Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout7.2.1985 Planning Board Agenda and MinutesMayor Frank H. Sheffield, Jr. Commissioners Lynwood J. Brown Horace H. Johnson Allen A. Lloyd Remus J. Smith Rachel H. Stevens June 27, 1985 01 own of Nllsboroug4 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 To: Planning Board and News Media From: Myron Martin, Cha-irman Agenda fur the Planning Board meeting on July 2, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. at the Town Ha13 Item 1— Approval of minutes. Item 2— Courtesy review of Wayside Subdivision, referenced Lot 11, Tax Map 32, Block B. To wn Clerk Agatha Johnson Supt. Water Works James Pendergraph Street Supt. L. D. Wagoner Chief of Police Arnold W. Hamlett Fire Chief John Forrest Item 3— Rezoning request, referenced lot 18; Tax Map 36, Block B, from R-20 to Central Commercial. Additional information to be presented at the meeting. Item Zoning Map changes proposed to go to the Public Hearing July 22, 1985. Item 5— Review'of Hillsborough Flood Damage Ordinance. Item 6— Discussion of Site Plan Review process. Item 7- Zoning violations report. Item 8- Report from committeesc Historic District Commission Representative, Board of Adjustment Representative, Orange County Planning Board Representative. Item 9- Identification of projects developed by the Town of Hillsborough to be submitted for consideration in the 1985 Triangle Development Awards. iVr-? -;46. t,. t MINUTES OF THE JULY 2, 1985 • PLANNING BOARD MEETING Members present: Myron Martin, Chairman; Barbara Page, Jim Culbreth, Nancy Goodwin, Tarleton Davis, Hilda Brody; Calvin Ashley, Evelyn Poole -Kober, Robert Murphy and Bob Rose. Others: Laura Hill (Interim Zoning Officer), Susan Smith, (Orange County Planning Staff) and Sharlene Pilkey, (Orange County Planning Board). The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Myron Martin, Chairman. Three items were added to the agenda. Page asked that agenda packets be discussed, which was added as Item 10. Poole -Kober added as Item 11 the discussion of Chapel Hill's Greenway Program. Item 12 was suggested by Smith, who asked to speak on the new planning position to be shared between the County and Town of Hillsborough. Item 1- Approval of Minutes. The minutes of the June 6th meeting were considered, and passed unanimously. Item 2- Courtesy Review of Wayside Subdivision. The second item discussed was a courtesy review of Wayside Subdivision, located at the corner of Holiday Park Rd. and Hwy. 70 in the northwest section of Town. Applicant will be submitting the preliminary plat for approval by Orange County on July 15th. Martin asked if the proposed subdivision was for mobile homes. Smith responded that the applicant is not required to discuss what type of development it will be at the preliminary stage. The Orange County Zoning Ordinance doesn't require an applicant to submit the type of development proposed, although the applicant may do so. The Zoning Officer outlined the County Staff's review of the subdivision. The plat should have the following information: 1) Lot sizes excluding the rights-of-way where public, 2) setbacks and setback requirements, 3) the surveyor responsible for the plat, 4) the drainage easement (15' on either side) for the branch with a note -indicating that no activity or construction is allowed within the easement, 5) a letter from the Town of Hillsborounh indicating whether water and sewer is available, and if not -6 -available, minimum lot size requirement is 40,000 sq. feet, 6) the road width within the the right-of-way, 7) provide a note that access is limited to Holiday Park Rd. for Lot # 10, 8) show a cross section of the proposed road and 9) ifidicate the travelway of the proposed road -in connection with SR 1390. Orange County staff also noted that the County may require the road to be paved since there are a total of ten lots in the subdivision. Martin responded that in the past, Hillsborough has required such a road to be paved. There was a discussion concerning the zoning of the area. The parcel is zoned R-20, allowing 2 units to the acre. Goodwin said that the minimum lot size was shown to be 20,000 square feet on the plat. Smith further noted that the lots were a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. outside of the right-of-way, which meets the Town's zoning ordinance requirements. She asked if the setbacks were to be t excluded from the acreage calculation, Goodwin responded that the ordinance allows a minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft., but no building can occur in the setbacks. Smith commented that to satisfy the minimum lot size requirements it includes the lot size, regardless of the setbacks. Rights -of -ways are only excluded from lot sizes where they are public. Martin asked if the branch would be protected. The zoning officer commented that 15' easement on each side of the branch was designated for protection. Planning Bd., Ju'.y 2, 1985, Page 2 Brody also expressed concern about the application of erosion control measures. Smith said that the Orange County Soil and Erosion Control Off cer reviews these subdivisions for purposes of identifying drainage easements. Several Planning Board members raised the issue of Town responsibility for road maintenance. Smith asked if the Town maintained the roads once they were constructed and if the Town had any road standards. If the Board recommends that the road be constructed to State standards, does the Town assume that the State will do the inspection and take over of the road? Goodwin responded that the Commissioner of Roads is responsible for.inspection and that the Town would take over the road. Smith briefly outlined the County's policy on road inspections. Private roads within the County's jurisdiction are inspected by Orange County staff. Public roads are inspected by the State through the construction process. Orange County is given a final note of approval by the State before the County approves final construction plan. Goodwin asked if the NCDOT would also do this for the Town. Smith responded that she wasn't sure of the relationship between the Town and NCDOT. Primary routes are inspectedby NCDOT, but she was unsure of secondary roads and subdivision roads. The question is who inspects and maintains roads built to the Town standards. Poole -Kober stated that these roads are maintained by the Town, after the Planning Board recommends paving of the road. Some roads have been dedicated by the Town and are currently being maintained by the Town. Brody responded that this .question should be brought before the Board of Commissioners. According to Poole -Kober, this question has been raised before concerning road construction in subdivisions and shopping areas. There has been a problem with the Town's policy on road maintenance because there i + o ordinance to see that it is enforced. In response, Martin asked that the Zoning Officer check into the issue of road construction and maintenance and bring information back to the next meeting. The Town will eventually need to adopt some guidelines to address this. Goodwin added that the Town should investigate what the state standards are. Smith further added that the County's subdivision regulations spell out NCDOT's inspection and maintenance responsibility. What is unclear is how to handle the enforcement of the County's Subdivision regulations within the Town's jur- isdiction. Smi*h said that the law would probably state.what the Town is res- ponsible. for roads within their jurisdiction, unless the road was on the state system. If NCDOT has no responsibility for some of the Town's roads, does the Town want to take on responsibility or make formal arrangements with NCDOT? Final recommendation by the Planning Board was for the Zoning Officer to check into the matter. The Board's recommendation on the Wayside Subdivision was that the road be paved, with final endorsement of the County's comments about the site plan. Item 3- Rezoning request for Lot 18,' Tax Map 36, Block B, from R-20 to Central Commercial. Lot 16 also owned by the applicant is zoned Central Commercial, with an existing office building facing S. Churton St. The applicant is proposing to extend the west side of the office building to the back of the lot line just adjacent to the alleyway which runs behind Lot 16. Lot 18 would provide additional parking, using the north half of Lot 16 as an entranceway back to the parking lot. Lot 18 is currently zoned as R-20 and for the purposes of placing a parking lot on the parcel, the owner proposes a rezoning to Office Institutional or Central Commerical. Planning B.d., July 2, 1985, Page 3 Page asked if the lot was in the floodplain. The Zoning Officer stated that. it was outside of both the 100 year and the 500 year floodplains. The status of N & K Street, which is adjacent of Lot 16 on the west side, was questioned by Goodwin. Smith answered that Steve Yuhasz,.the surveyor, thought that N & K Street had been referenced on previous deeds and plats as a public road. The question is who is maintaining it, and has it. been accepted by the Town or NCDOT'for maintenance:. So far, no documenta- tion has been found concerning ownership and maintenance of the road. Goodwiri asked if at the previous rezoning meeting held on Nov. 10, 1983 the status of N & K street had been decided. Martin thought that it was agreed at the meeting that the Town had not accepted the road for maintenance. Smith expressed concern over the interpretation of setbacks according to the Town's zoning Ordinance. Smith stated that in the definition section, set- backs are measured across the full width or length of a parcel of land, parallel to the center lines or right-of-way lines of main traveled roadways. A main traveled roadway is defined as the traveled portion of a road or highway right - of -way owned, constructed or maintained in whok.or in part by a governmental agency. According to this definition (as given in the Town's Zoning Ordinance), if the Town has not accepted a road, one can't apply setbacks to the parcel in question. If this is the case for this situation, this would allow the applicant to fully occupy the parcel on which he is now located (lot 16); he could also make more -..extensive use of Lot 18 which is proposed to be rezoned. She asked that the Board give the staff some direction on interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and the application of setbacks. Following Smith's comments, members discussed N & K Street, and the issues presented during the Nov. 1983 rezoning request. Martin commented that during the 1983 hearing, a major concern was the possibility of condominium development along the river, gilven the possible extension of N & K road. Consequently., there was a lot of opposition to the proposal at that time. Smith explained the road classification system in North Carolina. Streets are either classified as public, private, or public non -maintained roads. She perceived N & K street as the latter classification, since it had been recorded and referenced as a public road for years. Martin commented that he thought there hadn't been a road as .shown on'the Tax Map for years. Rose asked who the surrounding property owners were. Smith responded that Lots 22,23 and 24 were owned by Ray Motor Co.; Murphy stated that Lots 19 and 20 were owned by Fred Cates. The Zoning Officer checked the Nov. 10, 1983 minutes for any comments on N & K Street. The minutes indicated that N & K Street had been offfered for ded- ication to the Town, but that Town records should be checked to see if the Town 'ever formally accepted the road. Apparently the road had been gravelled about ten years ago. Planning Bd., July 2, 1985, Page 4 Goodwin asked how Lot 18 can be used if the rezoning request is denied. The Zoning Officer responded that it may be used for residential purposes (it is large enough for one house), but that it could not be used exclusively as a parking lot. Smith raised additd)onal questions concerning the use of Lot 18. First, the staff needs to be directed on the status and use of the alley. If it is considered a public alley, the applicant then has the opportunity to request the To.vsn to close it, especially if there are any buildings which intrude into the alley. Second, there is the question of whether it is possible to upgrade the to make it an operable travelway. Third, the Board needs to discuss how '_.. setbacks have been applied in the past to similar parcels. These -matters -feed to be addressed in order to give the applicant all of his options. Since it is zoned Central Commercial (Lot 1'6) there are very few requ.i.rements that he would have to satisfy.. According to the Tax Map, he has a double frontage lot, which means that the only setback requirements that apply are for the front and the sides. Central Commercial has no front setbacks; side requirements are 20 feet. If he wanted to make greater use of his property with the structure, he could add parking. Currently there are no specifications given for parking in the Zoning Ordinance, except that it is expected to be provided in the district. She asked if any of the Board members knew of any parking requirements for that district. Goodw<iln:;suggested that the former Zoning Officer be contacted for this informa- tion., Murphy thought that the town attorney should be notified for further advice. Smith added that the applicant could make maximum use of what he now has under the Ordinance without having to rezone (according to her interpretation), and that the Board should be aware that he may choose to exercise that option. No additional comments were made on the rezoning request. Martin stated that the matter would be sent to Public hearing the 22nd of July. Item 4 -Zoning Map Changes proposed to go to the Public Hearing on July 22, 1985• The Zoning Officer requested that members from the Map Committee meet with her informally to document all the Zoning Map changes. Several members agreed to meet at a later date. Item 5- Review of the Hillsborough Flood Damage Ordinance. The Zoning Officer presented several questions concerning the enforcement of the Ordinance. Construction is allowed within the floodway if a -study is done by a certified engineer showing that the base flood would not increase by 1 foot should construction be allowed within the floodway. She asked who was responsible for reviewing the engineer's study; and if the Planning Board could request that the Town authorize use of the Town engineer for comments on the report. Smith added that the concern is not whether the development is in the floodway, but whether what is being proposed will in any way enhance the danger of building in the floodway. Since the floodway study was done by a certified engineer, Culbreth suggested that the engineer's licence be checked, perhaps by contacting a state agency. Planning Bd., July 2,.1985, Page 5 Smith commented that the County does not enforce the Town's Flood Damage Ordinance, and that it was not until recently that differences between the two ordinances,were noted.. The County does not have the technical ability to comment on any floodway study, and would usually contract out for review of technical reports in 'a situation like this. She also stressed that development was allowed in the floodway under the Town's Ordinance, contrary to the County's flood damage= :ordinance. Developing within the floodw=yy•brings up the question concerning the availability of flood insur:::-�e. This year, the County received a letter from the Flood Insurance Administration (FIA) whicha�sked for comments on the enforcement of the County's Ordinance. FIA threatened to withdraw insurance coverage if comments were not received by the County. This brings up the question of whether or not insurance is available for buildings located in a floodway area. Rose noted that there is a difference between the floodway fringe and the floodway. The minimum standards of the FIA limit increases in flood heights to 1.0 foot in the 100 year floodplain. The Zoning Officer expressed her concern with the interpretation and enforcement of the ordinance. Martin suggested that the new Zoning Ordinance be compared with the Flood Damage Ordinance, to see if. there were any conflicts and if additional protection would be given to flood prone areas. Smith added that the options were to either revise the current flood damage ordinance (ie, to. -prohibit building within the floodway), or to mention in the new Zoning Ordinance that the flood: damage ordinance may be overridden by the new ordinance when a regulation proves to be more restrictiv@ in the Zoning Ordinance. Smith asked who was responsible for administering the flood damage ordin- ance. The Zoning Officer responded that it was the responsibility of the "local administrator". which in this case, is the Zoning Officer. The final recommendation was that the Zoning Officer review the new Zoning Ordinance to see if further protection was given to flood prone areas. Item 6- Site Plan Review Process. The Zoning Officer presented an example of a site plan review process which has been used in Wisconsin. She asked if the site plan review would be used instead of the conditional use permit. Rose commented that this was proposed by the Town Board out of concern for development in Industrial Zones. Martin added that the Planning Board would be given the responsibility for final approval v4- site plans. Goddwin.expressed her concern that the site plan process.would be full of loopholes. The conditional use permit allows conditions to be added to a project which may be upheld legally if challenged in court. Smith asked what the Town's definition was of a site plan review. She explained that a site plan review with no other requirements is actually just a list. Upon approval of a site plan,, the plat recorded must indicate all the items reviewed during the site plan review process. Culbreth added that a project can be bound to a site plan legally (as one I would be in writing for a conditional use permit), but that them must be someone behind it to enforce it. He described Cary's procedure, which includes a set of forms that must be completed during the review process. He requested that a site plan be brought in to the next Planning Board meeting, along with all of Cary's forms. It would be helpful to the Board if they went through Cary's process step by step.- Goa;dwin asked if copies of Cary's site plan review process be made for each of the Board members. Planning Bd., July 2, 1985, Page 6 Item 7 - Zoning Violations Report. The Zoning Officer presented an update of current violations: 1) a letter was sent to Mrs. Leroy Hall concerning the pile of,tires which need to be covered on her site, 2) the Health Dept. was contacted about Terrell Tire storage. They referred the Zoning Officer to the State Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch; ttheir response is pending, 3) Mark Terry was written another letter about the skirting of their mobile home; this is the fourth letter sent with no response. Brody a6ked that the Zoning Officer investigate China's tire recycling program, and if possible report oto this at the next meeting. The issue of multiple violations and the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance was discussed. Pohle -Kober commented that the Terry's had been sent several letters because they had been sent to the wrong address. There was some question as to who must be contacted concerning a viola- tion - the property owner or the occupant? Smith thought that it was the property owner, but if it can be the occupant, Smith questioned why both the husband and wife had to be contacted (as was the situation with the Terrys ). Martin suggested that the Zoning Officer find out who is to be notified of violations, and what the Town's procedure was for responding to violations. Numerous people have called him about violations, especially in situations where one darty has come into compliance with the ordinance, and the other violations have been left, with no penalties applied. We may need to bring this before the Town Council. Normally, the person is notified of the violation, then the attorney is contacted if there is no response. The Zonina Officer asked where in the Zoning Ordinance skirting of mobile homes was referenced. Section 9.1 refer$ to individual mobile homes; the rest discusses mobile home parks. Martin thought that perhaps a separate resolution bad been made. Smith commented that if there is no reference to skirting, then this can't be enforced. Rose responded that the definition of a mobile home in the Zoning Ordinance mentions skirting. But according to Smith, the definition implies that if a mobile home is skirted, it is no longer a 'mobile home' (because this makes it a permanent dwelling unit, according to the Zoning Ordinance). Martin asked that Kay be reached for information on skirting. He also asked that the town attorney be contacted concerning the Crawford Mobile Home Park violation, and that a report be given at the next Board meeting. Smith asked if anyone on the Board knew about the expansion of the mobile home park (campground) located in Daniel Boone Square, and when permits had been .issued for the park. Goodwin thought that the park was officially permitted three years ago. Piann�ng Bd „ July 2, 1985, Page 7 Item 8 - Committee Reports. Each committee representative gave a Ireport of the monthly meetings. Reports were given by Page (representative to the Orahge County Board of Commissioners), Brody (representative to the Historic District Commission) and Martin (representative to the Board of Adjustment). Item 10 - Agenda Packets. Page requested that agenda packets include copids of maps and a description of the locations of proposed projects. Culbreth suggested that melwbers use their Town maps for reference when locating the proposed developments. Inem 11 - Proposal for a Greenway Program in Hillsborough. Poole -Kober was asked to research Chapel Hill's proposed Greenway program and to repogt`.her findings at the next Board meeting. She suggested the possi- bility of setting up a Task Force or Committee in the near future to look into setting up such a program in Hillsborough. Item 12 - Orange. County - Hillsborough Contract. Smith discussed the proposed contract between Orange County abd the Town of Hillsborough. The contract is for funding a planning position, with is to be split 21.5 hours with the Town and 18.5 hours with the County. Smith will be assigned as Supervisor to the person hired for the position. She asked for the Board's assistance in pointing out Town policies and procedures. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M.