HomeMy Public PortalAbout3.3.1988 Agenda & Minutes Planning BoardTown of Ifillsbarauq4
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
NOTE: All meetings will
be held in the Town Barn.
AGENDA
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 3, 1988
6:30 PM
ITEM #1: Approval of the minutes of the February 2, 1938 meeting.
Approval of the minutes of the January 26, 1988 Public Hearing.
ITEM #2: Consideration of additions to the agenda.
aa: 0qv-ti.A y "7- -Dr-.
ITEM #3: Discussion of the intent of the Stream Buffer Section of the
Zoning Ordinance. (attachments)
ITEM #4: Land Use Planning Subcommittee - discussion of needs, goals,
and interaction with the Town Board.
ITEM #5: Consideration of request for budget items for the 1988-89
fiscal year.
ITEM #6: Information on the Chatham/Orange Counties Planning Board
Workshop to be held at the Northwood High School on Thursday
March 31, 1988 from 5:00 to 9:30 PM at a cost of $10.00 per
person. (information distributed at the meeting)
ITEM #7: Collection of the Community Attitudes Questionnaire (enclosed)
Please complete questionnaire before the meeting.
e[e-fe-
Distribution of the new pages for your Zoning Ordinance.
1LLL
If you cannot attend this meeting, please call Janet Rigsbee
at 732-2104 as soon as possible.
kt'vT-Ns;3kU4-; IR, 1"7 Li - e oti 0raPtSe. 445 G. Rx
MINUTES
PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 3,.1988
MEMBERS Bob Rose (Chair), Jim Culbreth, Calvin Ashley, Cheshire Cole,
PRESENT: Dr. Robert Murphy, David Cates, Margaret Moore, Barbara Page,
Tarleton Davis
MEMBERS Ida Louise Evans, Robin Coleman
ABSENT:
OTHERS: Cyrus Hogue, Fritz Brunsen, Chris Ely, Roger Dale Stephens,
Edna Ellis, Janet Rigsbee
ITEM #1: Page moved to approve the minutes of the February 2, 1988 meetinE
Davis seconded.
Unanimous
Ashley moved to approve the minutes of the January 26, 1988
Public Hearing.
Cole seconded.
Unanimous.
ADDITION: The Planning Board reconsidered the intent of, the application
ITEM #2A: for, and the application of the + overlay zoning district in the
Buttonwood Dr. + overlay intitial rezoning request. The Board
reviewed the minutes of the Public Hearing and Rigsbee read
the intent and application criteria from the Zoning Ordinance.
Page said that the Board had observed the letter of the Ordinance
as well as the intent and the people of the Buttonwood Dr.
neighborhood had spoken. Oh the first + overlay rezonings the
neighborhood had no opposition because the + zoning was in
harmony with the neighborhood but this time neighbors.:felt that
it was not in the interest of good zoning to rezone this area.
Roger Stephens asked if he could make a comment but Rose said
that comments at this time would not follow the Public Hearing
guidelines. Ashley felt Stephens should be allowed to speak
and it was decided that Stephens could speak after the vote was
taken.
The Board discussed the + overlay zone and felt that the Boards
and citizens had workelhard to develop a zoning area that would
allow mobile homes and still be fair to other citizens. It was
the intent to have areas of 10 acres or more for single wide
mobile homes and not to allow for the ability to designate one
lot for single wide placement. The Board agreed that they did
not want the situation in which there would be numerous + overlay
designations on the Zoning Map.
Rigsbee pointed out that Stephens did not have to pay for this
rezoning request because the Town stated originally (when the
+ overlay district was established) that to encourage applicationE
for + overlay designation that fees would be waived for 2 years.
March 3, 1988
Page 2
Page moved to return the same decision of denial of the
+ overlay zoning at the Buttonwood Drive area to the Town Board
as the 'Zoning Ordinance had been followed and the people of the
neighborhood had made their4ccb-,Ss known and the Planning Board
supports the denial and the Planning Board hopes that the
Town Board will also support the denial.
Murphy seconded.
Unanimous.
Stephens then addressed the Board because he wanted to express
his views about requiring that a 10 + acre tract be designated
+ overlay zoning. He said he only wanted 3 lots zoned but he
was required to ask for 10 acres. He feels that it is unfair
to rezone 10 acres to get 3 lots allowable for single wide
mobile homes.
Ely said that the dissension of the neighbors was not because
a 10 acre Area was up for rezoning but because the neighbors
want single family, stick built residences in the neighborhood.
Regardless of size the adjacent property owners views should be
taken into consideration.
ITEM #3: Rigsbee said that the Town Board had wanted the Planning Board
to review the stream buffer section of the Zoning Ordinance and
that as this was before the Board she would like the Board to
clarify several questions that she had. She presented the
flood plain map and a topographical map that showed the flood
plain to the Board.
Rose said that if the stream buffer was reduced that alot of
people will want to build in the flood plain and that this would
necessitate the services of the Town Engineer as he has
discussed this with Rigsbee and she is not qualified to review
the technical flood plain building requests that would be
presented.
Dr. Murphy said that when they bought land from Orange County
for the Medical Center that the County retained a buffer along
the Eno River and he agreed that flood plain calculations are
difficult. He also said that the land that is being proposed
for construction is all fill and in the past there were old
refrigerators and more in this fill.
Brunsen, engineer for James J. Freeland, showed the 2 lots that
were being props ed for 2 single family homes and he showed how
he calculated the stream buffer from the edge of the Eno River.
He did his cal culations to fit the Corps of Engineer requirement
and he feels t`'iat the Town's stream buffer requirements are
excessive.
Culbreth said that Brunsen's calculation looks contrived as he
created a buffer that was irrelevant because the flood plain,
exceeds the buffer and it appears obvious that that is an
incorrect interpretation of the Ordinance.
Hogue said that he attended Public Hearings on the the buffer
and he was told that the buffer is calculated from the Eno River.
March 3, 1988
Page 3
He feels that this is a bad ordinance and should be rewritten.
Rose surd there appears to be two problems: some feel that
the stream buffer requirement is excessive in the amount of land
that is regulated and some feel that there are clarity problems.
He also said that what happens long term in the flood plain area
could be a problem.
Page agreed and said that with the growth of Hillsborough that
the impervious surface ratio will continue to increase and that
would affect the amount of runoff into the Eno and the water
quality should be preserved. More flooding will occur as more
building takes place.
Hogue said that the steeper the
He feels that the stream buffer
he encourages the Board to work
buffer eliminated.
slope gets the buffer increases.
is an unreasonable setback and
toward changigg it and get the
Page moved to use the 100 year flood plain as the line to
measure the additional stream buffer requirement from as the
Planning Director had determined.
Ashley seconded.
Unanimous.
Rose feels that we could go through the stream buffer section of
the Ordinance and reword for clarity but he said and the Board
agreed that the regulations would remain the same unless there
is a request for a change.
Rigsbee went over the questions she had and the Board agreed
as follows:
It is the intent to prohibit construction (except for permitted
uses) in the stream buffer and the flood plain.
It is the intent to require the developer to take action to
control the first 2 inch of stormwater run-off from new,
permitted construction in the stream buffer area.
The developer should pay for the Town Engineer's review if it
is needed.
It is the intent that the buffer along perennial streams be
50 feet and added to the edge of the flood plain if a flood
plain exists.
ADDITION Dr. Murphy brought up the subject that the new utilities
ITEM #3A: installed on Orange High Rd. for the Cyrus Greene subdivision
were not installed underground. Murphy had thought that all
new utilities were to be underground. He had talked with the
Mayor and Steve Cruise from Duke Power and Cruise said that it
would cost money to move them. Murphy had circulated a petition
against the overhead lines in the neighborhood and he would like
the Board to consider an interpretation of the Ordinance.
Rose said that he thought it was the intent to have all new lines
underground but the Ordinance was not clear. He asked the Board
March 3, 1988
Page 4
to review this section for the next meeting.
ITEM #4: Culbreth reported that the Land Use Subcommittee would like to
come up with a concise Land Use Plan and put the information
contained in our current 1977 Land Use Plan in an appendix. He
will do an outline for the next meeting and he asks all Board
members to bring their Zoning Map to the next meeting.
ITEM #5: The Board concurred that they would like to request $300. for
training and educational materials and they feel that $400. will
be needed for maps in the 1988=89 fiscal year.
ITEM #6: Members of the Board who would like to attend the Planning
Board workshop on March 31 signed up and will be contacted on
carpooling.
ITEM #7: The Community Attitudes Questionnaire was collected by Rigsbee.
ITEM #8: Was deleted as materials were not available.
ADDITION: The Board was reminded that on March 9, 1988 at 7<30 PM the
proposal for revisions for the Land Use Plan for Hillsborough,
Eno, and Chapel Hill Townships will be presented by the Orange
County Planning Department.
t
Jane V. Rigs ee,'Sec 31tary
Mayor
Fred S. Cates, Jr.
Commissioners
J. Michael Kirby
Horace H. Johnson
Allen A. Lloyd
Bobby P. Riley
Remus J. Smith
c�vwn of liillsburuug4
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
Town Administrator
I. Harding Hughes, Jr.
To wn Clerk
Agatha R. Johnson
Street Supt.
L. D. Wagoner
Water - Sewer Dist. Supt.
P. Richard Cherry
Chief of Police
Larry C. Biggs
Fire Chief
Mark L. Gordon
TO: Mayor and Town Board
FROM: Janet V. Rigsbee, Planning Director��
DATE: March 4, 1988
SUBJ: Stream Buffer Section of the Zoning Ordinance Interpretation
At the March 3, 1988 meeting of the Planning Board, the Planning
Board discussed the stream buffer requirement of the Zoning Ordinance
and unanimously agreed that the stream buffer should be measured
from the edge of the 100 year flood plain line as originally
interpreted by the Planning Director.
Other questions that recieved unanimous consensus were:
- It is the intent of the ordinance that the buffer along perennial
streams be 50 feet and added to the edge of the flood plain.
- It is the intent of the ordinance to prohibit construction (except
the list of permitted uses) in the stream buffer and the flood plain.
- It is the intent to require the developer to take action to control
the first 2 inch of storm water run-off from new construction (list
of permitted uses only) in the stream buffer area.
- If the Town Engineer must be consulted to review the above question,
the developer should pay for this service.
Mayor
Fred S. Cates, Jr.
Commissioners
J. Michael Kirby
Horace H. Johnson
Allen A. Lloyd
Bobby P. Riley
Remus J. Smith
Of own of Nfflshoroug4
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
TO: Mayor and Town Board Members
FROM: Janet V. Rigsbee, Planning Director��
DATE: March 4, 1988
SUBJ: + Overlay Zoning in the Buttonwood Dr. Area
Town Administrator
I. Harding Hughes, Jr.
Town Clerk
Agatha R. Johnson
Street Supt.
L. D. Wagoner
Water - Sewer Dist. Supt.
P. Richard Cherry
Chief of Police
Larry C. Biggs
Fire Chief
Mark L. Gordon
PLANNING BOARD DECISION ON THE ROGER DALE STEPHENS REZONING REQUEST
At the March 3, 1988 meeting of the Planning Board,the Planning Board
unanimously agreed to return the same decision of denial of the
+ overlay zoning at the Buttonwood Drive area to the Town Board.
They felt that the Zoning Ordinance had been followed and the people
of the neighborhood had made their feelings known and the Planning
Board supports the denial and the Planning Board hopes that the
Town Board will also support the denial.
It was pointed out in the discussion that 3 other areas in Town had
received the + overlay status without contention from the neighbors.
There was no contention in these areas because it was an appopropriate
area for single wide mobile homes. There was contention in this
rezoning because the neighbors feel that it is inappropriate to
designate this area for single wide mobile homes. Roger Stephens did
not have to pay for this rezoning request because the Town stated
originally (when the + overlay district was established) that to
encourage applications for + overlay designation in order to establish
areas for single wide mobile homes that fees would be waived for
2 years.
Before the + overlay zoning district was adopted on June 15, 1987,
the boards and citizensworked very hard to develop an area for
single wide mobile homes that would be fair to all citizens. It
was the intent to have areas of 10 acres or more for single wides
and not to allow for the ability to designate one (or in this case
3 lots) for single wides. We did not want a situation in which there
would be numerous + overlay designations on the Zoning Map but we
did want areas available for single wide mobile.homes. In the case
of Roger Stephens + overlay request, the Zoning Ordinance performed
exactly as it was intended to perform.