PB Agenda Packet - October 1 2025

Browse Search

33 1478 Beth Trahos: This plan is a condition.We have a concept plan associated with our project and that first 1479 condition is that it will be developed in accordance with the concept plan, right? So, your staff is 1480 going to require that,what is developed looks very much like this. There is an opportunity for 1481 some small modifications, particularly with regard to reducing intensity and, and then in terms of 1482 what NCDOT may require with regard to site access,there may be some additional right of way 1483 dedication or something like that that they require. 1484 1485 Beth Bronson: And,to that point about the idea of less density, I think that's really what this entire conversation is 1486 getting at, right, and where I'm coming from as far as this is conditional. Obviously,you would 1487 have to follow this with these minor adjustments. The minor adjustments that I would want to 1488 consider is how this trail because of the property line, because of the way that the neighborhood 1489 itself abuts up to the neighboring parcel, that would definitely need to be clearly defined that it was 1490 more than 20 feet from the property line. But also, I don't think I would be having this 1491 conversation, or I would have all these questions if this was say for even 30 parcels, right,or 30 1492 lots planned. Considering the amount of wetlands that are undevelopable. 1493 1494 Lamar Proctor: That kind of leads into my question. So, the areas that are not developed, and I appreciate 1495 preserving natural space, but are they areas that could not be developed anyway? 1496 1497 Beth Trahos: Some of the areas that are not to be developed are areas that are environmentally sensitive 1498 areas. They could be included in lots, but could you put a house right on the environmentally 1499 sensitive area? Probably not. It would, depending individually, my understanding is the cluster 1500 subdivision process as a land planner in addition to a lawyer is that, it was to protect some of 1501 these environmental features that are better left as common open space rather than platted in lots, 1502 so there certainly is some of that and Rachel,you can maybe add to that. 1503 1504 Rachel Cotter: I also wanted to point out that a lower density doesn't mean less impact and with the higher 1505 density, you can actually have less impact to some of the nature features we're trying to protect 1506 than a lower density. 1507 1508 Beth Trahos: And I, 1 would just say, one of the things we're solving for here,from our perspective and I think 1509 from the perspective of your community and many communities in the triangle is the need for 1510 additional housing. So,you can decide that you would rather not see this move forward but you're 1511 giving up an opportunity for housing that is being developed in a way that is generally sensitive. 1512 You know, that is providing the things that you are after and so,we would suggest to you that 1513 there is some compromises to be made when land is being used and, as you look at the 1514 compromises for this piece of property that's very close to the Town of Hillsborough, it's already 1515 gotten many urban or Suburban uses around it that this use makes sense. This fits in better than 1516 perhaps an agricultural industrial area that your plan might support. That this area has changed 1517 significantly and the consolidated plan with the Town of Hillsborough recommends this kind of 1518 mixed residential. Your staff has said that this is in compliance with what you plan for this area 1519 and of course, change is hard for everybody and particularly when change is happening near 1520 where you live. It is difficult to see, but we would submit to you that what is being proposed is 1521 reasonable and in the public interest and it shows a developer that has gone above and beyond 1522 what an ordinary project might bring forward. 1523 1524 Lamar Proctor: Well, that's the,and I'm not trying to interrupt you but,we are getting pressed for time and do we 1525 have a second agenda item, but my point is we've seen other projects where the applicant 1526 specifically increased density on one portion of the property to leave other areas of the property 1527 that could have been developed undeveloped, and this was kind of pitched like that at the 1528 beginning. I think one of your team said that we're not going to bulldoze,we're not going to grade, 1529 so, I'm just trying to get a transparent answer, like this is a project where you are essentially 1530 putting lots wherever you can put lots. 1531 1532 Beth Trahos: There are some areas that are developable that are not platted in lots.