HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-14-2017 1
APPROVED 12/4/2017
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
November 14, 2017
7:00 P.M.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Tuesday,
November 14, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Mark Dorosin and Commissioners Mia
Burroughs, Barry Jacobs, Mark Marcoplos, Earl McKee, Renee Price and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney)
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley and Clerk to the Board
Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair Dorosin read the charge below:
The Board of Commissioners pledges to the residents of Orange County its respect. The
Board asks its residents to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the
Board and with fellow residents. At any time should any member of the Board or any resident fail
to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until
that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess
the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. All
electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set
to silent/vibrate.
C. PUBLIC HEARING — QUASI JUDICIAL ITEMS
NONE
D. PUBLIC HEARING — LEGISLATIVE ITEMS
1. Zoning Atlas Amendment - To review an application for an MPD-CZ (Master Plan
Development Conditional Zoning) district. The proposed project encompasses 195 acres
in the Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD) south of Interstate 40 on both
sides of Old Highway 86.
BACKGROUND:
The modified request seeks to rezone approximately 195 acres of property:
From: Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2); Economic Development
Hillsborough Office/Retail (EDH-4); Economic Development Hillsborough Research and
Manufacturing (EDH-5); Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay District; Major
Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District.
To: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point; Special Flood Hazard
Area (SFHA) Overlay District; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District.
2
for the purpose of developing Settlers Point, a mixed use development proposing two
development areas further identified as follows:
• District 1: industrial/manufacturing/research land uses, and
• District 2: office/retail/commercial land uses.
The basic facts concerning the current application are as follows:
Applicant(s): Old NC 86 Partners LLC
504 Meadowlands Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Agent(s): Summit Design and AECOM
Engineering Services 701 Corporate Center Drive
504 Meadowlands Drive Suite 475
Hillsborough, NC 27278 Raleigh, NC 27607
Location: South of Interstate 40 and adjacent to Old NC Highway 86. Please refer to
the project vicinity map contained within Attachment 2 for additional detail.
Conditional Zoning (CZ) Process: The process involves the approval of a rezoning petition and a
master development plan allowing for the development of a specific land use(s) on approximately
20 parcels of property. Applications are processed in a legislative manner (i.e. does not require
sworn testimony or evidence) and decisions are based on the BOCC's determination that the
project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Proposal: The project involves the creation of two development districts, specifically: 1. District 1
Light Industrial/Manufacturing and Research —Located west of Old NC 86 accessed via Service
Road and south of Interstate 40 intended to provide for light industrial/manufacturing and
research operations. The District is approximately 148 acres in area involving 2 parcels of
property (PINs 9863-71-8857 and 9863-91-6573) and is depicted within the submitted application
narrative.
2. District 2 Commercial —Located east of Old NC Highway 86 and south of Interstate 40 intended
to provide for high intensity office uses, retail, and services. The District is approximately 47 acres
in area involving 8 parcels of property
Michael Harvey, Current Planning, said there are hard copies of the PowerPoint at the
Commissioners places, and an email from the NCDOT concerning this project, which staff has
not had time to sufficiently digest this information. He made the following PowerPoint
presentation:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Zoning Atlas Amendment— Settlers Point Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning
(MPD-CZ) District
Orange County Board of Commissioners
November 14, 2017
Modification of Proposal:
• At October 4, 2017 Planning Board meeting applicant requested project be revised to
exclude 10 parcels, totaling 76 acres of land area, comprising District 3.
3
• Applicant requested action on District 3 be deferred to address concerns from Town of
Hillsborough on providing utility services to a residential development (i.e. age restricted
housing) south of Interstate 40.
• Applicant requested proposal to rezone 10 parcels (Districts 1 and 2) to move forward.
Proposal:
• Rezone Subject Properties:
— From:
• Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2);
• Economic Development Hillsborough Office/Retail (EDH-4);
• Economic Development Hillsborough Research and Manufacturing (EDH-5);
• Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay District;
• Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District.
— To:
• Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point ;
• Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay District ;
• Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District.
Conditional Zoning Process
• Involves the approval of a rezoning petition and a master development plan allowing for
the development of specific land use(s).
o STAFF COMMENT: Action does not involve approval of site specific development
plan(s).
• Applications are processed in a legislative manner (i.e. does not require sworn testimony
or competent material evidence).
• Decisions are based on the BOCC's determination that the project is consistent with the
purpose/intent of Comprehensive Plan.
• Schedule, and Action:
o First Action — Planning staff schedules a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM).
— DONE. Meeting was held on September 14, 2017.
o Second Action —The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting
and makes a recommendation to the BOCC.
— DONE. Reviewed at October 4, 2017 regular meeting. Recommended
for approval.
o Third Action —The BOCC receives the Planning Board recommendation and
makes a decision at a previously advertised public hearing.
• Per Section 2.9.2 (F) (3) of the UDO, mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed as
part this process only if they address:
o The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property,
o Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways and access points, parking, pedestrian
and vehicular circulation systems, screening and buffer areas, etc.) and/or
o All other matters the County may find appropriate or the petitioner may propose.
• If approved, Zoning Atlas amended and property shall be changed to MPD-CZ (Settlers
Point).
Future Development
• Development of individual land uses shall be in accordance with the newly created zoning
district, including imposed conditions.
• Development shall only be permitted through the review and approval of site plan
application(s) in accordance within Section 2.5 of the UDO.
— No additional Board review (Le. Planning Board / BOCC) shall be required.
SETTLERS POINT PROJECT:
4
• 10 parcels of property,
• 195 acres of land south of Interstate 40,
• FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Economic Development Transition,
• GROWTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: Urban Designated
Orange County/Town of Hillsborough Joint Planning Land Use Plan Designates the area:
• Employment: Light/ general industrial, office, research/development, support services
uses including restaurants, retail, etc.
• Neighborhood: Retail (goods and services), high density residential, etc.
• Suburban Office: Office /employment (do not necessarily rely on walk-in customers),
etc.
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT(S):
• District 1 - Industrial/Manufacturing and Research,
• Located west of Old NC 86 and south of Interstate 40 ,
• Accessed via an existing road named Service Road
• Intended to provide for light industrial/manufacturing and research operations.
• Properties comprising district are Located in an Economic Development Transition land
use category.
• District 2 - Commercial,
• Located east of Old NC Highway 86 and south of Interstate 40,
• Accessed via Old NC Highway 86,
• Intended to provide for light office, retail, service operations (i.e. hotel, restaurant, etc.)
• Properties comprising district are located in an Economic Development Transition land
use category.
Conditions:
• Applicant has recommended the imposition of several conditions controlling development
within project;
• Must be mutually agreed to by Applicant and Elected officials (as previously detailed).
• Staff and Planning Board have recommended imposition of additional conditions on the
project.
o NOTE: Applicant has agreed to majority of conditions. Has identified
some concerns and requested modification. Refer to Attachment 5.
Conditions — Examples:
• Approval of the Project does not constitute a guarantee utility services (i.e. water and
sewer) shall be provided and/or extended by the Town of Hillsborough.
• UTILITIES:
o Comply with Section 6.20 of the UDO,
o Development within the Project shall only be served by public water and
sewer,
o Utility connection(s) shall comply with applicable Town of Hillsborough
standards.
o Extension of utilities to District 2 shall be reviewed and approved by the
Town of Hillsborough prior to development.
• Site Plan(s)
o Site Plan Review per Section 2.5 of the UDO required for all projects,
o All submittals will require completion of an Environmental Assessment and
a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA),
o All submittals required to document existing and proposed impervious
surface area as well as building/open space ratios within the Project.
o Documentation denoting anticipated daily water and sewer needs for
proposed land uses.
5
o Landscape plans are required to detail how vegetation will be cared for.
• Landscaping:
o District 1 has to maintain a 100 ft. buffer along western and southern
property lines,
o A 50 ft. buffer is proposed for Old NC Highway 86
— STAFF COMMENT— thinning will be allowed with a requirement for
replanting.
o Major Transportation Corridor(MTC) Overlay preserved along the
Interstate (i.e. 100 ft. buffer)
— STAFF COMMENT— thinning and breaks in this vegetation has
been requested to allow for utility, stormwater, and parking
development. After conferring with the Director, staff believes the
request is reasonable as there is a replanting requirement
associated with this provision.
o Interior buffers proposed for parking lots, in front of buildings, etc.
• Standards proposed for building architecture (i.e. materials buildings can be constructed
of) including: Hardi-plank, Brick/Stucco, Concrete, etc.
• Transportation:
o Project shall comply with Section 6.10 Roadway Improvements and Multi-
modal Transportation of the UDO.
o External roadway improvements shall be constructed in accordance with
NC Department of Transportation requirements.
o Internal roads will be public roads.
o Sidewalks and bicycle lanes will be developed.
o Four(4) bus pullouts/transit shelters shall be constructed.
• Land Uses:
o District 1 includes manufacturing and research land uses (i.e.
computers/electronics, pharmaceutical, metal products, furniture,
food/beverage manufacturing, research facilities, etc.)
o District 2 includes commercial/service uses (i.e. retail, professional offices,
restaurants, recreational land uses, heath services such as doctors'offices,
hotel/motel, motor vehicle service station—gas station, etc.)
• Signage:
o Architectural Landmark— Providing the visual identifier for the
development. The primary location will take advantage of the topography to
give visual guidance for motorist along the interstate. This would appear to
be more of an architectural feature than a sign.
— STAFF COMMENT: Staff and Planning Board have requested
an example. Proposal calls for 50 ft. tall structure with
approximately 400 sq.ft. of sign area.
o Entry Portal Marker—providing the name of the development and
identifying the names of major tenants. These signs are primarily intended
for location at the main entrances to the project.
— STAFF COMMENT: Staff and Planning Board have requested
an example. Proposal calls for 8 signs with 300 sq.ft. of sign
area.
Staff Comments:
• The application deemed complete.
• Proposal appears consistent with the various goals outlined within the Comprehensive
Plan.
• Applicant provided a basic environmental assessment as part of this submittal. Staff has
reviewed and determined there ought to be no significant environmental impact(s) from
this project.
6
o Staff recommended condition formal environmental impact statement (EIS) be
prepared for all site plan submittals.
• Proposed development is consistent with existing and anticipated development within the
area.
• Land uses are compatible.
Planning Board Comment(s):
• Reviewed item at its October 4, 2017 regular meeting,
• Voted to recommend approval with the imposition of conditions as recommended by the
applicant, staff, and Board members,
• Recommended conditions are contained in Attachment 11.
Recommendation:
The Administration recommends the Board:
1. Receive the proposal.
2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comments.
3. Close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional
comments at a later date are permitted).
4. Decide on one of the following options:
a. Adopt Statement of Consistency (Attachment 10), Ordinance amending the
Zoning Atlas and imposing conditions (Attachment 11);
b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date;
NOTE: This is the most prudent course of action to address
modification of conditions to address Applicant comments/concerns, or
to address new conditions as recommended by the B000.
a. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose; or
b. Deny the proposed amendments.
Commissioner McKee made a statement to the Board of County Commissioners as
related to his current employment with Summit Engineering. He said he sought direction from the
County Attorney as whether he should recuse himself from this item, and received the following
legal opinion below. He read North Carolina General Statute 153A-340(g), and said the Attorney
concluded that he may not recuse himself from this matter.
Commissioner McKee-
You asked for an opinion on whether you need to recuse yourself from voting on this issue due to
the fact that you work for Summit Engineering. You informed me you don't have an interest in the
properties underlying the Settler's Point project, that in your employment you have not worked on
or had involvement with the project, that your compensation from Summit is not related to or
dependent on this project, that you will receive no bonuses related to this project, and that your
employment is not dependent on or at risk from the fact that you may or may not vote on the
project. Given these facts my analysis is as follows.
The default position for determining whether you must vote on a particular agenda item is that
you as a county commissioner have a duty to vote pursuant to G.S. 153A-44 which provides that
the board may excuse a member from voting "only upon questions involving the member's own
financial interest or official conduct or on matters on which the member is prohibited from voting
under G.S. 14-234, 153A-340(g)..." This item is not a matter of your official conduct and G.S. 14-
234, which deals with contracts, is not applicable. The remaining consideration, that of your
financial interest or G.S. 153A-340(g) is what must be analyzed. In this situation the question of
your financial interest, which otherwise is a separate consideration, is directly addressed by G.S.
153A-340(g) and so there is only analysis to be made, whether you may be excused pursuant to
G.S. 153A-340(g).
7
153A-340(g) states "A member of the board of county commissioners shall not vote on any
zoning map or text amendment where the outcome of the matter being considered is reasonably
likely to have a direct, substantial, and readily identifiable financial impact on the member"
(emphasis added). Assuming the facts above to be true:
• There appears to be no direct financial impact because you have had no involvement in
this project through your employment with Summit and will experience neither a financial
benefit or detriment regardless of the outcome of the vote on the project;
• Even if there is an indirect financial impact to you from some positive or negative outcome
experienced by Summit as a business this indirect impact is not at this time quantifiable
and is certainly not so substantial that it is apparent to a neutral observer, so this may not
be considered for purposes of whether you may be excused from voting;
• Neither your compensation nor your continued employment are related in any way to this
project and so I also cannot determine that there is a readily identifiable financial impact
to you from the project.
There is a North Carolina case that, although not directly on point, provides guidance in this
situation on the question of what constitutes direct and substantial impact. City of Albemarle v.
Security Bank & Trust Co., involved a council vote on the condemnation of property owned by
Security Bank & Trust Co. Three members of the council voted on the condemnation, which
directly impacted the bank's business and property. The three were employed by another bank
that was in direct competition with Security Bank& Trust Co. They held positions of Director,
Assistant Vice President, and Branch Manager. The Court held that even though they may
experience some indirect impact to their financial interest from something negative happening to
Security Bank & Trust Co., the impact was "too remote and infinitesimal to give rise to a conflict of
interest." Similarly, you could have some positive or negative experience if the company that
employs you has a positive or negative impact from the Board's vote on the project, but your
personal experience will not, pursuant to the facts you've provided, be direct, substantial, or
readily identifiable.
There is no provision in the law as it relates to county boards of commissioners that allows
commissioners to recuse themselves from voting. The board itself must excuse, by vote, a
member from voting and then only in the stated circumstances. The mere appearance of
impropriety or appearance of a conflict of interest is not sufficient to warrant an excusal. To a
person unfamiliar with the voting statutes it may appear that impropriety or a conflict exists based
on your employment with Summit, however, the facts you've related to me suggest no actual
impropriety or conflict of interest exists.
My conclusion is that you may not be excused by the Board from voting and have a
statutory duty to vote on this item. James Bryan will be at tonight's quarterly public hearing
and I've discussed this issue with him. I've also copied the Board and as you requested the
manager and planning director.
Let me know if you have any questions.
John L. Roberts
Orange County Attorney
Commissioner Marcoplos said he noticed that schools are an allowable land use, and
clarified that a school can be sited there, but there is no land designated for a school in this area.
Michael Harvey said yes, there is no designated area. He said the Applicant did request
that a school be an allowed use, but noted that staff's recommendation is that any school
developed in this project only be allowed subject to the review and approval of a class A Special
8
Use Permit (SUP) by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), which is consistent with the
current standards of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is currently a need for a school on this land.
Michael Harvey said that is his understanding.
Commissioner Marcoplos said asked if it is likely that the district could fill up with other
commercial projects, and there would be no room for schools.
Michael Harvey said yes.
Commissioner Price referred to the water and sewer agreement with the Town of
Hillsborough, and asked if the Town would be providing water and sewer at its discretion,
regardless of the wishes of the BOCC. She asked if the Town has control.
Michael Harvey said Craig Benedict, Planning Director, may be better able to answer that
question. He referred to page 96 of the abstract packet, and said the first recommended
condition is that approval of the project does not constitute the guarantee that utility services shall
be provided and/or extended by the Town of Hillsborough. He reminded the BOCC that the
County is involved in extending a sewer line under the interstate that could possibly serve District
I, but with no guarantee to service District II. He said it is regularly repeated that any an all utility
hook-ups have to be approved by the Town of Hillsborough for a project that is developed as a
part of this overall project. He said it is conceivable the Town could say there is no capacity, and
could not sign off on a particular site plan being approved allowing for connection to the system,
and thus the County could not approve the site plan based on the conditions associated with this
project.
Craig Benedict said Michael Harvey is correct, with one clarification. He said there are
two districts. He said District I is the SW corner, and the interlocal agreement with Hillsborough is
just focused on this quadrant. He said anything that is within 108,000 gallons per day usage,
consistent with the joint land use plan, would be consistent with Hillsborough signing a
developer's agreement for that quadrant. He said the same assurances do not exist in the SE
quadrant, the retail area. He said this area is not part of the interlocal agreement, and the
developer would have to independently get a utility extension agreement. He said this is the area
where Hillsborough does have more authority.
Commissioner Price asked if the Development Advisory Committee could be defined.
Michael Harvey said this is an in-house staff committee that reviews site plans.
Commissioner Price asked if the tax benefits of this project, to Orange County, could be
identified.
Michael Harvey said the applicant would be better to answer that question, and it is
included in the application.
Commissioner Jacobs referred to the school site, and said any information pertaining to
this topic should be communicated to the Orange County Schools (OCS) system, and ask OCS to
respond in writing regarding the need for schools. He said it is important to envelope OCS into
this development process.
Michael Harvey said it is denoted in the abstract that staff has concerns about a school in
this project, but the Applicant has the ability to petition this as part of his application.
Commissioner Burroughs asked if the Applicant was proposing a school in a specific
District.
Michael Harvey said District I.
Commissioner Burroughs agreed with Commissioner Jacobs to engage the OCS to
comment on this issue, but noted there is the SAPFO process in place.
Commissioner Rich referred to the water situation, and asked if District II has an interlocal
agreement.
Michael Harvey said there is no agreement in District II, and the Town has not been asked
to extend water and sewer to District II.
Commissioner Rich asked if water and sewer would be needed in District II in order to
have commercial property.
Michael Harvey said that is the Applicant's wish.
9
Commissioner Rich asked if there is any other example in Orange County where a
developer has had to work directly with the utility to get an agreement.
Michael Harvey said in the Buckhorn area, Ashwick subdivision, Durham Economic
Development District (EDD).
Commissioner Rich said she those are all projects on which the County is working. She
said she is asking for examples where the Developer actually has to work directly with the Town.
Craig Benedict said Mebane and Durham have agreed to provide service to uses
consistent with the coordinated plan. He said in Hillsborough the only agreement is on the SW
quadrant. He said a larger zone has not been identified, with which Hillsborough has been in
agreement. He said in the other two districts, there is a utilities service map, and both Mebane
and Durham have agreed to serve and maintain water and sewer utilities if the projects come
forward.
Chair Dorosin said asked to be shown where the access road is on the map, which
Michael Harvey provided.
Chair Dorosin asked what would happen, if there were future interest in developing District
3. He asked if this would have to start from scratch.
Michael Harvey said the Applicant would bring it back, conduct another neighborhood
meeting, and another public hearing.
Chair Dorosin asked if such a proposal would be subject to a whole new set of conditions
and review.
Michael Harvey said that is correct, and none of the conditions contained in attachment 11
deal with District III.
Chair Dorosin said for the purposes of this discussion, it is as though District III is severed.
Michael Harvey said yes.
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
open the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Mayor Tom Stevens said he is here with the perspective of the Board of the Town of
Hillsborough, who adopted a vision and comprehensive plan as a guide for development about
ten years ago. He said this plan has developed with input of citizens and County government,
and recognizes increasing development pressure, and the constraints due to water and sewer.
He said the plan can be summarized as avoiding sprawl in to the countryside; by making the best
use of road infrastructure; and steering development towards live/work/play communities between
the Eno River and Interstate 40. He said there are three important themes that continue to run
through the development plan:
• Retaining 40% commercial tax base
• Emphasizing a built environment that is town-like
• Emphasizing high levels of connectivity
He said his desire tonight is to show how that plan reflects on this project. He said the
Town fully supports the commercial development of the EDD; the Town is opposed to any
residential development in this area; and the type of commercial use in the EDD matters, and
how it gets approved matters. He said much of what is proposed in this application is in
agreement with the Town's coordinated area plan, but there are some significant parts that are
not. He said the plan calls for employment uses on the west side of Old 86, and mixed use and
suburban office on the east side. He said in Hillsborough's definitions, the opportunity for retail is
limited and somewhat small. He said District I is completely consistent with the Town's
coordinated area plan, but District II contains some items that are inconsistent with this plan. He
said the retail component is much larger than the Town would envision, and the Town is
concerned that the quick and easy green space for an extended amount of retail could damage
the overall retail viability of other areas of Hillsborough.
10
Janet Marks lives in New Hope Springs off of Davis Road, and she has heard nothing of
economic development over the years. She said she knows she cannot prevent the
development. She said there will be little buffering to prevent light pollution, and asked if the
Board would look at this issue closely. She asked the BOCC if it would look at the installation of
water pipes in the District II area that is supposed to be for District I.
Joan Kalnitsky said she is concerned with what will go into District 1. She said she hoped
that the BOCC would wait until it is clear what is going to be in District I before voting on this
project, and she has a signed petition supporting this concern.
Matt Kostura reviewed the following comments:
To the Orange County Board of Commissioners:
I am writing to register my deep reservations regarding the planned development of the Settler's
Point Master Planned Development Conditional Zoning (MPC-CZ) application
My review of the narrative for the development and my concerns are based on three
straightforward assertions:
1. The entire development is predicated on access to Interstate 40 with little integration into
the surrounding community and because of that...
2. The rural residential look and feel of the area will be greatly compromised by certain types
of development that are allowed by the current zoning permits and therefore....
3. Inappropriate development will have a material impact on many more residents than those
abutting the property and within the 1000 ft. spec for notification.
Based on the narrative, District 1 will be the first tract developed for so-called light industrial,
research or warehouse use. Of the three uses I list here I would hope that the county could
concede the point that warehousing would be inappropriate. Certainly a light manufacturing
facility; e.g.: the Morinaga facility or perhaps a local microbrewery or distillery that could use
expansion. Even a food preparation facility to allow local farmers to process foods for local
restaurants would be better than the standard warehouse.
District 2 is yet another cookie cutter hotel, chain restaurants and high intensity retail/office
complex. Perhaps there might be demand for a hotel in the area, but does the county want to
become saddled with idle restaurant property in the near future? Casual dining as a category is
doing poorly, with a change in drinking and eating habits. Local pubs with microbrews and
restaurants with locally authentic food are in and corporate fast food is out. And frankly
Hillsborough itself is establishing itself as something of a destination for both so would it not be
reasonable to attract those types of clients or better still attempt to get some of the transit traffic
on 40 into those same local restaurants?
District 3 requires a rezoning of R1 land. The Settlers Ridge Properties have never sold and for
good reason; they are too close to the highway and the noise in that area is fairly high. No one
wants to build a $400K home next to a highway. So instead, a mixed use office high density
housing complex (read apartments) and a lower density senior living complex are planned.
I can see four major problems with this development that if not appropriately configured will
absolutely wreck the surrounding area which is entirely rural residential in character. The
concerns really come down to traffic, lights, noise and visual aesthetic.
1. Traffic would be a major problem on Old 86 and likely back on to Davis Rd, which would
ultimately have a cut through to allow alternate access to the parcels.
2. Lighting is a concern with many homeowners in the area that appreciate dark skies. That
is a quintessential part of the character of the area. Again, some types of developments
(eg office or research) can mitigate these problems but others virtually demand intrusive
lighting (gas stations, restaurants, warehousing). Standing lights are a concern.
3. Noise. More traffic, more noise and not much more needs to be said in that regard. Also
the wooded areas provide a near complete buffer for traffic noise from Interstate 40 for
11
nearly all parcels on Davis Rd. Removal of that buffer will degrade the homeowner
experience.
4. Visual aesthetic. The good news here is that most of this is completely under control of
the developer and the county. But I would hope that the design criteria would strike the
use of a 50ft 20x20 sign for District 2. Again, that would be wholly inappropriate for the
area. Old 86 is a scenic drive and the northern most part of that highway should have as
much protection as is possible from an aesthetic point of view. Likewise, Interstate 40 has
a very clear and clean visual aesthetic. Driving east from Efland where Interstate 40 splits
from Interstate 85, there is no signage of that size on the road until one arrives in Wake
County. Much care has been taken to remove standing billboards of any type from
intruding on the visual experience of the highway. The Interstate 40 corridor is, visually,
one of the nicest highways in state in this regard. In Orange County it has many aspects
of a boulevard and it should be kept that way.
I think that it is fair to say that most homeowners on Davis Rd, and in this area of the county,
view the exit at Interstate 40 and Old 86 as their entranceway to their homes. At present that
entrance way is rural and quiet. The county now wants to allow the placement of three large
developments literally right on our front steps. I cannot argue against development, but I would
hope that the county and the developers respect the character of the area. One only has to drive
west into Alamance County to visualize what I am most concerned with: another highway exit
built to satisfy transit economics but completely disrupting the character of the surrounding local
area.
Best regards
Matthew Kostura
4201 New Hope Springs Dr
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Ronald Siebar reviewed the following comments:
Dear County Commissioners:
I strongly disagree with the actions taken so far in regard to the three parcels that make up the
proposed Settlers Point Development.
1. I find it appalling that not all of the members of the Planning Board had adequate time
to read the comprehensive proposal for this huge development before sending a
recommendation to the County Commissioners. This appears to be a "rush job" and to
whose benefit?
2. I object to any approval of District I tenants in the "warehouse district"
until ALL members of both commissions have been able to read the report and vote on
the proposed development. It doesn't make sense on such a big project to do
otherwise.
3. I object to the proposed rezoning of Districts II and III because the described districts do
not disclose what tenants or tenant mix is going to be present, nor do they adequately
take into account the water resources that Hillsborough will be asked to supply. I
understand that District III has been delayed until a later date; we need to delay the up-
zoning for properties in the proposed District II as well.
4. The proposed development of the districts does not adequately anticipate, and
therefore does not protect against, the adverse visual and aural impact of such a
development on the rural and residential neighborhoods that immediately surround it. At
the very least, the law of unintended (or overlooked) consequences will very likely
change the ambiance of this semi-rural community. Drastically.
The proposed development of District I will have a tremendously negative impact on the tree
buffer that now exists for the benefit of rural and residential properties along Davis Dr. to the west
of Old NC 86 because the proposed development abuts these properties. Clearing the tree buffer
will assault these residents with noise from the 1-40 corridor that this district will flank. A
12
vegetative buffer of bushes intermixed with trees (as proposed) may lessen the daytime visual
impact of warehouses, but what about nighttime light pollution? In addition, a short vegetative
buffer will in no way lessen the aural impact that this development and the now-exposed highway
will have on these residents. In sum, it will permanently diminish the quality of life that our
community currently enjoys.
The proposed development of Districts II and III (albeit III has been delayed) will also assault the
senses with a landscape stripped of trees and thus will increase the visual and aural pollution that
will result from doing so. As previously mentioned, vegetative buffers do not a "sound-blocking
forest" make, nor will they acceptably mitigate the unwanted sights and sounds from 1-40 that will
result from these actions.
The proposals for Districts 11 and III make no mention of the privately-owned properties that have
not yet been purchased by the proposed development. These properties, which can be clearly
identified on the development maps, will become completely isolated, and they will either be
orphaned as their surroundings are up-zoned and developed beyond recognition, or their owners
will be forced to sell their homes and find residence elsewhere. Again, we have people whose
lives are likely to be permanently changed for the sake of a developer's anticipated profit.
The developers have not specified what exactly they will be bringing to our community. To me,
professional offices that serve the nearby hospital and thus the town of Hillsborough complement
our future needs. However, once the properties have been up-zoned, the possibilities are endless
and not all positive.
The town does not need more fast-food restaurants or businesses that serve only transient 1-40
traffic. Hillsborough already has a corridor full of such businesses. And a large-capacity hotel to
be placed in the middle of a rural buffer? These types of development provide only low-end jobs
and big profits to the franchises that will swarm these properties if given the chance, as well as
increased profit for the developers who will no doubt be tempted by them. This type of lease-out
will not serve the immediate community and only harm its current ambiance.
The commissioners have not fully determined what would be "defined and specific uses" of this
proposed development. This seems to be the only way that our community can influence or
control what goes into the development as it is leased. Therefore, I urge the commissioners to
delay rezoning of Districts II and III until a comprehensive list of desired uses is completed and
made public so that our community can be properly informed.
The requested changes in zoning assume that adequate resources, specifically water, will be
made available for the development. Although Hillsborough currently has adequate water
resources for its residents and has made provisions for recently approved projects, how much
water is left to provide for this proposal?And will its water needs stymie other better-planned
needs for Hillsborough? We do not want to choke off wiser choices in development so that
another fast-food restaurant or three can be erected along 1-40.
Many of us who live in the immediate community understand that development is a part of our
future. However, we want wise development that will serve Hillsborough and enrich the quality of
life that we enjoy in Orange County, wise development that complements our anticipated needs. I
urge the commissioners to delay any further decisions concerning these properties until all
commissioners have had the time to read and deliberate on the impact of this proposal. I also
request that no action be taken regarding up-zoning of any property be made until more details
are shared about the intended uses of the development. Finally, I ask that the commissioners
respect the current quality of life that this community enjoys and seek no harm to befall it by their
actions.
13
Respectfully submitted,
Ronald D. Sieber, Ed.D.
4217 New Hope Springs Dr.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Kathleen Ferguson, Hillsborough Town Council Member-Mayor Pro Tem, echoed Mayor
Stevens, and said if the Town requires and grants annexation, the development will need to
conform to Hillsborough ordinances, not what is included in the application. She said the Town
supports District I, but has strong reservations on District II. She said it is the Town's intent to
support Waterstone and Daniel Boone, and the retail component of this project may endanger
these two locations significantly.
Debra Markley said she is not supportive of this development. She said she is concerned
about water quality; lack of buffers; Davis Road becoming a thoroughfare; safety of people of
being able to walk around; effect on environment; traffic, etc. She noted there are other proposed
developments, and wonders why this development is needed. She submitted a petition.
Dorothy Snyder lives in Hillsborough, and said she is here to express her solidarity with
her neighbors who live in the affected areas. She said she is concerned about pharmaceutical
industries and the environmental impact; bike paths and lanes and their connection to the Town's;
and minorities in this area that may be displaced.
Peter Leousis said he lives near this proposed development, and expressed the same
concerns as his neighbors. He asked the Board of County Commissioners to defer a decision
until a later date.
Bob Bundschuh reviewed the following comments:
I am writing with serious concern about the proposed Settlers Point Development up for
discussion this week.
As an Orange County resident, and living close to the proposed development, I have several
questions:
What criteria do you use when deciding approval or rejection of a proposed development?
How long have the members of the council had to review the proposal?
How do you take into consideration the effect on residents of Orange County in the area?
What limitations or controls are available to control what types of businesses can operate, if
approval is given? (which I hope it is not)
I am concerned and ask that you reject the current proposal for many reasons.
While I am not against growth, I am against growth that takes away from the area and growth that
is not well controlled. There are several areas in Orange county, including some in Hillsborough,
that have been cleared of trees, roads put in, etc. with no set plan or set tenants that sit empty.
My fear is another'island'will be created at the Settlers Point site while a speculative owner
hopes that someone is interested. The area will be dramatically and permanently changed on a
gamble that tenants will come. In contrast, there have been several stories lately of clear and
well-planned developments in the Raleigh area where the known tenants are already on board.
i.e.: Ikea, Wegmans. I feel speculative development is not the answer.
Secondly, I am worried that if this plan is approved (which I hope it is not) the county will have
little to no control over what tenants actually do move in. Light industrial could be a chicken
processing plant as long as all the business is enclosed. Warehouses, 24hr manufacturing
companies, etc. could be allowed to come in and affect the entire area with nothing to prevent
them if they are within the very broad boundaries of'light industrial'. Most of the residents in the
surrounding area are on well water, (myself included) what assurances are there that incoming
14
businesses do not foul the water? i.e.: GenX contamination around Fayetteville that was not from
dumping, but from leaching of the plant. If development does go forward, there must be very strict
limits as to what can be and cannot be allowed.
Lastly, the way that the zoning commission handles this project is most disturbing. One member
admitted she had not read the 274-page plan, credit to her for abstaining. One member said he
had received the plan only 8 days before. When asked to postpone the decision, the developer
claimed it would hurt their plan. What about the consideration for those in the area? Many
questions were raised, most did not have answers. A few stoplights are the only traffic
improvements? -for a plan that adds a hotel, retail, restaurants, AND businesses? This is all a
speculative gamble on almost 200 acres that borders miles of large lot residential, some going
back generations.
I ask that you reject this plan and take into consideration that this decision will forever impact all
those who live close to this area. Once the approval is given, you can't take it back. Please reject
on behalf of all of us that have to directly live with your decision.
I appreciate your time on this issue and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Bob Bundschuh
Orange County
John Ackerley said he is a Hillsborough resident, and he signed the first petition due to
concerns about the speed of this process, and the lack of transparency. He said he is concerned
about toxic byproducts and run off if pharmaceutical development is established in District I. He
said his main concern is District 2, and he opposes it as a commercial hub. He said the plan to
build here would divert income from Hillsborough merchants, and deprive the Town of tax
revenue. He said the Town has gone to great expense to revitalize the Churton Street downtown
area, and permitting an alternate commercial hub would be a knife to the back of the downtown
merchants, and the commercial corridor of Churton Street.
Jeanette Vega said she lives in Northern Hillsborough, but commutes through this area
every day. She said she is against this proposed development, and asked the BOCC to reject this
project until it has more information, especially regarding traffic. She said she agreed with other
speakers about other issues.
Alyse Polly reviewed the following comments below:
My name is Alyse Polly, and I've been a resident of Orange County for 11 years, and a resident
of Cornwallis Hills in Hillsborough for nearly 8 months. I feel very lucky to live here—in Orange
County, and specifically in Hillsborough. It is a great place to live and a great place to raise a
family.
One of the things I've really been struck by since moving to Hillsborough and learning more about
this town is the amount of effort, thought, deliberation, and intention that the town has put towards
planning for the future. The town has a carefully drafted vision, and a strategy map that directs
the town towards this vision, and a very detailed Unified Development Ordinance that aligns with
these as well.
So, while development is coming—and we all know that it is—the town is trying to prepare for this
while holding on to what's special about Hillsborough.
Given all of this, I'm feeling concerned about the Settler's point proposal. The first thing I want to
talk to about is District 1. I know economic development is important jobs are good, tax revenue
15
is good, innovation is good. I know these things. Yet, I'm not sure what kind of businesses would
be in district 1. The zone is described as "light industrial, manufacturing, and research"—this
seems far too broad and could capture a huge range of businesses. So I ask that you please wait
until it's possible to get more detail about exactly what would be taking residency in our town,
right next to 1-40.
Second, let's talk about District 2.
As mentioned before, I've only lived in Hillsborough for 8 months. I have always liked
Hillsborough, I enjoy the sweet little downtown, and the parks, and of course Riverwalk. With that
said, since moving here, I have been surprised by how much I've grown to LOVE this town. The
people in Hillsborough are friendly-1 know a lot of my neighbors are here tonight and look
grumpy but don't let them fool you—they are usually incredibly friendly. There are a lot of artists
here, and a lot of art around town... a lot of open, beautiful natural spaces... a ton of history....
There is something special here, it's hard to put your finger on it—the town's vision has settled on
referring to this as Hillsborough's "unique heritage and small town character".
While there is so much I love about this town, there is one thing I really do not like... That is the
space on old 86, right off 85. Have any of you ever heard the term "food swamp"? the space off
85, on old 86 is the perfect example of a food swamp---an area overrun with unhealthy fast food
chain restaurants. Yesterday, I counted 15 just a mile down the road from proposed district 2.
Now, the public health girl in me wants to highlight the fact that increased easy access to
unhealthy foods, can increase consumption of unhealthy foods, which can contribute to an
increased incidence of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other chronic diseases
BUT
The Hillsborough-lover in me feels it's even more important to say to you, that this is not what I
want people's first impression to be of my town, and of my county.
Imagine with me for a moment that someone has never been to Hillsborough and, even better,
has never been to Orange County. They're driving up 40, preparing to exit on old 86 and they see
a water tower—either a blue one on the right, or a white one on the left..... and they think "oh, this
is Orange County, NC... it's cute" and then they see it.... A food swamp. Right off the exit. Then
they exit 40, drive north and a mile later they run into a second food swamp. Is this how we want
people to experience Hillsborough? Is this how we want people to experience Orange County?
We are sitting here today in a county building in Hillsborough. Most people who need to visit
these county offices will be exiting on the very 1-40 exit we're speaking about, and be immediately
greeted with the result of the decisions you make about this land. Do you want a food swamp to
be people's first impression of Orange County? I certainly don't. Unfortunate decisions were
made in the past that resulted in one food swamp off of 85.... Let's not allow that to happen again
off of 1-40.
Imagine with me for a moment that someone has never been to Hillsborough and, perhaps better,
has never been to Orange County. They're driving up 40, preparing to exit on old 86 and they see
a water tower—either a blue one on the right, or a white one on the left..... and they think "oh, this
is Orange County, NC... it's cute" and then they see it.... A food swamp right off the exit. Then
they exit 40, drive north and a mile later they run into a second food swamp. Is this how we want
people to experience Hillsborough? Is this how we want people to experience Orange County?
We are sitting here today in a county building in Hillsborough. Most people who need to visit
these county offices where you spend so much time will be exiting on the very 1-40 exit we're
speaking about, and will be immediately greeted by the result of the decisions you make about
this land. Do you want a food swamp to be people's first impression of Orange County? I certainly
16
don't. Unfortunate decisions were made in the past that resulted in one food swamp off of 85....
Let's not allow that to happen again off of 1-40.
Thank you.
Franklin Garland said he has the largest truffle orchard in the country, and his property is
adjacent to District 1, which will directly impact his business. He said his business brings a great
deal of agritourism to the County. He said he received two different conflicting notices from the
planning department; one stating he is impacted by the development, and the other stating he is
not. He said this is a poor location, and he is against this project.
Sherry Appel said she formerly worked on planning issues in Maryland. She said if done
right, this may work; but if not, it may be a potential development disaster. She said it would be a
far better project if the tenants were known, and piecemeal development is not a good idea.
Simona Dunn said she is not supportive of any development at this time with this project,
and agreed with many of the other speakers.
Kevin Nicholson said he is against this project because it is within a mile of his family
farm, and he is concerned how it will affect his farm status and his neighborhood.
Bud Shelton said he served in the Navy in the 1950s, and moved to North Carolina
thereafter. He said it is important to consider the pristine area in which we live, but to also
consider the employment needs of future generations. He said to carve out the good and
eliminate the bad.
Dave Skanga said he is a homeowner in the Cornwallis Hills neighborhood. He said it is
understood that development of some sort is going to happen, but this proposed project is a raw
deal. He said he is against the project, and asked the BOCC not to act hastily.
Commissioner Jacobs asked about the digging of the water and sewer at end of Davis
Road.
Michael Harvey said that is an emergency water line, and is independent of this project.
Jim Parker, Developer, said he is representing Old 86 Partners, and he has heard from
residents tonight, and at other meetings, about their concerns. He said he has lived in this area
for 35 years, and has supported the desires and direction of both the Town and the County. He
said they are here because of 1-40, and because the County adopted the three EDDs years ago
when this road was created. He commended the Planning Department for its thorough, fair and
neutral efforts.
Jim Parker said they have responded to what the EDD asked for, which are the same
uses that were in the land use plan to begin with, or were added by the elected bodies. He said
this is not a rushed project. His company became aware of one parcel of land four years ago,
and since that time they have been working with landowners to assemble the 274 acres. He said
they have put together the third part of the puzzle, which is site ready development. He said site
ready development requires good transportation; utilities; and a mass of property that will attract
tenants.
Jim Parker said, if approved, this opportunity could attract some large economic
development users, with an optimistic $6 million tax benefit to the County. He said $3 million
would not be bad either, and property taxes may not go down, but would likely level out. He said
there is no desire to compete with Daniel Boone or downtown Hillsborough. He said this is an
interstate development.
Jim Parker referred to the concerns about the buffer, and offered to mitigate their request
specifically for the District 2 area along 1-40, from the termini of the ramp up until the mid way
point, which is about 1200 feet. He said there is over 4000 feet of MTC buffer in the proposed
development. He said they do not need to thin on light industrial property on the west side. He
said they do not intend for thinning in the southern part of the buffer either.
He referred to the bike lanes, and connectivity. He said there is very little room on 86, under the
1-40 bridges. He said in the near future, 3-5 years, 1-40 will be widened, which will provide
opportunity to work with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to provide some additional
clearance under the bridges, and they would work towards making this happen. He said there
17
are extensive traffic improvements that have not been specifically reviewed this evening, but have
been communicated to the BOCC via email.
Jim Parker said he does not know how do insure that this does not end up as Oakdale or
the area across from Wal-Mart. He said they will continue to work with the Town of Hillsborough,
and the process does not end with BOCC approval. He said BOCC approval would, however,
provide something to attract tenants.
Commissioner Burroughs asked if he would address the flood plain issues.
Jim Parker said there are flood plain issues in both districts, which cannot be developed.
Commissioner Burroughs asked if the flood plains were removed, what would be the
developable acreage.
Jim Parker said 20% are flood plains.
Commissioner Jacobs said about a year ago, staff and the BOCC reviewed an extensive
list of permitted and unpermitted uses in the EDDs. He asked staff if there is an update on this
list.
Michael Harvey said staff and the County Attorney's office are still working on this project.
He said the Applicant used the Board's comments on these uses, and incorporated only those
uses that were identified as being plausible. He reminded the BOCC that the Applicant provided
a detailed listing of land uses that would be proposed for District I and II, which can be found on
page 103 of the packet.
Commissioner Jacobs said he appreciates the inclusion of these concerns, but doubts
that the BOCC raised all possible concerns at that time, and he assumes the residents may have
some concerns about some of those uses, not knowing what they are. He asked if there is a
timeline for this to come back to the BOCC.
Michael Harvey said probably in January or February 2018.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the BOCC approves a plan for this area, could annexation
by Hillsborough result in a change of the uses.
Michael Harvey said yes, and annexation will be subject to compliance with the applicable
Town zoning, as establish as part of that process.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if it is possible to assure the community that what is
approved by Orange County will be what is actually developed.
Michael Harvey said he the County works closely with the Town Planning department, but
he cannot offer any guarantees. He said the Town would take up the zoning of property
consistent with its existing land use plan and Town code.
Michael Harvey referred to questions about the flood plain concerns, and said the County
has a fairly extensive flood plain management program. He said the County prohibits
development in flood plains, and requires buffers. He said the Applicant would have to abide by
those standards. He said the Applicant does not wish to deviate from the County's stormwater or
erosion control standards, and that is in addition to doing an environmental assessment on every
site plan that is submitted.
Chair Dorosin asked if this could be clarified, and if each structure has its own site plan.
Michael Harvey said each individual structure will be subject to an individual site plan
review and approval by County staff, consistent with the applicable provisions of the UDO, as well
as any specified standards as detailed within this resolution of approval.
Commissioner McKee said he heard that the entire site would be clear-cut and stripped,
which he knew was inaccurate. He asked Michael Harvey if he would clarify the boundaries of
clearing on a site with flood plains.
Michael Harvey referred to a map, and said there will be a 100-foot buffer on the western
and southern property that is required by the UDO, and the Applicant will honor this. He pointed
out the stream and flood plain, both of which must have a 65-foot undisturbed, natural area buffer
on each side. He said there are wetland pockets and other streams that will have to be buffered,
and are not developable. He said there are utility lines in this area, which are not developable.
Commissioner Rich asked if it is known who would provide emergency services to this
area until annexation.
18
Michael Harvey said Orange County would offer Sheriff and EMS, with mutual aid
agreements with the Town. He said there would be fire hydrants.
Commissioner Rich referred to the bike lanes, and said the OUTBoard Chair expressed
concerns about leaving enough easements on Old 86 frontage going forward. She suggested
including this topic if this project moves forward.
Commissioner Rich asked Michael Harvey if he could explain the Planning Board process,
and whether the Planning Board had enough time to thoroughly review this item.
Michael Harvey said the Planning Board gets its agenda one week in advance of a
meeting, in accordance with its policies; and there were three neighborhood meetings.
Jim Parker said the first neighborhood meeting was held in September 2016, with two
more in August 2017, and in September 2017.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the lighting plans for this project could be explained,
and if they are low casting lighting.
Michael Harvey said the lighting will have to comply with the County's current lighting
code, which requires fully shielded lights.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked to what extent energy and water efficiency can be
controlled. He asked if incentives or requirements could be put in place.
Jim Parker said the application did not have anything additional built in, but rather followed
the requirements of building codes. He said they would consider any suggested additional
provisions.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if they would entertain a suggestion to add a line of
dense vegetative wall to help with sound and light in the south side of District I.
Jim Parker said this can be added to their landscaping buffer, and would work with staff to
create this.
Commissioner Price referred to the west side of District I, and asked if there is an
expected impact on the waters there, and all the other farmland.
Jim Parker said the map shows blue water bodies, which represent storm water controls.
He said these are non-specific, and meant as a placeholder. He said they may never exist. He
said the area to the west is existing floodplain.
Michael Harvey said these areas will have to be buffered and preserved, as required by
the current code, and cannot be disturbed.
Commissioner Price said she does not like the piecemeal approval process for these
different zoning districts. She asked if a true, comprehensive master plan could be created to
provide the BOCC and the community a fuller picture of information.
Michael Harvey said the BOCC has that, as consistent with the ordinances currently
adopted.
Commissioner Price said she would like a diagram.
Michael Harvey said the BOCC would have to revise the ordinance to require a site-
specific development plan.
Commissioner Price asked if is there any way to have a comprehensive plan to give a
better sense of what is going to go in, and where.
Michael Harvey said not under the way the ordinance is currently written.
Michael Harvey said the staff will review a site specific development plan, which will not
come before the BOCC.
Commissioner Price said staff will review this in pieces.
Michael Harvey said staff will review sites as they are developed.
Commissioner Burroughs asked which EDD is largest, in terms of the tracts of land.
Craig Benedict said under single ownership it is the 138 acres at the flea market site. He
said inquiries often seek site ready sites, of which there are few. He said this project would
become the largest site that the EDDs would be able to offer.
Chair Dorosin clarified that the County owns none of this land, and a developer has to
negotiate with a private landowner to purchase land.
Craig Benedict said yes.
19
Commissioner Burroughs asked if it is known when the District I extension of water and
sewer be completed.
Craig Benedict said probably the middle of 2018.
Commissioner Jacobs referred to signage, and said they are stipulated as being externally
illuminated rather than internally illuminated in District II. He asked if there is a reason why this is
preferable.
Michael Harvey said he may have to gather that information, and answer this question
later.
Commissioner Jacobs referred to the issue of trees, and asked if there is any kind of tree
preservation plan for the interior of these sites.
Michael Harvey said there is no tree survey, but there are mandatory buffers, and the
developer plans to preserve existing foliage within those buffers.
Michael Harvey referred to page 110, which states, "unless otherwise specified herein,
signs shall be composed of internally lit letters." He said he will review all documents to make
sure internally lit lights are included, as opposed to externally lit.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if it can be required that sign lighting be extinguished when
businesses closed.
Michael Harvey said this question can be posed to the Applicant.
Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to have a conversation about a tree survey for
this project.
Commissioner Jacobs referred to the buffers, and said it appears that thinning could leave
54 trees per acre.
Michael Harvey said that is the Developer's proposal to encourage the BOCC to approve
thinning, but what he is hearing is that Jim Parker would like to revise this to address concerns
raised by the community about clearing.
Commissioner Jacobs said this is true except in one area, District III, and he would like to
address this area too. He said the 54-tree per acre proposal only leads to one tree per 741
square feet.
Commissioner Jacobs said he has concerns about the traffic plan, as there is no clarity
about any internal circulation plans in either District I or II. He said this would be useful
information for the BOCC to have before giving its approval, as it will have an effect on how Old
86 will operate.
Michael Harvey said part of the confusion is that the TIA still references District III as
being developed. He said right now, there is one central entrance proposed into District II, and
District I would get access from the existing service road.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if a light would not be proposed at Davis Road if there is no
residential.
Jim Parker said that is correct. He said the light at Davis Road would be specifically for
District III.
Commissioner Jacobs said Davis Road will become a de facto thoroughfare. He said
whether a light is needed will not be determined by residential development, but by the change in
traffic patterns.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if Hillsborough has a water reuse system.
Michael Harvey said he did not know.
Commissioner Jacobs said he does not think Hillsborough has one, and suggested asking
the Developer to have a rain collection system, as a way to do irrigation.
Jim Parker said with the stormwater requirements, there is available water that can be
used for the landscape irrigation. He said there are also drought resistant requirements for
landscaping.
Commissioner Jacobs said to see if there is adequate water from the storm water
collection, which can dry up, or some kind of rain collection system.
Commissioner Jacobs referred to District II, which is noted to be "neighborhood, mixed
use, future land use."
20
Michael Harvey said that is per the Town of Hillsborough-Orange County joint planning
land use plan.
Commissioner Jacobs asked Jim Parker if there was ever any consideration made to have
this area contain residential units above the commercial units.
Jim Parker said they are not opposed to this, but it would be determined by what the
market would bare. He said the commercial area in District II is likely to be an interstate
transportation market, catering to those who are passing through rather than residents of
Hillsborough.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if it is viable to ask the Developer to separate the two
districts, and proceed with the western district first because it is less complicated.
Jim Parker said that is not what they would like, and they believe that both districts go
hand-in-hand. He said the light industrial and employment centers, which may go in District I, are
going to want to see something adjacent to them in the way of services, food, hotels, etc.
Jim Parker referred to the traffic improvements, and said there are a lot of lights along that
section, but two of the lights were a part of the TIA that was prepared for Waterstone, and that
requirement got left out. He said those signals are being put in to do the right thing. He said
most of the trips in the traffic are generated by District I. He said the proximity of the service road
to the ramps is not good.
Commissioner Jacobs said DOT only recommends a stop sign for the service road, which
he finds preposterous.
Jim Parker said one would not be able to turn left out.
Commissioner McKee referred to oil and water contaminants on this property, and said
Orange County requirements exceed the State's requirements much of the time.
Michael Harvey agreed.
Commissioner McKee asked if the number of buildable acres in this project is known.
Jim Parker said 30% open space is required, so about 65-70% of 190 acres is buildable,
including roads, buildings, etc.
Commissioner McKee said one of the proposed uses was light manufacturing, and asked
if the Morinaga candy factory is considered to be light manufacturing.
Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director, said yes.
Commissioner McKee asked if it is known on how many acres Morinaga sits.
Steve Brantley said the company purchased a 21-acre site, and built on one third of the
property.
Commissioner McKee asked if the number of employees at Morinaga is known.
Steve Brantley said approximately 100 full time employees with benefits, and salaries well
above the living wage and beyond.
Commissioner McKee said while the exact tenants for this project are not known, it can be
expected that jobs will be created by this proposed project.
Steve Brantley said yes. He said the asking price for this property is quite high, but not as
high as the remaining properties at the Waterstone development. He said the Waterstone
properties are priced at$250,000 per acre, and there is no industry that will pay this price. He
said the probable asking price for Settlers' Point would indicate that the type of buyer would be a
higher caliber business.
Commissioner McKee said a more focused enterprise would be attracted to this property.
Steve Brantley said the Waterstone development has set a tone with its tenants, signage
and landscaping, and the development and asking price at Settlers' Point would indicate a
continuation of this higher caliber tone.
Commissioner McKee said the BOCC is committed to attracting lower impact businesses
that do not require excessive amounts of water, and are in line with Orange County values. He
said Orange County has one of the highest tax rates in the state, and it is unclear how much this
project will generate in taxes; but if it could generate $4 million, that is 2% of the County's budget.
He said that is a significant shift in the industrial-residential tax base. He asked if the County is
still at 20% on its business tax base.
21
Steve Brantley said the recent revaluation has changed these numbers a bit, but
historically this is accurate. He said projects like this can help shift that dynamic.
Commissioner Rich asked if the type of developments that will go into Waterstone and
Daniel Boone area are known.
Steve Brantley said he thought Waterstone was going to be a large science park, lined
with white-collar operations, but in reality he found most of it is residential. He said the few
remaining sites at Waterstone are too small. He said Hillsborough has no large tracts of land that
could accommodate a corporate presence. He said the Settlers' Point project could tie in well
with the tone of Waterstone, attracting professional offices.
Commissioner Marcoplos said he is trying to get a sense of how many jobs may be
created by this project.
Steve Brantley reviewed several potential tenants and the numbers of people they could
employ, from a call canter to a warehouse, which are lower paying jobs. He said an automotive
park facility would maximize the tax value, and provide higher paying jobs. He said life science
companies are an option as well, which can have very high salaries.
Chair Dorosin said it looks as if the Board of County Commissioners is going to defer this
item to a later meeting.
Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 110, which states, "external illumination shall be
permitted...". He asked Michael Harvey if he would clarify internal and external illumination in a
future discussion.
Commissioner Jacobs said the BOCC planned Watersone with Hillsborough, and it was
the ideal economic development site in the County. He said Hillsborough changed some of the
plans to make it more residential, and removed an agreed upon Senior Center. He said given
that Hillsborough is asking the BOCC to do what it considers important for Hillsborough, he would
like to ask the Town Board to write a letter to the BOCC stating its willingness to abide, to the
best of its ability, by what the BOCC decides; as opposed to using water and sewer to prevent
BOCC approved plans from happening.
Commissioner Burroughs said given the limited amount of land for economic development
in Orange County, she would strongly suggest that this site should be used just for economic
development. She said it should not be used for a school, jail or waste transfer station.
Chair Dorosin summarized the concerns.
Commissioner McKee said if this item is delayed, he would like to know how long staff will
need to get the necessary information, and to set a specific time to bring it back.
Michael Harvey said a specific time frame will be needed. He said staff has a laundry list
of comments from the BOCC and the Applicant, to which responses are needed. He said he
anticipates modifications of existing or recommended conditions.
Commissioner McKee said he would like to know if this can come back for a December
meeting.
Michael Harvey said if the BOCC votes to bring this item back in December, staff will be
ready.
Commissioner Price asked if this item will need to go back to the Planning Board.
Michael Harvey said the BOCC has that option, but staff cannot accommodate bringing it
back in December if it goes back to the Planning Board.
Chair Dorosin said this item might need to come back in January, in which case the
Planning Board could weigh in on that which was discussed today.
Commissioner McKee reminded the BOCC that it does not meet until the very end of
January.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to refer
this item back to the Planning Board for discussion at its December regular meeting, so that staff,
the Applicant and the Planning Board can finesse the conditions that have been discussed; with
the public hearing to be adjourned to the BOCC regular meeting on January 23, 2018.
22
Chair Dorosin thanked the public and colleagues from Hillsborough for attending, and said
all are acting in good faith and the BOCC will take all comments into account.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments and Zoning Atlas
Amendments -To review government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO
pertaining to flood regulations and to remove the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) from
the Zoning Atlas.
BACKGROUND:
Orange County has been a member of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) since
approximately 1976. The NFIP offers flood insurance to homeowners, renters, and business
owners if their community participates, specifically through the adoption and enforcement of
regulations designed to mitigate/reduce flood risk, in the program including adoption of flood
maps denoting areas where flooding is a possibility. For more background information please
refer to Attachment 1. 117 Recent changes by the State and Federal government in flood
damage prevention standards, including development of new flood maps, require the County to
modify existing regulation(s) in order to continue to be eligible for participation within the NFIP.
On direction from the County's Attorney in 2007, staff incorporated available flood mapping data
directly onto the County Zoning Atlas creating the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) overlay
district. As there are modifications/updates to FEMA flood map data, the County is required to
initiate a Zoning Atlas amendment incorporating same. This requires the holding and advertising
of both a Planning Board meeting and a BOCC public hearing where the maps amendment(s) are
being reviewed (i.e. notification of impacted property owners, notification of property owners
within 1,000 ft. of the zoning change, posting of impacted properties with signs advertising the
meetings, and legal advertisements). Depending on the scope and timing of FEMA map
change(s) there may be significant and unplanned budgetary impacts, as well as significant time
commitments, to incorporate said modifications.
In consultation with current Attorney's staff, Planning staff is recommending the elimination of the
SFHA overlay district and adoption of the flood maps by reference in the UDO. As there are
future changes/updates in flood mapping data, staff would complete a UDO text amendment
incorporating reference to this new data, but would not have to complete a corresponding zoning
atlas amendment. The move would reduce required budgetary outlays to cover notification of an
atlas amendment to affected, and adjacent (i.e. those within 1,000 ft.), property owners.
Please note as part of our floodplain management program, the Planning Department engages in
a public awareness campaign keeping local property owners informed of flood issues as well as
the various services offered by the County. This includes an annual letter sent to approximately
1,900 property owners whose property is encumbered by floodplain. This is part of our
comprehensive floodplain management outreach program for which the County receives credit
under the Community Rating System (CRS) resulting in a reduction in flood insurance premiums
for local property owners. The elimination of the SFHA overlay district will not impact or alter
existing outreach efforts conducted by the Department to keep property owners aware of flood
issues and the various services offered to address compliance with flood regulations.
Michael Harvey made the following PowerPoint presentation:
PUBLIC HEARING
Zoning Atlas and UDO Text Amendments — Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay District
Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing
23
November 14, 2017
Background
• In 1968 Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
• Program provides means for property owners to financially protect themselves from the
possible damage of structures resulting from flood events.
• Supplements typical homeowner insurance policies, which do not cover damage to
structures resulting from a flood.
• Flood insurance available in participating communities.
• Participation involves adoption/enforcement of regulations designed to mitigate/reduce
flood risk.
• Includes adoption of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) denoting areas susceptible to
flooding. Used to verify the anticipated `elevation' of flood waters during storm event.
• Staff works with property owners to ensure development is not located in flood areas.
• FIRMs are modified over time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to
reflect changes, both increases and decreases, in anticipated flood levels.
— STAFF COMMENT: Local communities do not maintain or develop FIRMs.
— They are maintained and modified by FEMA.
• Participating communities are required to adopt new maps once they are certified to
continue to be eligible for participation.
— STAFF COMMENT: if new maps are not adopted, a local community can no
longer participate in the program meaning flood insurance will not be
available.
Why Are We Here:
• FEMA has
— Approved new FIRMs (i.e. flood maps).
— Modified its model floodplain management ordinance establishing/updating
definitions and regulatory components.
Orange County is obligated to adopt the new maps and revise existing regulations to be
consistent with FEMA rules and preserve membership with the NFIP.
What is Being Proposed:
• Adopt the new FIRM data,
• Amend the Zoning Atlas to eliminate the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay
District
— STAFF COMMENT: SFHA implemented in 2007 on advice from the County's
Attorney office.
— District incorporated floodplain data onto the Zoning Atlas.
— Created confusion and unnecessary duplication of effort(s).
• Update/revise existing regulations.
— STAFF COMMENT: Amendments include:
• Eliminate existing procedures allowing County to issue `waivers' allowing
for solid waste facilities, hazardous waste management facilities, salvage
yards, and chemical storage facilities to locate in flood areas,
• Update existing standards to reference compliance with State law.
• Update existing regulations and definitions consistent with FEMA
recommendations.
Impacts:
• New flood maps/elevations will be enforced
— STAFF COMMENT: There are areas of the County where the mapped floodplain
is increasing, impacting more property than previously identified.
24
• This does not mean property owners will be required to initiate action
to address issues once new maps are adopted.
• The County cannot compel purchase of flood insurance.
• Existing regulations will be updated to ensure consistency with FEMA
minimum standards.
Why Did I Get Notified?
— Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requires staff to send property owners a
certified letter if their property is being impacted by a Zoning Atlas Amendment
initialed by the County.
— STAFF COMMENT: Zoning Atlas is being amended to eliminate
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay district which is why
you were sent a letter.
— UDO requires property owners within 1,000 ft. of the proposed zoning atlas
amendments to be notified of meetings as well via first class mail.
More Information:
— Amendment fact sheet can be viewed at:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/FactSheetOnNewFlRMmapAdoption.pdf
• State of North Carolina website called Flood Risk Information System (FRIS)
denoting the proposed new FIRM data for property in Orange County at:
http://fris.nc.gov/fris/Home.aspx?ST=NC
• County webpage outlining services can be viewed at:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/planning and inspections/floodplain information.ph
2
Recommendations:
• Planning Board: At its October 4, 2017 meeting the Board voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the Zoning Atlas and UDO Text Amendments as recommended
by staff.
• Planning Director recommends approval of the Statements of Consistency and
Amendments modifying the Zoning Atlas and the UDO.
The Administration recommends the Board:
1. Receive the proposed amendments.
2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comments.
3. Close the public hearing.
4. Decide on one of the following options:
5. Adopt the Statement of Consistency for proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment(s)
(Attachment 5), the Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas (Attachment 6), the
Statement of Consistency for proposed UDO Text Amendment(s) (Attachment 7),
and Proposed UDO Text Amendment(s) (Attachment 8) as recommended by the
Planning Board and staff;
6. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date;
7. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose; or
8. Deny the proposed amendments. (Note: Section 2.2.8 Effect of Denial on
Subsequent Applications of the UDO states that no application for the same or
similar amendment may be submitted for a period of one year. The one-year
period begins on the date of denial.)
Commissioner McKee asked Michael Harvey to detail the effect of not making the
deadline or denying the change.
25
Michael Harvey said if the deadline is missed, or the change denied, the County will be
suspended from the National Flood Insurance Program, which means local residents will not be
able to purchase flood insurance.
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
open the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Bruce Lucas spoke about his land, and is need of help so that water will not stand on his
land. He said he is in a flood plain.
Commissioner McKee asked if this is a private road.
Bruce Lucas said yes, it was established in 1954.
Chair Dorosin asked if staff could provide some follow up to Mr. Lucas about his situation.
Michael Harvey said he has spoken with Mr. Lucas, and a meeting can be set up to
discuss further.
June McWhorter said trees absorb a large amount of water, and cutting them down has
significant impact. She said the onus should be on the County to notify new landowners not to
cut trees within the buffer of streams/flood plains, and not leave it up to the realtors.
Bud Shelton said his farm has some river frontage. He said the changes in the maps
could impact him, and if he is required to buy flood insurance his property value may decrease.
He said the information sent out by the County was very wordy, and beyond his understanding.
He wants to make sure he is doing the right thing for his family and his property.
Michael Harvey suggested that Mr. Shelton come by his office to discuss this further. He
said the County cannot compel anyone to buy this insurance, but it is strongly suggestion.
Jack Pless said he lives in a flood plain, and did not receive any letters from the Planning
staff. He said he learned of the issue from a temporary road sign, which was very difficult to read.
He encouraged staff to revise the signage about this topic.
Franklin Garland said he did receive the notification, and assumes the included maps are
the ones that will be adopted. He said flood plains have been increased in District 1 with the
newly proposed maps.
Michael Harvey said the County has to go by the new maps.
Joyce Briggs said she received notification about her land being put in a flood zone, which
it never has been before. Her family has lived on her property for three generations, and she is
concerned that this will affect their property values.
Commissioner Rich asked if there is a process to contact new landowners about tree
cutting.
Michael Harvey said no, and there is some responsibility on the part of the purchaser to
inquire about any opportunities and constraints that may apply to their property.
Commissioner Burroughs asked if a seller must disclose if a property is in a FEMA flood
plain.
Michael Harvey said yes.
Commissioner Burroughs asked if the tax office takes a flood plain designation into
consideration during a valuation.
Michael Harvey said he would have to research this question.
Commissioner Jacobs said an additional issue of notification arises when one purchases
land next to an EDD. He said these types of issues should be discussed at some future point.
Chair Dorosin said this is a worthy suggestion to pursue, and he said to consider this as a
petition to add to an agenda at a later date.
Lyndon Whitfield said his concern is whether the flood plain designation would devalue
properties, and asked if a review is done of the maps.
26
Chair Dorosin said the federal government draws these maps, and the maps are mainly
used to determine who is eligible for flood insurance. He said he is unsure if there is an appeal
process.
Michael Harvey said staff has written letters, per the request of property owners, as to
what the impacts of the flood plain and the flood buffer are on a property. He said he does not
know if this has helped with anyone's appeal to the tax office, but the letters were written.
Chair Dorosin said the Planning Department is at the ready to answer any questions, and
this change will allow those, who wish to buy flood insurance, to be able to do so.
Commissioner Rich asked if it is known how often the maps are redrawn.
Michael Harvey said typically every five years.
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
close the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
adopt the Statement of Consistency for proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment(s) (Attachment 5),
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
approve the Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas (Attachment 6), the Statement of Consistency
for proposed UDO Text Amendment(s) (Attachment 7), and Proposed UDO Text Amendment(s)
(Attachment 8) as recommended by the Planning Board and staff.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments -To review government-
initiated amendments to the text of the UDO pertaining to public hearings.
BACKGROUND:
As a result of discussion at the September 7, 2017 Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
Work Session, an text amendment to consider revisions to the existing public hearing process is
currently being prepared by County staff for the November Quarterly Public Hearing. The
proposed amendment will allow land use hearings to occur at any regular BOCC meeting instead
of current standards which allow these items to be presented on a quarterly basis. Allowing these
items to be heard at all regular BOCC meeting shall expedite the development review process
and encourage a planning process which is efficient and responsive to Orange County property
owners, residents, and developers. No other changes to the public hearing processes are being
proposed. In addition, all items requiring a public hearing will still allow for review and
recommendation from the Planning Board prior to the public hearing.
Attachment 1 contains additional information and analysis regarding this amendment. Proposed
text amendment language can be found in Attachment 3 within a "track changes" format.
Additionally, amendments to the Planning Board's Policies and Procedures document are
necessary and these revisions are also part of Attachment 3.
Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest,
contained in Attachment 2 and proposed amendment package contained in Attachment 3. 347
Planning Board Recommendation: At its October 4, 2017 meeting, the Board voted unanimously
to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and UDO amendment package. The
proposed amendment, as deemed legally sufficient by the County's Attorney office and as
27
recommended for approval by the Planning Board, is contained in Attachment 3. The Planning
Board considered the proposed amendments to its Polices and Procedures document on
November 1, 2017 and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendments to this
document.
Craig Benedict made the following PowerPoint presentation:
Unified Development Ordinance
Text Amendment
Revisions to the Public Hearing Process
Quarterly Public Hearing
November 14, 2017
Item D.3
Purpose
• To hold a public hearing
• BOCC initiated text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
regarding revisions to the public hearing process
Proposal
• Delete quarterly public hearings and allow planning items to be placed on BOCC regular
meeting agendas
• This would create more opportunities for review and action
Proposal Amendments
• Proposed revisions to the UDO:
• Section 1.6, Planning Board
• Section 2.3, Comprehensive Plan Amendments
• Section 2.7, Special Use Permits
• Section 2.8, Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments
• Section 5.10, Standards for Telecommunication Facilities
• Section 10.1, Definitions
• Proposed revisions to Planning Board Policies and Procedures
• Packet includes the proposed amendments in "track changes" format
• Allow land use hearings to occur at any regular BOCC meeting
• Allow the BOCC Chair to request the Planning Board Chair or Vice Chair to attend public
hearings, as needed
• Encourage Planning Board members attendance at public hearings for items the Planning
Board has reviewed
• Continue to allow for Planning Board's review and recommendation prior to the public
hearing.
• Continue same or higher level of public input
Public Notification
• Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
• Newspaper legal ads for two successive weeks
Planning Board Recommendation
• October 4, 2017— Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
Statement of Consistency and UDO amendment package
• November 1, 2017— Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
Policies and Procedures amendments.
Recommendation
The Administration recommends the Board:
28
1. Receive the proposed amendments to the UDO as detailed in this abstract and
attachments
2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comment on the proposed amendments
3. Close the public hearing
4. Decide on one of the following options:
a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving:
i. Statement of Consistency (Attachment 2) and
ii. Ordinance (Attachment 3)
b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date
c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose
d. Deny the proposed amendments
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to open
the Public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
NO PUBLIC COMMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee for the
Board to close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional
comments at a later date are permitted)
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 2).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
approve the Ordinance (Attachment 3).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
E. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to adjourn
the meeting at 10:41 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Mark Dorosin, Chair
Donna Baker
Clerk to the Board