Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1.20.1983 Planning Baord Agenda and MinutesJANUARY 20, 1983 PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE HILLSBOROUGH ZONING ORDINANCE Hillsborough Board of Commissioners Brown, Lloyd, Smith and Stevens. Hillsborough Planning Board Members Sheffield - Chairman, Holman, Goodwin, Cannity, Page, Cox, Wagner, Martin, and Brody. Others: Josephine.Barbour, John Dorward, Manley Palmer, Evelyn Hicks, R. Riley, Jarvis Belch, William Gaede, Jane Gaede, Ray Sigman, Calvin Ashley, Gertrude Ashley, Leigh Cameron, Barbara Kennedy, John P. Kennedy, Jr., H.W. Moore, Charles Ayers, Dick Frankenberg, Susan Frankenberg, Fred Cates, Mike Sherer, Sidney Deans, Dan Viers, Jim Brady, Bill Ellis, Lucy Strickland, Roscoe Strickland, Jr., David Smuskie. Frank Sheffield called the meeting to order and noted that there were three sections of amendments to be discussed. Sheffield asked that people identify themselves and direct comments to the Chairman. He asked that people limit their comments to two minutes and make comments as constructive as possible. 1- Mobile Home proposed revisions were presented by Sheffield. He noted that a four person committee had studied the mobile home area and had talked with mobile home dealers, park owners and mobile home owners in the Hillsborough and Durham areas. The committee's purpose was to accommodate mobile homes in Hillsborough in such a way as to enhance rather than detract from the community and to benefit equally all districts of Hillsborough. They wanted to protect residents of Mobile Home Parks and produce minimum requirements which would insure that Mobile Home Parks (MHP) would be safe and attractive places to live. They tried to close loop -holes in the present Ordinance. For example, in R-10 any age or type of MH can be permitted with no requirement for skirting or for ownership of the lot. This means that small mobile home parks are occurring. In R-15, R-20 and R-40, the lot must be owned by the owner of the mobile home and the wheels and tongue must be removed and the foundation must be skirted. Also currently there is no prohibition on mobile homes in the Historic District. People in every district in Hillsborough deserve more protection than the Ordinance provides. The proposed revision offers classes of mobile homes for specific districts. Class A mobile homes, comparable to stick -built, would be allowed in any district except the Historic District. Class B mobile homes, which do -not meet certain appearance criteria, would be allowed in R-10 and MHP provided in R-10 that the mobile home is skirted and the mobile home owner also owns the lot. John Kennedy: I applaud the Planning Board for the efforts to protect the Historic District. I feel the atmosphere of the Historic District should be preserved. I commend you for your work. Jarvis Belch: Has the Planning Board looked at the Edenton Zoning Ordinance? Mobile homes are allowed in the Edenton Corporate Limits with some restrictions. Banks can't repossess if the tongue is cut off. Sheffield: The tongue can be covered or screened. Fred Cates: I was Mayor in 1973. I agree with John Kennedy (about preserving the Historic District). Have you discussed these proposals with the Town Attorney? Treat equally each part of the housing or it will be unconstitutional. Do not take action that will destroy the Historic District. Sheffield: We will ask the Town Attorney for a review. Cates: Contract to sell, deed of trust are legal questions regarding ownership Page Two, January 20, 1983 Public Hearing of lot. In certain districts, owner of the land must own the mobile home now. I have not been able to rent a lot to a mobile home owner. I don`t think that's legal. William Gaede: Is this the only Public Hearing on these proposed revisions? Sheffield: No, a subsequent Public Hearing will probably be needed on the mobile home revisions. Mobile home comments will be considered and refined language will be brought back at another hearing. Jane Gaede: We live in a mobile home in the extraterritorial mile in R-20 district. The 1979 Zoning Ordinance is tough but fair and treats mobile homes as single family residences. The proposed zoning revisions are discriminatory and segregatory. To allow only single wide mobile homes in R-10 and MHP is economic discrimination. The appearance criteria for mobile homes was described by Dr. Gaede as too expensive and discriminatory. She asked that the Mobile Home Section of the 1979 Zoning Ordinance be retained and that mobile homes be treated equally. Sheffield: Existing ordinance does allow mobile homes is all districts. The revisions would continue that with some appearance requirements for pitched roofs, masonite siding, etc., but single wide mobile homes would still be allowed. Mike Sherer: I run Southern Leisure Homes, retail outlet of Fleetwood mobile homes. We do not offer a pitched shingle roof or masonite siding. We have no four inch eaves on single wide mobile homes. Sheffield: We wanted the mobile homes in R-15, R-20 and R-40 to be compatible in appearance with a constructed home, so that a pitched roof is important. W. Gaede: You can build a stick built house with a flat roof. Evelyn Hicks: I live in West Hillsborough, and I commend you on your work. Remus Smith: Why is the Planning Board against modular homes in the Historic District? Sheffield: The Board wants to protect the Historic District. Stick built is more consistent with those houses in the district; however, it was a close call. Smith: How can you recognize the difference? No answer. How can you do it from the interior? How many built houses and how many manufactured houses were put in the Historic District in the last five years? No answer. Smith said one regular house and 8 modular homes were built in the Historic District in the last five years. If we can't distinguish modular from stick built, why should there be discrimination? Modular is here to stay. Cates: I agree with Remus Smith. We need to protect the Historic District. Discrim- ination could harm the District. Payne: Rigid regulations against mobile homes are unfair. What poll has been made on the revisions? The revisions are idealistic not realistic and are unfair to the poor. Mobile homes are healthy and humanitarian aspects should be considered. Cates: Buried telephone lines is one provision included for multi -family and for mobile home parks. Page Three, January 20, 1983 Public Hearing Hicks: I feel sorry for people who have spent a lot on homes and have mobile homes come in next to them. Standards benefit mobile home owner. Doug Garrett: Mobile homes do appreciate. Permanent masonry foundation is un- necessary and has no weight bearing load. When a lot owner cannot rent a lot to a mobile home owner, it takes away the owner's right to use his, property and hurts the person who is buying a home (particularly a burden on young people). He said that you can't use zoning .to uphold property values. He said that a class A mobile home costing $20,000 to $25,000 is compatible in appearance to a $100,000 home. Restrictive Covenants can protect property owners. Barbour: Is it legal to regulate aesthetics? Sheffield: The North Carolina Supreme Court says yes. Gaede: In 1980, Mark Burnham, Triangle J COG, said you cannot infringe upon property owners' rights by regulating aesthetics. 2- Home Occupations Revisions were considered next. Judy Cox presented background information. Cox said that two public hearings had been held. The Institute of Government had been consulted and a Work.Session had been held with the Town Board. Other Ordinances had been reviewed. They considered the impact of Home Occupations onithe community instead of specifying lists where some home occupations would not be listed. They wanted to help people interested in home occupations and let them know what is required. Barbour: She supported dentist and doctors having business in residential areas with conditions and on-site inspections. Payne: Existing home occupations are provided for in the Ordinance. Maltbie: Revisions allow people to do more than before. Under the current ordinance only articles produced in the home qualify a family for a home occupation. The revisions would allow home occupations which sell specialty items not made in the home with restrictions on the impact on surrounding neighbors. Smuski: It this under the scope of Governmental Regulation. Sheffield: Yes, it protects the neighborhood. The revision would require a permit and compliance by existing home occupations. Belch: Why was the word "customary" dropped? Sheffield: It was not appropriate. We are really talking about home occupations. Belch: People could get license from State and operate Beer and Wine sales. General Discussion. Someone said that the State laws regarding license would not allow sales in homes. Another comment was that the Zoning Officer would determine adverse impacts of business and determine whether to issue a permit. 3- Multi -family Section was presented by John Dorward. This section added some more specifics so that multi -family housing would be absorbed with the least problems. All Residential Districts would allow duplexes with the conditions that the duplex front on a publicly maintained road, have public water and sewer, electric power.lines be placed underground, and the lot area and setbacks would be double: the requirements for a single family dwelling. Page Four, January 20, 1983 Public Hearing John Dorward said that multi -family developments would be limited to 40 dwelling units regardless of the number of phases. He said that the Town Board had indicated a preference for projects with smaller units. The concept of the revisions is not to concentrate the developments but spread them out throughout the Town. 300 feet of open space would be required per unit. Buffer or screening was described. Fire protection plan must be approved by the Fire Chief. A site plan would be required. These requirements would not be as demanding as the requirements of the other ordinances which our committee looked at. Calvin Ashley: Would duplexes be allowed in the Historic District? Sheffield: Yes Ashley: What is multi -family district? Dorward: Multi -family is a special district which would require a zoning change to establish in any district. The Town Board would decide on the zoning change. Then a conditional use permit would be required. Maltbie: In the R-10 district, if all the conditions in the Ordinance are met, the Board of Adjustment has to issue a conditional use permit according to the existing Zoning Ordinance. The revisions would give the Town and adjoining property owners more control. Ashley: Get the revisions in common language so they can be understood. Rick Cannity: The Board of Adjustment can add conditions provided facts are provided at Public Hearing. On a. rezoning request the Planning Board would judge the merits of the location and recommendation would be made to the Town Board based on access and locational criteria. Page: (In response to comment against multi -family) All multi -family is not Section 8. Smuski: I was looking for more protection for residential areas. It is good to see that Section 10 provides for rezoning request and criteria that must be met. Cannity: (In response to question about where the multi -family would be located) Specific locations would not be designated. Multi -family criteria was developed to guide decisions on specific proposals. Hicks: We worked to have the area in West Hillsborough rezoned from R-10 to a higher zoning district which did not permit multi -family. Is that work fruitless? Payne: Think in terms of treating R-10 equivalent to R-15 and R-20. Hicks: R-10 does need protection. This fails all districts. Gaede: The revisions would restrict single wide mobile homes to R-10. Sheffield: No, a dealer in Durham has single wides which meet the criteria. Smuski: In protecting the zoning classifications, the Ordinance would be incomplete without criteria for a zoning change to multi -family district. Cannity: There is probably too much information to be presented for one public hearing. Page Five, January 20, 1983 Public Hearing Smith: My answer on these revisions tonight is no. I have to have it on paper. If the changes mean no growth for Hillsborough, I am opposed to it. Growth is now taking place to the south and up Orange High Road. Regarding the number of multi -family units, 40 is too small. We are now at 50 percent capacity for sewer usage and 60 to 65 percent capacity on water capability. Our facilities have extra water and sewer capacity for sale. Hicks: The schools are operating past their capacity now. When developments are proposed, the schodls capacity should be considered as well as water and sewer. Sheffield: We will take more time on these objectives to nail down the specifics and make them clear. The revisions are to accomplish objectives for the Town. Hicks: Mobile homes have to comply in Roxboro and Mebane; they should have to comply here. Lack of mobile home regulations mean that mobile homes in Hillsborough are occupied by people who work in towns with stricter mobile home regulations. Smuski: The revisions don't seem to be anti -growth, but should protect people who have invested here. The Public Hearing was adjourned.