1. Board of Commissioners (BOC)

TOWN OF PITTSBORO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2024 6:00 PM 4/8/2024 - Minutes 1. ORDER OF BUSINESS The Pittsboro Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Monday, April 8, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. in the meeting room at the Chatham County Ag riculture and Conference Center with Mayor Kyle Shipp presiding . The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Mayor Shipp requested a moment of silence with the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Farrell . Elected Town Officials Present: Mayor Kyle Shipp, Mayor Pro Tern Pamela Baldwin , Commissioners John Benitz, Jay Farrell, John Foley, and James Vose. Town Staff Present: Town Manager Jonathan Franklin , Assistant Town Manager/Director of Engineering Kent Jackson , Town Attorney Paul S. Messick, Police Chief Shorty Johnson , Finance Director Heather Meacham, Public Information Officer/Emergency Management Coordinator Colby Sawyer, Planning Director Randy Cahoon-Tingle, Assistant Planning Director Theresa Thompson , Senior Planner Eric Sanchez, and Town Clerk Carrie Bailey. Commissioner Bonitz requested to move Consent Agenda Items # 8 and Item #9 to Action Item #2 and Action Item #3 for discussion. Commissioner Bonitz made a motion to approve the amended agenda, seconded by Commissioner Vose. Aye-5 Nay-0 2. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Farrell made a motion to adopt the consent agenda, seconded by Commissioner Vose. Aye-5 Nay- ( 0 2.1. Minutes: March 11 , 2024 Regular Meeting Of The Board Of Commissioners 2.11. Annexation Petition : AF Bynum LLC , A-2024-01/PB-24-91 2.111. Resolution : Authorizing Advertisements By Electronic Means For Bidd ing 2.IV. Request: Audit Contract FY 23-24 With Sharpe Patel, PLLC 2.V. Request: Set Budget Public Hearing For May 13, 2024 2.VI. Resolution : Planning Board For The Town Of Pittsboro 2.VII. Resolution : Refund Utility Deposits To Customers 2.VIII. Request: Hearne Road Water Main Upgrade 2.IX. Budget Ordinance: Hearne Road Project 2024 3. INFORMATION ITEMS None. 4. CEREMON IAL 4.1. Resolution : Arbor Day 2024 Commissioner Foley made a motion to adopt the Arbor Day 2024 Resolution, seconded by Commissioner Vose. Aye-5 Nay-0 4. 11. Resolution : Town Of Pittsboro 2023 NC Main Street Champions  Commissioner Foley made a motion to adopt the Town of Pittsboro 2023 NC Main Street Champions Resolution, seconded by Commissioner Vose. Aye-5 Nay-0 5. CITIZENS MATTERS 5.1. Manager Updates Town Manager Jonathan Franklin shared the process of Thompson Street project timeline . 5.11 . Department Of Month Update Police Chief Shorty Johnson presented the Board with an update to the Board regarding the Police Department. Assistant Town Manager/Director of Engineering Kent Jackson provided an update to the Board regarding the Fire Department Station study. 5.11 .i. Police Department Presentation 5.11 .i.1. Fire Department Station Study 5.111. Mayor & Commissioner Committee Liaison Reports Mayor and Board members gave updates on the committees and boards on which they serve . 5.IV. Public Comment Public comment was held at 6:57 p.m. 6. MISCELLANEOUS None. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.1. Rezoning Request: PB-23-527 - M1-CZ Shramek Conditional Rezoning Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin made a motion to enter public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Foley. Aye-5 Nay- 0 Planning Director Randy Cahoon-Ting le presented the item to the Board . Nikkolas Shramek supplied the Boa rd with additional information of the request. Publ ic hearing comments were heard from the following : Steve Marcum , 2340 US Bus iness West , Pittsboro opposed the conditional rezon ing request . Davys Le nzi-Wei sbecker, 99 Reeves Road , Pittsboro opposed the conditional rezon ing request. Ken Henderson, 2294 US 64 Business West , Pittsboro opposed the conditional rezoning request. Written comments were submitted to the Board and included at end of minutes. Commissioner Foley made a motion to close public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Bonitz. Aye-5 Nay-0 Commissioner Farrell made a motion to deny the conditional rezoning request which does not match the Land Use Plan, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Baldwin. Aye-2 (Farrell, Baldwin) Nay-3 (Foley, Vose, Bonitz) Commissioner Bonitz made a motion to table this item for staff to work out additional conditions for approval before the May 13th meeting and additional items will include the site must have annexation before construction stage, construction plans must comply with dark sky protection ordinances before the final site plan approval, change opaque screen to a fence in the buffer that's an eighty (80) foot buffer on the side and sixty (60) foot buffer on the front, and add fence for security, add the condition of rooftop solar, there will be no structures located in natural resource area, and up to date technology on security cameras or technology to take advantage of low light conditions, and hours of operation 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Vose. Aye-3 (Foley, Vose, Bonitz) Nay-2 (Farrell, Baldwin)  8. ACTION ITEMS 8.1. Appointment: Pittsboro Downtown Advisory Board Assistant Planning Director Theresa Thompson presented the item to the Board . Commissioner Foley made a motion to appoint Steven nzed" Henry to fulfill the remaining term of the current seat, which expired June 30, 2024, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Baldwin. Aye-5 Nay-0 8.11. Agreement: NCDOT Hwy 87 Sidewalk Agreement Commissioner Bonitz made a motion to approve, seconded by Commissioner Vose. Aye-5 Nay-0 8.111. Budget Amendment: Sidewalks And Greenways Project Commissioner Bonitz made a motion to approve, seconded by Commissioner Vose. Aye-5 Nay-0 9. CLOSED SESSION None. 10. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Bonitz made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Vose. Aye-5 Nay-0 The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 pm. KyleSh~ I From: John Mitarotondo To: carrie Bailey Subject: [EXTERNAL] Shramek Conditional Rezoning Date: Friday, April 5, 2024 12 :08:49 PM Hello Cari I will be unable to attend the board of commissioners meeting regarding the rezoning to allow storage units on property bordering my own Can you please read this at that meeting so it enters the public record? I would appreciate that Thanks Good evening members of the Board I have read and understand the legislative request by Mr Shramek for rezoning allowing storage units on the parcels he owns. My wife and I own and reside at 2539 us 64 Business West. We also own the pasture land that surrounds us known as 2537 us 64 Business West. Our property borders the lots that are up for rezoning. The eastern border our property shares 1,447 ft of boundry with the proposed rezoned parcels. Please consider the following points while making your decision 1. This conditional rezoning will make possible a business that is accessible 24hr a day 365 days per year with no onsite -~mployees or security force . If this use is allowed we will be extremley worried about secur,jty and privacy. The impact of a rezoning to allow this business.,will affect ·the. quiet enjoyment of our home and property and will put our neighbors in the same pli'ght. • • • 2. In the Terms and Conditions Exhibit B, I see not one serious mention of security. In fact in the 23 stipulations the of Exhibit B the word security only appears twice, in the same sentence, and only as it-pery:ains to lighting. A quick search of storage site crime emphasises the fact that security should be the main issue that the board considers. A quick glance tells me that security concerns are one of the reasons why the storage units I drive past are out in the open with no trees for screening. I have to believe that storage business owners are aware that screening could increase the risk of theft or illegal activities. Please think about the last couple of storage units you have seen and whether or not they look like the one proposed by Mr Shramek. In trying to protect the aesthetics of the town Mr Shramek and the board will be creating a risk to all of the immediate neighbors and the community at large. You cannot have a screened , unmanned, 24hr accessible business without inviting trouble . We citizens depend upon the board to protect our homes safety and properties value as well as provide for the needs of the community. I am dissapointed that security has not been considered fully by the board 3. The shared history and close proximity of our home and surronding land make this rezoning particularly onerous for us. May I remind you that we share over a quarter mile of boundry with these properties. a. Although US 64 business west is a heavily trafficked road during daytime and evening, after midnight it is dark and very quiet. These could be perfect conditions for people with bad intentions to access our land and home.  b. We have an established trail around our property that we use for our personal enjoyment i but it could speed the way to our home by people with bad intentions I 4. The solutions detailed in Exhibit B terms and conditions do not begin to answer my concerns for security and privacy. There is not one serious mention of security in Exhibit B although I see a lot of specifications for asthectic details . Where are the ideas to keep us safe? a. I believe storage unit businesses provide their customers with 24 hr access the facility. I believe that this rezoning would allow the same. Limiting the overnight hours to Mr Shramek's business may help aleviate some of our concerns. If the campus was locked down after midnight and until 7 am it would certainly help with our peace of mind and go a long way with preventing trouble for us and the community. b. Item 7 calls for lighting if provided must comply with section 6.6 of the UDO. This allows for lighting at a height of 3 7 ft above finish grade. Even with "full cut off light fixtures" this will undoubtedly create "light tresspass" on ours and our neighbors property. Combine this with the need for 24 hr lighting and its a very real impact on everyones lives. Can the board specify a reduced height for these security lights? Wouldn't the typical street lamp height of 16 ft be tall enough? c. Item 10 calls for a type E landscape buffer (as per section 5.3.3 of the UDO) on the perimeter but does not specify option I or option 2. Option 1 does not include a fence, option 2 includes a fence or wall of at least 6ft. I ask that you specify option I but include a fence or wall and change the spec of mature I evergreen tree height to 16 ft. Due to the fact that my house sits on an elevation IO to 20 ft higher than the proposed storage site the 16ft height is necessary to achieve the intended opaque screen as visible from our house However well these solutions may work, approval of this rezone would greatly impact the quiet enjoyment of our property. These measures may help with some of my concerns but they do not eleminate them. The approval of this request would have an immediate and negative impact on our neighborhood peace of mind, and property value The Terms and Conditions page state the opinion that the "proposed use will support future development in the immediate vicinity" and I guess that is to be seen. However, is changing the zoning to Manufacturing District - Light Industrial the correct use for this property? Doesn't a business like this belong on a parcel more suited to industrial use? With the explosive growth of the west side of Pittsboro will it be long before a better fitting proposal for this property comes along? We understand that the board is charged with balancing the needs of the individual against the good of the community but we ask that you see your way clear to rejecting this conditional rezone Thank you John + Denise Mitarotondo I CAUTION: This message originated outside the Town of Pittsboro - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.