1. Board of Commissioners (BOC)

MINUTES TOWN OF PITTSBORO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2021 7:00 PM Members Present (Virtual): Mayor James Nass, Mayor Pro Tern Pamela Baldwin, Commissioner John Bonitz, Commissioner Jay Farrell, Commissioner Michael Fiocco, and Commissioner Kyle Shipp. Staff Present (Virtual): Town Manager Chris Kennedy, Town Attorney Paul S. Messick, Chief of Police Shorty Johnson, Town Clerk Cassandra Bullock, Planning Director Theresa Thompson, Senior Planner Victoria Bailiff, and Director of Engineering Kent Jackson. Call to Order - Mayor Nass Mayor Nass called the meeting to order 7:02pm. Invocation - Moment of Silence Mayor Nass asked for a moment of silence. Pledge of Allegiance Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Farrell. Adoption of the Agenda Commissioner Bonitz made a motion to approve the Regular Agenda, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin. Vote: Aye-5 Nay-0 Mayor Nass: NIA Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin: Aye Commissioner Bonitz: Aye Commissioner Farrell: Aye Commissioner Fiocco: Aye Commissioner Shipp: Aye Motion Passed. Proclamation Declaring October 18, 2021 as "Boys & Girls Club Day" in the Town of Pittsboro Commissioner Shipp made a motion to approve the Proclamation, seconded by Commissioner Fiocco. Vote: Aye-5 Nay-0 Mayor Nass: NIA Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin: Aye Commissioner Bonitz: Aye Commissioner Farrell: Aye Commissioner Fiocco: Aye Commissioner Shipp: Aye Motion Passed. UPDATES & COMMISSIONER CONCERNS 1. Manager Updates Town Manager Chris Kennedy announced that the NCDOT downtown traffic circle project wrapped construction today, with exception of the new streetlights that were planned for installation post-construction. Town Manager Kennedy also advised the Consent Agenda had been updated. 2. Mayor Updates Mayor Nass advised that on September 18 he attended an event put on by the Community Remembrance Coalition that acknowledged the I 00-year anniversary of the lynching of 16-year- old Eugene Daniel who was lynched in Chatham County in 1921. This event was titled "Truth Justice Reconciliation for Black History of Chatham County". Mayor Nass stated that US Congressman David Price addressed the group via Zoom along with NC House Representative Robert Reives. Mayor Nass thanked Bob Pearson and Mary Nettles for their efforts with this event. Mayor Nass advised that he recently attended Pepper Fest that was held at The Plant in the beverage district. Mayor Nass also stated that he attended Main Street Pittsboro' s Arts in the Park at Page Vernon Park last Thursday evening and thanked Main Street Pittsboro for putting on the event. 3. Commissioner Updates • Boys & Girls Club • Chatham County Arts Council • Chatham County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) Commissioner Shipp stated that the AHA C held a meeting recently to review that board's priorities and mentioned that the AHAC was still accepting applications for affordable housing projects in the County. 2  • Chatham County Economic Development Corporation (EDC) Commissioner Fiocco advised that the EDC remains quite active with many industries interested in Chatham County. • Climate Change Commissioner Bonitz advised that he had a consultation with a subcommittee that is working on a response to a County Commissioner's wish list for ten action items and he further stated that he will update this Board as that list materializes into form. • Downtown Commissioner Fiocco stated that the NCDOT downtown traffic circle project looked great and that he was looking forward to the final touches. • Fairground Association • Main Street Pittsboro (MSPBO) Commissioner Shipp mentioned that he attended Main Street Pittsboro's Art in the Park. Commissioner Fiocco stated that he was unable to attend Main Street Pittsboro's Arts in the Park but heard that over 80 people turned out to attend the event. Commissioner Fiocco advised the Welcome Center now had furniture in the courtyard and stated that Main Street Pittsboro will be preparing a response soon to the Board of Commissioners for an email sent to the Board of Commissioners from Heather Johnson about the operations of Main Street Pittsboro. • Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PARAB) • Pittsboro Business Association (PBA) • Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) Commissioner Fiocco mentioned that CMAQ funding was once again available and asked his Board counterparts to contemplate potential sidewalk project for this funding. Commissioner Fiocco asked that the Board forward those ideas to the Town Manager, Planning Director, and him in preparation for a TARPO vote on December 14, 2021. • Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG) Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin advised that the most recent TJCOG meeting included a presentation from the NCLM pertaining to several proposed bills in the North Carolina legislature and expressed that the Board and staff should consult the NCLM website to familiarize ourselves with these concerning bills being discussed at the legislature. • Other Commissioner Shipp stated that he recently attended a strategic planning course that is part of the UNC School of Government's Locally Elected Leaders Academy (LELA). CITIZEN MATTERS Jennifer Young, of 204 N. Small Street, Pittsboro, NC, expressed her concern about the Town's water quality issues, particularly the gaps in access to water while the Town awaits the completion of the planned water treatment plant improvements and the notification methods that the Town may choose during a contamination event. Ms. Young also thanked Town staff for the efforts on the noise ordinance. Kelly Dalton, of 155 Chatham Forest Drive, Pittsboro, NC, spoke about the Town's water quality and whether the Town had discussed these issues with the State of North Carolina. Ms. Dalton also requested an update on the status of the open Public Information Officer position with the Town. 3 Lesley Landis, of 21 Randolph Court, Pittsboro, NC, spoke about the Town's water quality and the health effects of contaminated water and expressed a desire for the Town to pursue legal action against the industrial contaminators upstream. Karen Strazza, of 422 W. Salisbury Street, Pittsboro, NC, spoke about the Town's water quality and the recent discharge of contaminants upstream. Ms. Strazza stated that she served on the Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force and requested action by the Board using the recommendations from the Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force report as well as legal action against the contaminators upstream. Laura Petersen, of 928 Cabin Creek, Pittsboro, NC, spoke about the Town's water quality and the health effects of contaminated water and expressed a desire for the Town to pursue legal action against the industrial contaminators upstream. Robert Sherwin, of 138 Oakwood Drive, Pittsboro, NC, spoke on speeding issues m his neighborhood and his concerns with the Town's traffic calming policy. Allison Schwarz Weakley, of 230 Dogwood Lane, Pittsboro, NC, spoke about the Town's water quality and expressed a desire for the Town to pursue legal action against the industrial contaminators upstream. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Town of Pittsboro Financial Reports by Month - June 2021 2. Town of Pittsboro Financial Reports by Month - July 2021 3. Town of Pittsboro Financial Reports by Month - August 2021 4. Minutes of the May 10, 2021 Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners 5. Minutes of the May 27, 2021 Special Meeting of the Board of Commissioners 6. Town of Pittsboro Traffic Control and Noise Ordinance Updates 7. Town of Pittsboro Development Specification "Specs" Updates 8. Budget Amendments for Donation to Purchase Park Benches 9. Budget Amendments to Procure Stop Bars in Chatham Forest 10. Budget Amendments to Add to the Fast-Track GAC Project at Water Treatment Plant 11. Request for Letter of Support from Town of Pittsboro for a Haw River Trails Project Grant Application 12. Board of Commissioners Future Agenda Item "Look Ahead" Tentative Schedule End of Consent Agenda. Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin motioned to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Prior to a second to Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin's motion, Commissioner Fiocco stated that he would like to remove Consent Agenda Items #2, #3 and #4 and place them on the October 11, 2021 Consent Agenda, and remove Consent Agenda Item #7 to the October 25, 2021 Regular Meeting for consideration. 4 Commissioner Shipp added that he would like to move Consent Agenda Item #6 to New Business Item #1. Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin amended her motion to include the adjustments proposed by Commissioner Fiocco and Commissioner Shipp, seconded by Commissioner Shipp. Vote: Aye-5 Nay-0 Mayor Nass: N/A Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin: Aye Commissioner Bonitz: Aye Commissioner Farrell: Aye Commissioner Fiocco: Aye Commissioner Shipp: Aye Motion Passed. MISCELLANEOUS 1. Pittsboro Boys & Girls Club Quarterly Report -July 1, 2021- September 30, 2021 Traci Newby, the Executive Director of the Pittsboro Boys & Girls Club, presented quarterly update. Mr. Newby stated that the Club will open on October 18, 2021 and that the Club has registered 10 members so far with 40 more spots open. Mayor Nass welcomed Mr. Newby and the Pittsboro Boys & Girls Club to town. NEW BUSINESS 1. Town of Pittsboro Traffic Control and Noise Ordinance Updates Commissioner Shipp questioned how the Town would enforce a jake brake ordinance. Police Chief Shorty Johnson advised that the Town would need to post signs at the corporate limits to inform traffic coming into Town. Chief Johnson offered that staff would be adding a penalty section to the ordinance language at a later date. Commissioner Shipp made a motion to approve ordinance amendment with the addition of penalty language, seconded by Commissioner Bonitz. Vote: Aye-5 Nay-0 Mayor Nass: N/A Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin: Aye Commissioner Bonitz: Aye Commissioner Farrell: Aye 5 Commissioner Fiocco: Aye Commissioner Shipp: Aye Motion Passed. OLD BUSINESS 1. Rezoning- REZ-2021-03 -Townsend Tract - Sanford Road (PARID 60774, 89720, 7413), Jamie S. Schwedler Planning Director Theresa Thompson presented the staff report for rezoning application REZ- 2021-03. Commissioner Farrell asked Planning Director Theresa Thompson to clarify where Ml zoning was in proximity to the subject property. Planning Director Theresa Thompson advised that the subject property was not zoned Ml and offered that the adjacent property was zoned Ml. Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin requested an overview of the resolution of the land dispute between CPF, LLC and the Crabtree family. Jamie Schwedler with Parker Poe, and on behalf of the applicant CPF, LLC, responded to Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin's question about the land dispute regarding the access concern with the Crabtree family's property. Commissioner Fiocco made a motion to approve REZ-2021-03. Prior to a second, Commissioner Bonitz requested to speak on the request. Commissioner Shipp seconded the motion to approve to allow for discussion. Commissioner Bonitz stated that he planned to oppose this rezoning request and offered his reasoning based on the Planning Board's recommendation, the lack of consistency with the Town's future land use plan, traffic concerns and the need for a TIA (Traffic Impact Analysis), and the lack of commercial development within the proposed development. Commissioner Bonitz also expressed concerns with residential before commercial and that impact on the downtown. Commissioner Shipp added that he is generally against General Use Rezoning application, but stated that at the core of the request, there are positives for the Town including the conversion of industrial land to residential. Vote: Aye-4 Nay-1 Mayor Nass: NIA Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin: Aye Commissioner Bonitz: Nay 6 Commissioner Farrell: Abstained Commissioner Fiocco: Aye Commissioner Shipp: Aye Motion Passed. Commissioner Farrell explained his abstention due to concerns raised by the Planning Board. 2. Rezoning- REZ-2021-04 - 879 & 881 Hillsboro Street- R-10 to 0-1 (PARID 6622), David Mang Senior Planner Victoria Bailiff presented the staff report for rezoning application REZ-2021-04. Ms. Bailiff mentioned that the Planning Board expressed concern over traffic and recommended that this request would be better applied for as a Conditional Rezoning request rather than a General Use Rezoning request. Commissioner Ship made a motion to deny REZ-2021-04, seconded by Commissioner Bonitz. Vote: Aye-5 Nay-0 Mayor Nass: N/A Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin: Aye Commissioner Bonitz: Aye Commissioner Farrell: Aye Commissioner Fiocco: Aye Commissioner Shipp: Aye Motion Passed. 3. Small Area Plan - Chatham Park North Village - Chatham Park Investors, LLC Town Manager Chris Kennedy provided an update on the latest materials provided to the Board and the general public for the North Village Small Area Plan and asked the Board what else the Board would like to have prior a vote on the request. Town Manager Kennedy discussed the previous talking points and topics of conversation from the September 13, 2021 Regular Meeting. Commissioner Fiacco stated that he found staff's responses to the Board's questions very helpful. Commissioner Fiacco added that he felt comfortable overall but still had some hesitancy about the low-pressure system inclusion in the North Village when this type of sewer system is not utilized elsewhere in town currently. Town Manager Kennedy asked Commissioner Fiacco if he had any proposed language in mind to mend the gap in comfort or understanding of low-pressure sewer systems for inclusion in the North Village Small Area Plan. Commissioner Fiacco responded that he understood that low-pressure sewer systems are an option but not an absolute in use, and that he wanted to make that understanding clear in the North Village Small Area Plan that the use of low-pressure sewer systems is acceptable in terms of an option but 7 not guaranteed for use in a particular section as it is shown on the maps included in the North Village Small Area Plan document. Town Manager Kennedy discussed the commitments versus the options for development and how they affect low-pressure sewer systems. Town Engineer Kent Jackson advised that the proposed language in the North Village Small Area Plan states that the details will be worked out and offered that we could add language clarifying that the placement and location will be worked out by staff and applicant, in addition to the general use of the term details. Discussion ensued about the application of low-pressure sewer systems and how the Town may evaluate and approve these in Chatham Park and elsewhere in town. Commissioner Shipp stated his appreciation for staff's attention to the Board's comments and asked the applicant to speak to any adjustments they may have made or are planning to make to the North Village Small Area Plan. Chuck Smith, with Preston Development and on behalf of the Chatham Park Investors, stated nothing in the North Village Small Area Plan was asking for the Town to approve a low-pressure system with the adoption of the Small Area Plan, the applicant is simply requesting the option for the Town to decide at a future time. Mr. Smith stated his agreement with Commissioner Fiocco's understanding of low-pressure sewer systems as an option and not an absolute. Discussion continued about the application of low-pressure sewer systems. Chuck Smith discussed the adjustments made thus far by Chatham Park Investors to the North Village Small Area Plan and mentioned that one lingering question for the Board to offer their preferences is the inclusion of bike lanes along certain roadways. Mr. Smith stated that depending on the answer from the Board, Chatham Park Investors may need to amend the Public Facilities Additional Element. Discussion ensued about the application of bike lanes in the North Village Small Area Plan, in particular along NCDOT roadways. Chuck Smith stated that the commitment for Chatham Park Investors is what is in the Public Facilities Additional Element and the current Complete Streets standard. Commissioner Bonitz asked Chuck Smith about whether he had contacted Mr. Gene Brooks about historic sites within the North Village Small Area Plan. Chuck Smith stated that he received Mr. Brooks' s phone number from Town Manager Kennedy and that Chatham Park Investors had provided Mr. Brooks' s contact information to their consultant for historical matters, but that he did not the status of any contact with Mr. Brooks. Commissioner Bonitz asked about the proximity of dwelling units to activity centers in the North Village Small Area Plan and how that is to be measured. 8 Chuck Smith responded that concentric circles are used to measure distances from activity centers, as defined in the Master Plan, and further stated that the proposed North Village Small Area Plan includes nearly 5,000 dwelling units within three-quarters of one-mile from the activity center, or nearly double the requirement. Commissioner Bonitz thanked Mr. Smith for the explanation and asked for an actual measurement to be included in the text. Commissioner Bonitz expressed his concerns about equity and the lack of affordable housing in the proposal. Chuck Smith responded how the North Village Small Area Plan sought to address affordability with cost explanations for new development. Discussion ensued about how the North Village Small Area Plan addressed equity concerns. Commissioner Bonitz expressed concern over development on steep slopes in the North Village and asked that the North Village Small Area Plan limit development to 15% slopes per the Southwest Shore Assessment rather than the 20% proposed. Discussion ensued about the steep slope requirements and the buffering requirements along ephemeral streams. Commissioner Bonitz asked staff to make the North Village Small Area Plan redline version more accessible to the public by reducing the file size or separating the chapters of the document for ease of download. Town Manager Kennedy committed to creating an easier to download document. No further discussion was had nor was any vote taken by the Board. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Rezoning - REZ-2021-06 - 1911 NC Hwy 902 (PARID 7037) - R-A2 to Ml-CZ, Evergreen Forest, Inc. (3DFS) Commissioner Fiocco made a motion to open the Public Hearing for REZ-2021-06, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin. Vote: Aye-5 Nay-0 Mayor Nass: NIA Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin: Aye Commissioner Bonitz: Aye Commissioner Farrell: Aye Commissioner Fiocco: Aye Commissioner Shipp: Aye 9 Motion Passed. Senior Planner Victoria Bailiff presented the staff report for rezoning application REZ-2021-06 and stated that the petitioner, Evergreen Forest, Inc., is requesting a Conditional Rezoning from R-A2 (Residential Agricultural - 2 acres) to MI -CZ (Light Industrial Conditional Zoning) to allow light manufacturing. Ms. Bailiff added that the property to be rezoned is comprised of one parcel (PID 7037), located within the Pittsboro ETJ, at 1911 NC Highway 902, approximately 1.1 miles west of the NC Highway 902 and NC Highway 87 intersection. The parcel is owned by Evergreen Forest, Inc. and is approximately 2.82 acres in size. Ms. Bailiff mentioned that the applicant has offered six (6) conditions for approval: 1. Limit uses to: Manufacturing, Light. Defined by the UDO as: The manufacture and other industrial processing of goods and materials entirely within an enclosed building, using processes that ordinarily do not create noise, smoke, fumes, odors, glare, or health or safety hazards outside of the lot on which the facility is located. Light manufacturing may include the outdoor storage of goods and materials, but is distinguished form medium manufacturing in that areas used for outdoor storage area do not exceed 25 percent of the combined floor area of all buildings on the lot. Examples include, but are not limited to: production or repair of small machines or electronic parts and equipment; computer design and development; apparel production; sign making; manufacture of electric, electronic, or optical instruments or devices; manufacture of artificial limbs, dentures, hearing aids, and surgical instruments; manufacture of cosmetics; and manufacturing of components, jewelry, clothing, trimming decorations, and any similar item. This does not include uses constituting a light industrial assembly use. 2. Existing vegetation and trees shown on attached plan are to remain. 3. Structures are not limited to those existing structures shown on plan. 4. No outdoor storage permitted. 5. Additional parking or paving will not be required for any additional indoor storage use that does not increase the number of vehicles used in operation or the number of employees. 6. No Bicycle or pedestrian improvements required. No public comment was provided. Commissioner Shipp stated that he visited 3DFS a few months ago and stated that he appreciated how the applicant crafted this application. Commissioner Fiocco asked about the clearing of trees in the conditions and sought clarification if there was an existing tree line and proposed tree line and as a condition of zoning, the applicant would be able to clear to the limits of that proposed tree line. Senior Planner Victoria Bailiff stated that Commissioner Fiocco's understanding was correct. Alex West, of Evergreen Forest, Inc. which is the holding company for 3DFS, offered the purpose behind their application. Commissioner Fiocco asked Mr. West how long the 3DFS was in operation in Pittsboro. Alex West responded that 3DFS moved to the current location in 2014. Commissioner Bonitz stated that this item prompted his thoughts about the Town's development specifications, and in particular, how outdoor parking and loading surfaces are treated. Commissioner Bonitz advocated for the continued use of gravel in the redevelopment of sites around town. Senior Planner Victoria Bailiff explained the non-conforming lot standards of the UDO and how those parking and loading surface requirements applied to this request. Town Manager Chris Kennedy explained that gravel is typically uncommon in urban development and redevelopment. Commissioner Shipp made a motion close the Public Hearing for REZ-2021-06 and send it to Planning Board for review, seconded by Commissioner Bonitz. Vote: Aye-5 Nay-0 Mayor Nass: N/A Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin: Aye Commissioner Bonitz: Aye Commissioner Farrell: Aye Commissioner Fiocco: Aye Commissioner Shipp: Aye Motion Passed. 2. Text Amendment-ZTA-2021-04- UDO Amendments: Parking Lot List Series #1 Commissioner Shipp made a motion to re-open the Public Hearing for ZTA-2021-04, seconded by Commissioner Fiocco. Vote: Aye-5 Nay-0 Mayor Nass: NIA Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin: Aye Commissioner Bonitz: Aye Commissioner Farrell: Aye Commissioner Fiocco: Aye Commissioner Shipp: Aye Motion Passed. Planning Director Theresa Thompson presented the staff report for rezoning application ZTA- 2021-04. Ms. Thompson stated that this quarterly update included adjustments to Article 3, Table 3.2.4 Principal Use Table, the addition of a Section 3.2.5 for townhome development specific use standards, the renaming of Article 4 to Environmental Protections, the renaming of Article 5 to Open Space & Screening, amendment to Table 5.4.3.A Minimum Number of Off-Street Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Spaces, the renaming of Article 6 to Development Standards, the renaming of Article 7 to Development Incentives, relocation of Article 6 to Article 8, relocation of Article 7 11 to Article 9, relocation of Article 8 to Article 10, relocation of Article 9 to Article 11, relocation of Article 10 to Article 12, amendment to Article 12 to alter the definition of single-family attached dwelling, the addition of an Article 13 Record of Amendments, and a general amendment to the entirety of the UDO replacing every reference to "single-family attached dwelling "townhouse". Discussion ensued about the proposed text amendments to the UDO between the Board and staff with questions from the Board and responses and explanations from staff. After an extensive discussion about on-street and off-street parking requirements, the Board was supportive of a development regulation for two (2) off-street parking space per dwelling unit with the addition of one-quarter (1/4) of an off-street parking space per dwelling unit for townhouse projects. No public comment was provided. Commissioner Fiocco made a motion close the Public Hearing for REZ-2021-04 and send it to Planning Board for review, seconded by Commissioner Shipp. Vote: Aye-5 Nay-0 Mayor Nass: NIA Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin: Aye Commissioner Bonitz: Aye Commissioner Farrell: Aye Commissioner Fiocco: Aye Commissioner Shipp: Aye Motion Passed. 3. Text Amendment- ZTA-2021-05 -Town of Pittsboro Affordable Housing Incentives Commissioner Shipp made a motion to open the Public Hearing for REZ-2021-05, seconded by Commissioner Bonitz. Vote: Aye-5 Nay-0 Mayor Nass: NIA Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin: Aye Commissioner Bonitz: Aye Commissioner Farrell: Aye Commissioner Fiocco: Aye Commissioner Shipp: Aye Motion Passed. Town Manager Chris Kennedy presented the staff report for rezoning application ZTA-2021-05 and provided a timeline for how this proposed text amendment has proceeded to this point. Town Manager Kennedy thanked the Pittsboro Affordable Housing Task Force, the Board of 12 Commissioners, and the other policy consultants that assisted in the development of this policy. Town Manager Kennedy announced that the property tax rebates portion of the proposed incentives policy had been removed from the text and replaced with a "reserved" placeholder as the Town investigates the legal authority via the North Carolina General Statutes to rebate property tax for the purpose of affordable housing. Town Manager Kennedy outlined his adjustments to the policy by altering the previous version to reduce presumed barriers to entry to engage in this incentive policy. Commissioner Fiocco asked about the density credit payment options and the incentives included with that level of engagement and whether those projects would be eligible for variations to the Town's development standards. Town Manager Kennedy responded that the policy only allows constructed affordable units to be eligible for variations to the Town's development standards or the application fee rebates. Commissioner Fiocco stated that he agreed with that logic but offered those dimensional variations may be beneficial or necessary for those who pay the density credit payment for increased density. Commissioner Fiocco asked about staff level and Board level approved variations for clarification on the intent and the mechanics of the differentiation. Town Manager Kennedy responded that the chart has base level variations that staff can approve but the policy allows the Board to go beyond those set standards in unique circumstances. Staff wished for developers to know what allowances or incentives are allowed without having to go to the Board, but to also know that the variations could be more favorable in unique applications for affordable housing. Commissioner Fiocco offered revised percentages to Table 7.2.1 as follows: Minimum Lot Area Reduction from 50% to 65%; Minimum Lot Width Reduction from 25% to 40%; Minimum Building Setback Reduction from I 0% to 25%. Town Manager Kennedy offered that the only buffers eligible for reduction are intended to be the buffers that separate uses, and not riparian buffers or buffers around environmental features. Discussion ensued about the policy in general and Commissioner Shipp asked staff to consider income averaging as we consider updates to the incentive policy in the future, if allowed by law. Public Comment: Jennifer Platt, of 706 Revmont Drive, Pittsboro, NC, provided comment on the proposed Town affordable housing incentive policy. Ms. Platt thanked Town Manager Kennedy for his clarification on the buffer reductions. Ms. Platt suggested that the project affordability should be a minimum of 30 years in duration to be consistent with the Pittsboro Affordable Housing Task Force's recommendation, that any land donated as part of this policy should be developable land, expressed her comments about the density credit payment incentive proposed, and asked how the Town's incentive policy correlated to the Chatham Park Affordable Housing Additional Element. 13 "Comments on Pittsboro Affordable Housing Ordinance 9/27121 I do welcome the Town moving towards an Affordable Housing Ordinance, and am aware why the approach has to be incentives, rather than requirements. I understand that the developers of affordable housing projects that were consulted cited the length of time for approval as a major barrier. However, approval procedures in other jurisdictions could be far lengthier than in Pittsboro. However I believe that there are some potential issues with the details of this draft ordinance, and also some questions the Board needs to resolve before it is adopted. Passing this Ordinance in a rush without resolving important issues is not going to jump start a rush of new proposals for 100% affordable units because the Town doesn't have the spare sewer capacity. However I am concerned that some other developers could start using some features right away. So please get it right first rather than later. Long-term affordability: I don't find anything in this draft to ensure long-term affordability of the units developed under the ordinance, rather than whatever might be built on donated land by others such as a Housing Trust. The Town's Task Force originally recommended (p.11 of that presentation) that "All projects using the incentive package must have a plan for long term affordability for a minimum of 30 years," and "projects must enter into a performance agreement with the town" and "must provide an annual report that demonstrates compliance with the performance agreement." Variations in Development Standards: Many of the incentives provide something that applies only to the affordable units or is quantified by the number of units, such as the density bonus and fee rebates but the variation in standards does not and could apply also to the 80-90% of a development that is not affordable units. What is the goal or the benefit? Why can't those variations only apply to the affordable units? Is this supposed to encourage developers to include affordable units in return for greater profitability on the other units? If the goal is to have affordable units mixed in and not isolated, is it not sufficient to allow variations for those units only, plus fee rebates, expedited review, and a density bonus? I don't believe that these specific provisions for variations applied to the rest of a development were an approach identified by the Task Force or in the subsequent "policy" and I feel this should be fully considered before the ordinance is approved. Reduced Riparian Buffers?! The ordinance includes an incentive of reductions in "required buffers" without specifying whether these are landscaping buffers or riparian buffers and could apply to an entire development with only 10-20% affordable units. The only landscaping buffers of any depth are if 50 ft buffers are required along a major highway. From the table on p.11, "buffer width" reductions vary from I 0% to 50%. A 50% reduction in stream buffers would not be lower than state standards, but either Pittsboro's larger stream buffer requirements are more protective than state standards, or they aren't, and if reductions as high as 25% or 50% are allowed then doesn't that undermine the Town's stream buffer requirements to the point where they are unenforceable? 14 As to how valuable an incentive this would be, even if limited to affordable units: smaller tracts may not have this issue and where it is it seems likely to be more of an issue for detached single family (SF) homes, than for apartment development, which some of the below 60% AMI housing could be, and eligible for this proposed 50% reduction in "buffer width." Virtually all the other incentives would be far more valuable and useful, and apply to all development tracts. The "buffer width" provisions should be deleted, unless the ordinance is to be amended to change all references to say "non-riparian buffers" -- "landscape buffers" could be too ambiguous. Density Credit Payment: There appears to be a secondary goal in the ordinance besides reducing costs and requirements for affordable housing, and that is to raise money for it. While the density credit appears to be designed like fee-in-lieu, and one for one, the "expedited review" benefit is not. A developer of a 1,000 lots could apply, make a payment equal to one unit, get an extra unit, but also get expedited review of the whole development. The whole point of expedited review was supposed to be a benefit for developments of all or primarily (and actual) affordable units. It is not specified where in the pecking order the "expedited review" of these developments would occur. More importantly, whatever one thinks of a developer paying to get a density credit, allowing more deep-pocketed developers pay to jump the review queue is worse than unseemly and is very counter to the public interest, and should be deleted! Let the "density credit" be just that and nothing else for developments that pay rather than include actual housing units. Land donation: A developer can donate land and get the same benefits as for a "Density Credit Payment," based on the tax value of the land. But unfortunately, this proposed ordinance has no standards whatsoever for what land can be donated, and how much of that land's value can be used for such a credit. The ordinance needs to include all the following: 1) Minimum contiguous acreage: I would defer to those in the Affordable Housing field as to what to set as a minimum, but it seems better to set it higher than minimally feasible and allow for a variance when the land and its location are suitable. 2) Land eligible for such a donation should be developable land with a high percentage of the acreage (80%?) net of flood plain, wetland, water bodies, slopes greater than (15%? 20%), utility and other easements (including but not limited to pipelines, electric transmission lines), future roads or highway corridors including road widening ..... The standards should be more stringent than those that the Board tried to establish for C.Park park land donations (65%) for two reasons, one is that land donation is supposed to be a substitute for actual developed units, and secondly, the developer and future residents of that donated land area would have to maintain and pay taxes on the undevelopable areas as well. 3) The land has to be developable in terms of current or future planned road access and utilities being available to the site itself. 4) The density credit should be based on the tax value of that portion of the land donated or offered for donation that is net of the features above, and developable. 15 5) The land should also be zoned to an equivalent density to the area to which the density credit is to be applied, or the applying developer will either apply for rezoning or pay for the rezoning application costs of the subsequent affordable housing developer. 6) The density credit would only be awarded when the donated land meeting these requirements above is available for development with roads and utilities constructed to the site. The point of all this is to avoid developers donating only the worst bits of useless land or least profitable portions of a larger tract; to acquire land that can actually be used for affordable housing, affordably; and to ensure that there could be affordable housing developed closer to the time that the developer doesn't build affordable units but gets a density credit. It also could avoid situations where land is donated and accepted but its usefulness depends on roads and utilities for an adjacent area that are either not completed for years, or are stalled, or are never completed. Open Space (including park and rec area): I commented to no avail during the UDO process that the consultant had muddled up Open Space and Park requirements. This ordinance currently allows an unspecified variance from those requirements for developments that merely include some percentage of affordable units (p.10). This is the one "variation in standards" that appears to require Board approval, and possibly the only incentive that would? This could apply to a larger development containing 80-90% more expensive housing. The language should be amended so that for instance: (a) where a development is not for 100% affordable units, open space/park requirements may be waived for the affordable units only as long as there is adequate and accessible open space and recreation area within the development; (b) for developments consisting totally of affordable units, open space and park requirements can be reduced by 50%, 25%, or 15% as long as on site open space and rec. area is deemed adequate, by the Board, or something. Right now there are enough guidelines within which such decisions could be made. Who decides what, and conflict with UDO: Is it clear to the Board and Planning Staff what the various procedures would be and when the Board is involved and when not? This draft states in a section about "variations in standards" at 7.2.4.A.5.b that "The variation types and percentages listed in Table 7.2 .1 are administered and approved by the Town Manager, or designee, without further approval of the Town Board of Commissioners for a qualifying project." Why is this the Manager and not the Planning Director? Secondly, not everything in that Table is "variations from standards." Meanwhile, staff-only approval of such variations is at odds with the current provisions of the UDO. Under the UDO currently, the Planning Director (at Section 8 .3 .5) can grant variances from some standards as "administrative adjustments" but only for no more than 10% deduction of min lot width, lot coverage and set backs, 10% more height, and 10% fewer off-street parking, loading or stacking spaces, and a max of 10% reduction in perimeter buffer width. So the greater reductions available for projects consisting of (or including) housing for the 80% of AMI or less households would have to be approved by the Board, not the Planning Director and/or the Manager! 16 Meanwhile, reductions in riparian buffer width even of only 10% or less cannot be "administrative adjustments." Section 8 .3 .5 .D of the UDO covers those particular variances, only for "Zone 2 ," the outer half, and would require not merely a public hearing but an evidentiary hearing with paid experts. This is the absolutely last thing to burden a genuine 100% affordable housing project with. Particularly since it may not be that valuable an incentive to the most deserving projects anyway. It doesn't appear that reductions of more than 10% in riparian buffer width/depth are allowed at all. Unfortunately, if the "reduced buffers" incentive is not deleted or revised to say "non-riparian buffers" a deeper pocketed developer of a large development including only some affordable units and with the luxury of more time could find this a profitable route to pursue to squeeze more homes in on a large tract most of them not affordable by any definition. This draft only involves the Board regarding open space etc. but is silent about other aspects. Density Credit Payment Adiustment: If this is allowed, it's certainly sensible not to put an amount in the ordinance, but rather to set it annually. However, I have to wonder if it wouldn't be sensible to peg it to something to make that annual fee setting less complicated. The problem is that it would have to replace the cost of constructing a unit, and therefore what type of unit? Should the ordinance specify that it should be not less than something? The AMI in the larger area could rise (or fall) and so could construction cost, and they aren't directly related. This seems far from a straightforward issue. What's more the ordinance can't be passed with no fee established until next year! Other issues: A question asked with the 6/28 draft and this one was whether there should be a minimum number of units to qualify for the incentives (as well as the percentage minimum by type.) The Task Force had suggested five. Would it be worthwhile to also add a minimum of two if they are duplex or attached townhouses for small infill projects? Or is there no point to a minimum? Another question was about (further?) differences in incentives "for constructing certain AMI targeted housing." The variation in height incentive (table p.11), is the same for all AMI categories (25%). For SF detached or townhouse affordable units it seems unlikely those units would need to be or could be taller, whether in a mixed development or not. On the other hand any apartment development targeting the < 60% AMI category could benefit from a far greater increase in allowed height. The ordinance could get more specific, with more height increase for multi-family units for <60% AMI than for any AMI category of other housing types. If the UDO allows a minimum lot width of 20 ft, for <60% AMI the 50% lot width reduction would mean a 10 ft lot width so that is not a bigger incentive than the <80% AMI reduction of 25% (15 ft), and if apartments, meaningless. The preamble omits the goal of providing affordable housing to seniors and people with physical handicaps. Should there be some added incentives for "accessible" units? One aspect to the lack of affordable housing is the lack of housing for low to moderate income single adults in the form of single BR or even efficiency apartments. Is there any way to encourage these? Also, is there some reason why <30% AMI and <60% AMI are grouped as one category? 17 Liz Cullington 390 Rocky Hills Road Pittsboro NC 27312" End of Public Comment. Commissioner Fiocco made a motion to close the Public Hearing for ZTA-2021-05 and to send the request to the Planning Board for review, seconded by Commissioner Shipp. Vote: Aye-5 Nay-0 Mayor Nass: NIA Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin: Aye Commissioner Bonitz: Aye Commissioner Farrell: Aye Commissioner Fiocco: Aye Commissioner Shipp: Aye Motion Passed. CLOSED SESSION Commissioner Bonitz made a motion to go into Closed Session pursuant to N .C.G.S. § 143-318.11. (a)(3), seconded by Commissioner Fiocco. Vote: Aye-5 Nay-0 Mayor Nass: NIA Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin: Aye Commissioner Bonitz: Aye Commissioner Farrell: Aye Commissioner Fiocco: Aye Commissioner Shipp: Aye Motion Passed. Commissioner Bonitz made a motion to come out of Closed Session, seconded by Commissioner Shipp. Vote: Aye-5 Nay-0 Mayor Nass: NIA Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin: Aye Commissioner Bonitz: Aye Commissioner Farrell: Aye Commissioner Fiocco: Aye Commissioner Shipp: Aye Motion Passed. 18  Final Board of Commissioner Comments & Adjournment Commissioner Bonitz made a motion to Adjourn at 12:26am, seconded by Commissioner Fiocco. Vote: Aye-5 Nay-0 Mayor Nass: N/A Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin: Aye Commissioner Bonitz: Aye Commissioner Farrell: Aye Cornmissioner Fiocco: Aye missioner Shipp: Aye -1{> ~·...,__ <J. ,"-:~oti .,. ~'~-)r: ---~ :~~U/. ,:-:;_:=y" t ~~,d.<P. M.43,., iJ.DCll. Cassandra M. Bullock, Town Clerk 19