HomeMy Public PortalAbout12.2.1982 Planning Board Agenda & MinutesMayor
Lucius M. Cheshire Jr.
Commissioners
Allen A. Lloyd
W. Paul Martin
Remus J. Smith
Rachel H. Stevens
Lynwood J. Brown
November 29, 1982
9mu at WtUshorar
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
To: Planning Board Members
From: Kay Maltbie
Town Clerk
Agatha Johnson
Supt. Water Works
C. E. Rosemond
Street Supt.
L. D. Wagoner
Cbief of Police
Arnold W. Hamlett
Agenda for the Planning Board Meeting, December 2, 1982, 7:30 P.M., Town Hall
Item 1- Willie Laws' Request for Rezoning
Item 2- Subdivision Plan. by Mr. James Rae Freeland (Sherwood Park)
Item 3- Public Hearing, December 16th procedure
Item 4- Committee Reports
Item 5- Reports from Representatives to Historic District Commission and
Board of Adjustment
Item 6- Consideration of Plans by Mobile Home Park Owners (Procedure)
r --
MINUTES
HILLSBOROUGH PLANNING BOARD MEETING
December 2, 1982
Members present::.=.Cox, Cannity, Martin, Page, Holman, Sheffield, Brody, Plambeck,
Wagner, and Goodwin
Others: Mr. and Mrs. Laws, John Dorward, and Mr. James Rae Freeland
Chairman Sheffield called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Item 1 was consideration
of Mr. Willie Laws'request for rezoning of his lot at the corner of Highway 70 and
St. Mary's Road. Sheffield asked if any of the Planning Board members had questions
for Mr. Laws. Cannity stated that Mr. Laws had talked with him and was concerned
about the traffic situation at the intersection of Highway 70 and St. Mary's Road.
Cannity talked with Sam Jones, District Engineer, NC DOT, who said that DOT was
almost immediately going to begin work on some traffic improvements at that inter-
section, including a turn lane to be added on Highway 70. Mr. Jones had said that
if Mr. Laws' property was a new use, all they would allow would be two driveways
along Highway 70; each driveway could not exceed 35 feet in width. This is not
a new use; however, he is willing to make any improvements that NC DOT would
suggest when they are out there working on the intersection.
Sheffield asked if DOT would advise Mr. Laws on where the best places for the
driveways would be and how far back from the intersection to make the access
driveways. Cannity said that they would and he would advise Mr. Laws to contact
the local DOT Assistant District Engineer to work with him. Cannity noted that
while the zoning of Mr. Laws property in 1979 as residential was an oversight,
approval of the rezoning would not allow any control over whether or not access
improvements ever get done.
Page asked if the Planning Board voted for him to remain residentially zoned,
his use would be non -conforming and he would not have to change his use, .right?
Cannity said the gas station would be non -conforming and the Treasure House would
probably be illegal, due to the issuance of the permit incorrectly.
Cannity pointed out that the County had encouraged commercial growth in the area
near Mr. Laws, but that the County had the advantage of being able to require in
the rezoning process that driveways be put in specific locations and that other
improvements be made.
Sheffield asked if the rezoning to commercial were approved now and then the Hills-
borough Zoning Ordinance were revised so that certain requirements could be specified,
would that property be grandfathered out? Cannity said that as long as the building
were not expanded (according to possible new provisions for Section 8) and the use
was a permitted use for the district, changes to the Ordinance would not affect
the property regarding access provisions.
Plambeck noted that the Charter of the Planning Board says that it shall be our duty
to establish principles and policies in guiding action for the development of the
area, to prepare and recommend to the Board of Commissioners an ordinance promoting
orderly development as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, to determine whether
specific proposed developments conform to the principles and requirements of the
Comprehensive Plan for the growth and improvement of the town. We are being asked
to consider this tonight. The Land Use Plan does not now recommend commercial
development in that area.
Cannity pointed out that the reason that the Land Use Plan doesn't recommend it is
that the jurisdiction for Hillsborough was extended in 1979 while the Land Use Plan (1976N
was done before the jurisdiction was extended.
Page two, Planning Board Minutes, December 2, 1982
Cox said the Land Use Plan doesn't mention the area (near Laws) one way or another.
Sheffield asked for other comments.
Brody expressed concern about the traffic situation. Cannity said one way to resolve
it would be to recommend approval but ask the Town Board to delay finalizing it until
Mr. Laws has a chance to talk to NC DOT.
Plambeck said the Land Use Plan advised against sprawling commercial rezonings.
Cox said that she had a difficult time dealing with Mr. Laws property as a new commer-
cial use.
Plambeck said this is a piece of land which could be used for any commercial use once
we approve it. This seems to be spot zoning.
Cox said that commercial uses were across the street from the Laws property.
Martin said that he had a hard time dealing with the fact that Mr. Laws had been
issued a zoning permit for the Treasure House and that the Town could say no to
commercial use. He noted that Mr. Laws had acted in good faith.
Plambeck said that the Planning Board had to tell the Town Board whether this
proposed use is in accordance with the Land Use Plan. The Planning Board has
to determine whether this is part of an orderly plan for development for the
Town.
Cox said that the Land Use Plan -.should be revised and updated to be in accord
with revisions in the Ordinance. -She said that the zoning of Mr. Laws property
in 1979 was an oversight, not intentional. Cox moved that the Planning Board
recommend approval of the rezoning from residential to general commercial to the Town
Board. Holman and Martin seconded the motion.
Cannity then offered a substitute motion first that the Planning Board feels that
the Hillsborough Land Use Plan does not adequately address the need or appropriateness
of commercial development at this intersection (St. Mary's Road and Highway 70);
however the Planning Board does feel the request for commercial use by Mr.
Laws is appropriate. Cox seconded the motion, which passed.
Cox' motion that the approval of the rezoning of Mr. Laws' property (one acre at
the intersection of St. Mary's Road and Highway 70) from residential to general
commercial be recommended to the Town Board was then made again. Martin and
Holman again seconded it. The motion passed with Brody, Plambeck and Goodwin
opposed.
Item 2 was then considered.. This item was the subdivision plan for Sherwood
Park submitted by Mr. James Rae Freeland. Discussion took'. -place with Mr.
Freeland. Sheffield noted that the Planning Board needs to consider officially
adopting paving standards.
Cannity move that the first comment be that utility lines and taps be installed prior to
application of stone for the road and prior to final road surface treatment. Cox
seconded it and the motion passed unanimously.
Page moved that the road for Sherwood Park be constructed of 6 inches of crusher
run and three alternating applications of asphalt or tar and gravel (same as for
the James Bennett subdivision). Cox seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Page three, Planning Board Minutes, December 2, 1982
Cox moved that the Planning Board express concern about the sedimentation potential
from the property and express the expectation that a thorough study will be made
and appropriate easements designated for the creek. Page seconded and the
motion passed unanimously.
Page recommended that the comments from the Hillsborough Planning Board be sent
to the County Planning Department regarding Sherwood Park Subdivision.
Sheffield noted that the Public Hearing was scheduled on December 16, 1982.
Cox suggested limiting comments to 45 minutes on each section. Discussion
of presentation followed.
Sheffield noted that he did not feel that the General Intent section for
Home Occupation was in its final form, so that that part was not included in
the revisions proposed to be discussed at the Public Hearing. Cox suggested
that after the revisions were complete that a statement of general intent
accompany each section.
Sheffield read a letter from the Institute of Governments' Phil Green who
responded to questions from the Zoning Officer. He suggested that all
Planning Board members receive copies.
John Dorward presented the first part of the section on Conditional Use,
the procedure for Conditional Use. He noted that it places more work on the
Zoning Officer, it requires more preliminary work which means that answers
would be readily available at the Public Hearing, it would come to the Planning
Board first so that the Planning Board's recommendations would then go to the
Board of Adjustment and then to the Public Hearing and it tries to ensure
that the work would not start and then stop for over ninety days. Cannity
suggested that the developer submit his construction schedule as part of the
application process. The construction schedule could then be accepted and
adopted as part of the conditional use permit. The BOA could state that
construction must start within 60 days of the recordation of the Conditional
Use Permit and then use the construction schedule. For example, Phase I
would have to be completed prior to construction of Phase II.
Dorward noted that the fee requirement as part of the application for a Conditional
Use Permit was new. It was picked up from the County ordinance. It was thought
that since it would take more of the Zoning Officer's time, a fee could provide
for more hours; that decision would be up to the Town Board. Cannity pointed
out that some of the County's fees are $120 for a rezoning request, $210 for
a major subdivision and $5 per lot for the final plat, and $60 for a conditional
use permit. Cox suggested a work session with the Town Board on this, but
Cannity said it might be better to suggest to the Town Board that it would
be appropriate for the Town to charge fees for services.. Page suggested drawing
up a schedule for Lala to present to the Town Board. Cannity stated that the
County Planning Department.based their fees on the costs of the particular
service in staff time.
Cannity suggested that the Planning Board recommendation be made after the Public
Hearing instead of before.
Plambeck noted that pertinent questions might not be answered at the Public Hearing.
Cannity said that the Hearing could be continued. Discussion of the process was
held.
Page described the Public Meeting held by the South Hillsborough Task Force. Twenty-
two people were there. They were concerned about the density, the road from Coachwood,
Page four, Planning Board Minutes, December 2, 1982
to Murdock Road being paved, water and sewer and education. They asked for
another meeting with the South Hillsborough Task Force either the first or
second week of January.
Page also reported that the Historic District Commission had been revising and
adopting rules of procedure.
The meeting was adjourned.