covenant carried by Hampton Pointe, not a Town ordinance requirement, so
the Town had no wiggle room. Mr. Brantley said they could slide the awning over to
the left to open up the right side, and that may result in more reasonable travel areas
within the lot. Mr. Farrelly agreed.
Mr. Newton asked why a Burger King would be successful here when the one on
Churton Street had been forced to shut down. Mrs. Ford, representing Burger King
franchisee, noted that Ameriking, one of the largest franchisees, had gone bankrupt.
She said this location was considered to be prime. Ms. Faherty asked how they
intended to pull in traffic from the interstate. Mr. Ford, also representing Burger King,
stated a blue interstate sign would be erected.
Mr. Oliver summarized what he believed the Board would want to recommend to the
Town Board: that when the Town Board rethought that intersection that they think
about a left in going towards NC 86; that the applicant be asked to install a connecting
drive with the adjacent lot; that the applicant be asked to move the pump area to the
west; that pedestrian crosswalks be added at the driveways; and, that there was no
preference on operating hours for the car wash. Mr. Newton agreed with most of Mr.
Oliver's statement, but said he would prefer to see a left in. He said the right in/right
out was great planning in theory, but believed it would fail in practice at this location.
Mr. Newton said he would like to see some optimal solution for this type of business
that allowed for full access.
After some discussion regarding the right in/right out and other possible traffic
patterns, the Board agreed that this location was not appropriate for a right in/right out,
and that some other solution needed to be identified that included a left turn in.
Mr. Oliver said the Town would have to address the issue regarding the intersection,
but the other three issues he had noted could be addressed by updating the site plan.
Planning Board 08/16/2007 7 of 12
He suggested that the site plan be updated and brought back to the September 20ch
meeting. The Board agreed by consensus.
d. Zoning Ordinance text amendment to remove the provision for a density
increase with a Conditional Use Permit from Section 5.4.d.
Ms. Hauth stated the text proposed to be removed was indicated by strikethroughs,
noting that removal of that language would mean that the Board of Adjustment would
no longer be able to grant the density bonus for lots that were equal or larger than the
zoning ordinance minimum.
Mr. Oliver stated that it was the wrong approach to strike this entirely; its use should be
restricted as to where it could be applied. For instance, he said, the ordinance could
state it could not be used in the historic district overlay zone or other districts where
they may want to overlay zoning. Mr. Farrelly said if that was changed now, it would
require going back to public hearing. Ms. Hauth stated it could be considered during
the ordinance rewrite in the next 18 months.
Mr. Newton said he was perplexed by this, noting the Strategic Growth Plan
encouraged density and here it appeared they were attempting to restrict it. He said this
appeared to be a reaction to something else. Mr. Farrelly said this was a result of
several projects proposed in the historic district, and it was a problem for the Historic
District Commission to deal with proposed large projects that may or may not be
compatible with the neighborhood.
Mr. Campanella said one issue was that there were clearly areas within the historic
district that could sustain greater density and in fact could have very high density, such
as in the Town Center and downtown. He said the HDC treated the entire area as
equal, when there were places that were very different. Mr. Campanella said there
were places where such density was inappropriate or perceived as such, and therein
was the problem. He said that density was not necessarily a bad thing, and it had
appeared that density had been demonized recently.
Mr. Newton said he believed they had received mixed messages from the Town Board,
noting the Town Board had recently voted in favor of the Alan Knight condos,
although no supermajority was achieved so it had failed. He added that the Planning
Board had approved those condos as well, so obviously one could argue that that would
be an appropriate place for higher density. Mr. Newton said he did not know what the
goal was nor did he understand the whole density issue, adding it appeared to be fluid
and depended on who was complaining at a given time. He said it was difficult to
rewrite zoning ordinances and do strategic planning when mixed messages were being
received.
Mr. Farrelly said with some of the issues that had come up, there did not appear to be
an easy way to come to some resolution. He said this text amendment would wipe out
the opportunity for some mixed density where it made sense to have it.
Ms. Ellis said she had voted against the Alan Knight condos because he had not wanted
to provide the required parking for that neighborhood business but instead wanted to
include it in with the parking for the apartments.
Planning Board 08/16/2007 8 of 12
Mr. Newton said rather than taking any action on this, he proposed that they leave
things as they were and let the zoning ordinance rewrite address it. He said density
was an important goal for the Town and was something that should be addressed in
greater detail.
Mr. Oliver asked how often the density bonus had been used or brought before the
Board of Adjustment. Ms. Hauth said twice, in July and in August. Mr. Oliver asked
if there was a lot of opportunity to use the density bonus within the historic district.
Ms. Hauth responded no, but noted that both of the times it had been proposed it was
proposed for the historic district.
Mr. Campanella agreed with Mr. Newton, noting that some time should be allowed to
let the issue breathe. He said to make a decision on it now was reactionary and colored
by recent events. Ms. Faherty agreed, noting it was unfair to take away the opportunity
for public hearings or opportunities for exceptions to be made where it made sense to
have greater density.
Mr. Farrelly said he generally agreed, noting that across the street from his home was
one place where a developer was asking for the density bonus. He said if granted, it
would allow for 10 condo units in the middle of a neighborhood that was all single-
family homes. Mr. Farrelly said the Board of Adjustment had to decide if that was
acceptable based on its criteria, and if approved it went to the Historic District
Commission, who could not address density but had to decide its compatibility with the
single-family homes. He said whatever your beliefs, this issue was putting two boards
in an awkward if not oppositional position. Mr. Farrelly said he agreed that changing
the ordinance now was reactionary, noting it did not allow for the most deliberation or
public input.
Mr. Remington wondered if one option would be for it to require a Special Use Permit,
which would give more latitude in looking at a project other than from a narrow set of
criteria.
MOTION: Mr. Remington moved to recommended to the Town Board that the proposed changes
to Section 5.4.d of the Zoning Ordinance be deferred and considered during the rewrite
of the Zoning Ordinance, due to the fact that greater density may be desirable in some
areas and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
SECOND: Mr. Newton.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Mr. Remington suggested that in future, motions made by this Board should include
specific reasons to provide better understanding to -the Town Board and the public.
Ms. Hauth said she relayed such information to the Town Board, and the Town Board
received copies of this Board's minutes.
e. Zoning Ordinance text amendments to establish stormwater control
regulations to comply with the Town's NPDES Phase II stormwater permit.
Ms. Hauth stated that these were the amendments to the stormwater control section of
the ordinance. She said they were making one minor adjustment in Section 5.20.2,
which referred to the Orange County ordinance, changing the "dash" to the word
"through" to make it clear that it referred to all the sections between 5 and 22. Ms.
Planning Board 08/16/2007 9 of 12
Hauth said she had also included three additional definitions taken from the model
ordinance. She said the last remaining question was did they want to keep the existing
language regarding when a site disturbed one acre. Ms. Hauth said leaving in the
current language in addition to the new language would ensure that everyone had to
address stormwater at some point.
Mr. Oliver asked if other jurisdictions in Orange County had adopted their own
stormwater ordinances or had they adopted the County's ordinance. Ms. Hauth said
she believed that Chapel Hill and Carrboro both had their own ordinance. Terry
Hackett, with Orange County, stated that was correct, noting that Chapel Hill actually
had a stormwater utility that assessed residents. He said neither of those municipalities
was in a nutrient sensitive watershed, so nitrogen reduction did not have to be
addressed.
Mr. Remington asked was there a reason why this would be limited to properties or
developments greater than one acre. He asked why it could not be applied to
everything, regardless of size. Mr. Hackett responded that the one -acre limit was a
State mandate, but you could be more restrictive. He said developers could get creative
by coming in with plans for projects on .99 acres in order to bypass the regulations, but
in some instances lots less than one acre needed to have stormwater addressed. Mr.
Hackett said it was a policy question, noting the intent was to protect local creeks,
streams and rivers, and the recently approved stream buffer ordinance would provide
protection on smaller sites.
Mr. Oliver wondered how this ordinance change made affect the proposed asphalt
plant. Mr. Hackett said it would potentially affect it, since they would likely require a
larger detention area such as a stormwater pond or water -quality wetland to capture
what ran off from the plant. He said it could require the applicant to be innovative in
how the plant was designed. Mr. Hackett said if the plant were approved, it would
require a separate stormwater permit which would address such things a material
storage and good housekeeping on the site. He said this ordinance would require that
the plant address bioretention or stormwater quality in some form.
Mr. Remington said it appeared from the testimony regarding the asphalt plant that the
question was not whether there would be an impact but how great the impact would be.
MOTION: Mr. Newton moved to recommended to the Town Board approval of the new
stormwater control regulations, and to replace language as discussed including the
three new definitions.
SECOND: Mr. Oliver.
VOTE: The vote was 4-4, with voting Aye, and voting Nay.
Ms. Hauth noted that because of the tied vote, no recommendation would go forward to
the Town Board, but she would explain to the Town Board that the Nays were due to
the desire to keep the existing language for the smaller lots.
ITEM 7: Review Draft existing and future land use maps with Clarion Associates and
discuss workshop meeting to work on future land use in detail.
Mr. Farrelly suggested that since a full workshop meeting would be spent on this issue,
that tonight the Board ask the consultant to cover any issues the Board needed to think
about and to save discussion until the workshop. Ms. Hauth noted that the maps were
Planning Board 08/16/2007 10 of 12
color -coded, but those colors could change based on future discussion. She said there
had been some discussion of inviting those people who had participated on the
Strategic Planning Committee to attend the workshop and perhaps open it up for public
comment as well. Ms. Hauth asked the Board to think about what process they would
prefer and under what timeframe.
Roger Waldon, with Clarion Associates, provided a brief presentation on the materials
provided to the Board. He reminded the Board that this Land Use Plan would be a
component of the Town's Comprehensive Plan, and the Land Use designations that
appeared would not have the same force of law as zoning carried. But, he said, there
was a State law that stated whenever you made a zoning change it had to be consistent
with the jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Waldon said the Land Use Plan
should be viewed as a blueprint, a guide, and a policy document. He stated that this
one appeared to be parcel specific, and asked the Board to decide if that was how they
wanted to proceed.
Mr. Waldon pointed out a line on the map which was a result of the Strategic Growth
Plan with the County, which would be the Hillsborough of the future. He said the
black line was currently the water/sewer boundary line, which was considered
Hillsborough's potential growth area. Mr. Waldon said there had been some need to
pull in the boundaries of Hillsborough's potential growth area, noted in brown, because
of the scarcity of water and other issues. He said there were some jurisdictional areas
that needed to be worked out with the County, because a portion of the brown area on
the map was within the County's jurisdiction. Mr. Waldon said there had been talk
about expanding Hillsborough's extraterritorial jurisdiction and that there may be some
areas of joint review with the County. He said in any case, the area noted in brown
was an area indicated in the Growth Management Plan as an area for which
Hillsborough ought to have the right to determine the land use.
Mr. Waldon said they had looked at existing land use, and then looked at the Town's
policy documents as well as the Strategic Growth Plan which said that Hillsborough
wanted to minimize residential growth to the north because it would increase traffic on
Churton Street. He said there were also reasons to look to the south for such
development because of infrastructure and available employment. Mr. Waldon said
another policy issue was the desire for mixed use, so it made sense to have a Land Use
Plan that designated mixed use. He said attention also needed to be paid to key market
areas, such as interstate interchanges.
Mr. Waldon said the materials before the Board tonight took all of those issues into
consideration to project what the future land use should be. He said there were key
parcels already locked in to institutional use or for conservation, and those were noted
as well. Mr. Waldon said they had designated the areas to be focused on by coloring
them white. He said he would encourage the Board to begin the workshop discussion
on those white areas.
Mr. Waldon said Ms. Hauth had already identified two mistakes on the map which
would be corrected prior to the workshop, and encouraged the Board to point out any
others they might find. He also suggested that after the Board had its discussion on the
map at the workshop, that some public comment be invited.
Planning Board 08/16/2007 11 of 12
Mr. Farrelly said if possible, at the workshop he would like to have a map that showed
interconnections, such as an aerial map. Mr. Waldon agreed that would be helpful and
agreed to provide that. Mr. Farrelly said that Google Earth could provide an aerial map
of what was on the ground today. Mr. Waldon agreed.
Mr. Oliver said there seemed to be one area that did not follow lot lines, in the
northwest corner of the map. Mr. Waldon said that was a ridge line area. Ms. Hauth
said they would verify that.
Mr. Remington said a part of the Cameron Estates subdivision appeared to be in the
white area, which was a mistake. Ms. Hauth stated he was correct, and that would be
corrected. Mr. Remington asked about if they wanted to say that the Latta Farm was
ultimately residential, or was there some permanent agricultural category that could be
applied. Mr. Waldon said that was an area where a substantive discussion was needed.
Mr. Remington said there were some areas where it appeared that the owners wanted to
keep their current uses. Ms. Hauth said prior to the workshop they may be able to
identify such parcels and flag them so that they did not inadvertently apply a zoning
that was not wanted.
A brief discussion ensued regarding some other areas of the map that may need to be
corrected and/or addressed during the workshop. Mr. Waldon noted that following the
Town's adoption of the Land Use Plan, the next step would be to begin discussions
with the County to work out the jurisdictional issues.
The Board discussed possible dates for the workshop, ultimately deciding on
September 4th at 7 p.m. Ms. Hauth asked if the Board wanted to extend an invitation to
members of the Strategic Planning Committee. Mr. Farrelly suggested having this
Board's discussion at the initial workshop. He also recommended that the workshop
extend no later than 9:30 or 10 p.m. There was no objection from the Board.
ITEM #8: Adjourn.
Upon a motion by Mr. Newton, seconded by Mr. Remington, the Board moved to
adjourn the hearing. The vote was unanimous. The meeting was adjourned at 9:36
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
fit•
Marg -,i t A. Hauth, secretary
Planning Board 08/16/2007 12 of 12