Loading...
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.