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.