Pittsboro, NC – In a wide-ranging late-evening town board meeting session on October 13, the Pittsboro Board of Commissioners took a deep dive into the Chatham Park South Village Small Area Plan (SAP), pressing town staff, the developer, and utility partners on everything from the 60-day review clock and land-use entitlements to traffic modeling, transit readiness, utilities capacity, stormwater, parks, and public art. The discussion, excerpted here from the October 13th meeting, laid out both the flexibility and uncertainties of a conceptual plan that is intended to guide how roughly 5,000 acres will be built out over the next two decades. [NOTE: This summary was generated using an AI script]
While no final votes were taken, board members extracted key clarifications: the Board must begin its consideration of the plan by mid-November due to a Planning Board clock, but has no deadline to finish; section design plans for each sub-area will still come back to the Town Board for approval; the SAP’s development standards are binding on the applicant yet not on the Town; and several transportation corridors previously contemplated on the Hanks Chapel side would be removed if the SAP is approved as proposed.
Lead: What the Board Asked, and What They Heard
Town planning staff, led by Planning Director Teresa Thompson, opened with an overview of the SAP’s purpose: it is a conceptual, guiding document meant to give staff and boards a consistent framework as future, more detailed section design plans (SDPs) arrive. The plan is not self-executing; it is a tool that sets expectations and standards but still leaves the Town with discretion—particularly on public facilities, parks, and the specifics that surface during SDP and preliminary plat review.
Board members asked when the 60-day clock starts and whether the Board is “on the clock” now. Thompson and the town attorney clarified: the 60-day window applies to the Planning Board from the date the SAP was submitted (staff cited September 13), after which the Town Board must begin considering the plan—not necessarily vote on it—by roughly November 13. The Town Board is not bound by a time limit to reach a decision.
Commissioners also probed density math, non-residential allocations, research and development (R&D) areas, transportation corridors, protected bike lanes vs. multi-use paths, utilities capacity, stormwater obligations, park site usability, public art funding, cultural resource reviews, phasing through 2045, and the financial impact analysis (FIA)—including whether it accounts for police, fire, and fee-credit liabilities.
The 60-Day Question: Start vs. Finish
What the ordinance requires: Staff explained that the Planning Board’s 60-day review window was triggered upon submission of the SAP (staff referenced Sept. 13). The Town Board must begin its formal consideration after that window—it does not require a final decision by a set date.
Why it matters: With new board terms approaching, commissioners noted that November would likely be the last meeting of the current board as a full body. A proposed Oct. 27 special session did not materialize due to scheduling conflicts. Staff said an update in November is planned; the Board may request more time or proceed to action if it is ready.
“Conceptual” in Practice: Binding for the Applicant, Not the Town
A recurring theme was what “conceptual” actually means. Thompson emphasized that the SAP’s standards bind the applicant—Chatham Park—at a minimum. The Town, however, retains authority to require adjustments during SDP review as evolving conditions and Town specifications change.
Example: Chatham Park agreed to increase driveway lengths from 18 to 20 feet in South Village (longer than North Village). Future standards—say, if the Town modifies cross-section specs or bike/ped requirements—could be applied at SDP review.
Amending the SAP later: If the applicant later seeks to change the SAP, that is legislative and would reopen the full process—community meetings, Planning Board, and Town Board action—mirroring how North Village amendments were handled in 2023.
Land Use and Entitlements: Maximums, Not Mandates
Entitlements vs. obligations. Commissioners pressed on how much non-residential square footage is apportioned between North and South Villages. Staff affirmed: Chatham Park’s 2015 entitlements are maximums, not minimums. The oft-cited 22 million square feet of non-residential is an upper limit; the developer is not obligated to build that much. Similarly, the overall residential entitlements allow up to 22,000 dwelling units, with an affordable housing policy pathway up to 35,000.
R&D areas and housing. In 2015, residential use was permitted in every section, including R&D. To address concerns about losing job-producing land, staff negotiated a self-limit with the applicant: no more than 50% residential in R&D sections. Thompson stressed that this 50% cap is voluntary—not required by the 2015 master plan—but Chatham Park agreed to it during review.
Density math: At the 30,000-foot level, 5,000 acres and 15,000 units pencils out to roughly 3 units/acre gross. Subtracting about 2,000 acres of open space/parks yields a rough net of 3,000 acres, or ~5 units/acre—but actual outcomes will depend on market conditions and product mix, said Chuck Smith of Chatham Park, noting smaller lots are increasingly required for affordability.
Transportation: Fewer Corridors East, and Bike Paths Off-Street
Model vs. CTP. The SAP includes a travel demand model vetted by NCDOT and under third-party review by RK&K for the Town. Based on the model, Chatham Park proposes to remove several east-side corridors in the Hanks Chapel area—notably the “new far-east road” and the “Charlie Brooks extension.” If the SAP is approved, staff would recommend updating the Town’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) to align with the modeled network.
Bill Thomas Road questions. Commissioners asked whether the Bill Thomas Road extension must connect through the existing dirt/gravel Bill Thomas segment (outside the SAP) or could be relocated fully on Chatham Park property. Staff said the possibility has not been analyzed and can be explored; any off-site improvements required by development would surface through Traffic Impact Analyses (TIAs) at the SDP or preliminary plat stages.
Cross-sections and bikeways. The SAP presents street cross-sections (“typicals”). Protected bike lanes (physically separated on the carriageway) are not part of the proposal. Ben Schmataki, project engineer, explained that Town standards today favor multi-use paths (MUPs) or in-road bike lanes, and, in coordination with Chatham Park, the plan removes on-street bike lanes in favor of MUPs separated by planting strips—preferred for safety and to ease maintenance. If Town specs change later, future SDPs would be expected to meet the then-current standard.
Transit: from assumption to plan. Red dots on the SAP maps show candidate transit stops pledged by the developer, but the Town lacks a full transit plan today. Commissioners urged staff and RK&K to incorporate the Board’s vision statement (and, ideally, the draft climate action plan) into model assumptions, including realistic post-COVID trip behaviors (remote work, e-commerce) and mode shares (walk/bike/transit vs. private auto). Several board members emphasized that Pittsboro should be planning to build a transit system, rather than letting today’s limited network constrain tomorrow’s analysis. Staff agreed to re-engage Chatham Transit and coordinate on quantitative needs.
Utilities: Tri River Water Says Capacity Will Keep Pace
Jason Burton, the new Engineering Director for Tri River Water (and also City Engineer for Sanford), briefed the Board on water and sewer capacity:
- A new force main project is designed to convey 2 million gallons/day (MGD) of wastewater to Sanford initially, with capability up to 7 MGD as needed.
- Commissioning/operational date cited for the force main: July 2027.
- Stream crossings will use directional boring and/or jack-and-bore; utilities are not expected to be hung on bridges.
- A new water main up Pittsboro-Moncure Road is under design; discussions have contemplated 24- to 36-inch, with Burton expecting it to land at 36 inches.
- On granular activated carbon (GAC) filtration for drinking water treatment, Burton said he would confirm details, but staff noted GAC is in design documents, and Tri River public updates describe it as part of the modernization effort.
Burton said Tri River has no near-term concerns with keeping pace with Pittsboro’s growth and other area subdivisions at current trajectories—with the caveat that multiple large data centers could warrant a different conversation.
Stormwater: Standards, Reporting, and Who Does What
Design standard: Staff and the engineer confirmed that stormwater detention remains based on the 10-year, 24-hour storm—not 25-year—unless and until standards change. Commissioners asked whether more or larger ponds would be considered to address heavier storms; staff said Town standards apply, and changes could be considered through the Town’s policymaking process.
Ongoing responsibility: The SAP specifies that Chatham Park will serve as the sole point of contact for stormwater maintenance and compliance within its developments, with annual reporting to the Town. Commissioners clarified the county reviews erosion control plans (a separate function), while the Town remains the stormwater compliance authority for the development’s post-construction systems.
Parks & Greenways: Usable Acres, Phasing, and Where to Put Fields
How many miles? The SAP shows roughly 11.94 miles of trails on Figure 3.3.5. In discussion, staff and the applicant indicated at least 12.5 miles of multi-use paths are contemplated, in addition to the trails network. Commissioners requested a clear tally distinguishing public greenways from MUPs and asked who will maintain which facility; staff noted that maintenance responsibility depends on whose right-of-way it lies within (Town vs. NCDOT), and on whether the greenway is public.
Are park acres usable? Commissioners asked whether the 450+ acres of parkland in the SAP count wetlands and buffers or represent usable recreation acres. Parks & Recreation staff said a third-party landscape architecture firm is evaluating usability (topography, stream corridors, and constraints) and providing pros and cons by site; those findings will be shared. Staff emphasized a policy goal that a large share of households be within a 10-minute walk of a park; the 5-minute walk target appears in local plan documents but is harder to achieve everywhere.
Which sites fit fields? Staff identified D2 and C2 as prime locations for athletic facilities due to flat topography and central access; a creek bisects parts of C2, limiting field layouts in some areas. C2’s acreage was noted as reduced (after a land sale), and staff acknowledged it’s time to update the map labels to reflect current acreages. Commissioners asked whether acreage can be shifted (e.g., away from G1, which staff critiqued as constrained by shape and a central stream) to bolster acreage at a more central, usable site; staff said yes—the SAP is conceptual and park sites can change at SDP review, subject to Board discretion.
When do parks arrive? The intent, staff said, is to phase parks along with housing. A final plat typically becomes the checkpoint to confirm park contributions (dedication or fee-in-lieu) for a given project or phase, unless a fee-based alternative is agreed.
Public Art and Culture: Plan Required, Dollars Not Specified
The SAP includes a public art chapter that will be fleshed out with each SDP. Staff said there is no mandated budget for art in the SAP; the applicant must present a plan, and the Town can review it at the SDP stage. Commissioners asked that local artists, cultural historians, and the Chatham Arts Council be invited into the process to ensure public art reflects local identity; staff agreed to pursue that conversation with the applicant.
The cultural and historical resources chapter reflects a completed assessment and ongoing section-by-section surveys as SDPs advance. The Town has coordinated with the Chatham Historical Association; a write-up from representative Sai Robbins was included in staff’s technical review correspondence.
Names Matter: A Call for Intentional Naming
The Board revisited an earlier road-naming misstep tied to objectionable historical associations, and a commissioner urged creation of a formal naming process or commission, especially for streets (the Town already has a policy framework for parks). Staff said road names are screened through 911 addressing to avoid duplicates and confusion, but agreed to research options other jurisdictions use to vet names for historical and cultural sensitivity before they appear on plats for Board approval.
Phasing and the Financial Impact Analysis: What the Numbers Show—and Don’t
Phasing to 2045. The SAP includes a phasing snapshot through 2045 that estimates annual increases in dwelling units, non-residential square footage, and population—meant as market-informed projections, not rigid triggers. Staff confirmed market demand drives the sequence; the plan’s phasing tables satisfy the element requirement to outline annualized expectations rather than prescribed thresholds.
FIA scope and confidence. The Financial Impact Analysis drew sustained scrutiny. Commissioners questioned why it models only ~10,000 residential units when entitlements allow 22,000 (and up to 35,000 with the affordable housing policy), arguing that the smaller base undershoots the true long-term cost and revenue picture. Staff acknowledged the conservative assumption but underscored the uncertainty of 20-year forecasts; growth in North Village has already shown how market cycles can depart from projections. Even so, commissioners urged that the FIA at least present scenarios that bound the likely range, including the full entitlement case.
Police and fire omissions. The Board also noted that the Master Plan anticipates needing on the order of 168 police officers at buildout, and that projected fire station counts carry major capital and operating implications (today, a fire station is roughly $5.6–$6 million to build, with 28 personnel per station and apparatus now often $1.5–$2 million per truck). Commissioners asked that the FIA explicitly include these public safety costs, or that staff secure a third-party augmentation to fill in the expenditure side alongside revenue.
Fee credits. Finally, commissioners requested that the FIA itemize the $10+ million in housing and development fee credits as a transparent liability in the Town’s fiscal picture for Chatham Park.
Staff committed to relaying the Board’s requests to the applicant and returning with updated analyses and clarifying language.
Section Design Plans: Where the Public Weighs In
Because the SAP is conceptual, commissioners probed how much public process would accompany SDPs—the stage where roads connect, parks move, and site-level tradeoffs become real. Staff explained:
- SDPs will be reviewed by staff for public health, safety, and welfare and for consistency with Town standards and policies.
- Town Board approval is still required for each SDP.
- While the SAP approval includes a two-week public comment period prior to a decision (a holdover from the legislative process), SDPs are administrative/quasi-judicial in nature. There is public comment at Board meetings, but no formal public hearing is required because the rezoning already occurred (2015 entitlements).
- Commissioners suggested a voluntary, codified two-week comment window for SDPs, and even a Board liaison to early staff-applicant review sessions. Staff said they would discuss both ideas with the applicant.
Staff cautioned that SDP reviews must stay within what the Town can lawfully require under the entitlements. For example, the Town cannot, at SDP stage, strip an allowed use (e.g., require townhomes where single-family is permitted) or rewrite the R&D use table; but it can require infrastructure, safety, connectivity, and specifications that meet Town standards or evolving policies.
Environmental Constraints and the Appendix
The SAP’s appendix includes mapping of streams, buffers, wetlands, steep slopes, Significant Natural Heritage Areas, sub-watersheds, mature hardwood forests, and gameland hunting safety buffers. Commissioners asked how endangered species maps will constrain disturbance; staff said they would seek detail from the applicant and bring a response back—acknowledging the late hour as the session adjourned.
What’s Next: November Update, Open Questions
Near-term steps. Staff will return to the Planning Board next week to bring back answers from its prior meeting; staff then plans a Town Board update in November on the SAP, the transportation model review (RK&K), parks usability findings, and progress on the FIA. Given board turnover after November, both staff and commissioners acknowledged the value of written memos—including a requested pros-and-cons summary of adopting a conceptual SAP at this scale—to create a clear record for future boards.
The open questions to watch:
- Will the CTP be revised to reflect the modeled network—including the removal of east-side corridors—and what does that mean for regional traffic and local cut-through dynamics?
- Can the Bill Thomas Road connection be re-aligned to remain on Chatham Park property, and how would that change traffic assignments and off-site improvements?
- How will transit assumptions be quantified in the model and plan—stop spacing, headways, ridership targets, and capital needs—so that transit is a real option rather than an aspiration?
- What will the parks audit show about usable acres, and how might acreage shift among sites like G1, D2, and C2 to maximize recreation value?
- Will the FIA expand to include police, fire, and fee-credit impacts under multiple buildout scenarios—including the 22,000 and 35,000 unit cases—to bound the Town’s long-term exposure and revenue base?
- How will the Town implement a road-naming review that honors local history while avoiding the repetition of harmful commemoration?
A Framework Built to Flex—If the Follow-Through Is Strong
The South Village Small Area Plan is not the final map of what will be built. It is a framework designed to lock in minimum standards for the developer while preserving the Town’s ability to raise the bar as policies evolve, infrastructure plans sharpen, and public safety needs become clearer. That asymmetric binding—binding on the applicant but not the Town—is a feature, not a bug, staff emphasized, giving future boards latitude to respond to changing conditions without reopening the 2015 entitlement bargain each time.
But a framework is only as good as its follow-through. Commissioners made it plain that Pittsboro needs quantified transit planning, scenario-based fiscal analyses, a shovel-ready capital plan for police and fire, a park siting strategy focused on usable acres and walk access, and transparent processes for SDP public input and naming. With the Planning Board clock running and board turnover on the horizon, the next four to eight weeks will decide whether the SAP becomes a shared playbook with broad civic buy-in—or a placeholder waiting for answers.
For now, the takeaways are straightforward:
- No hard deadline binds the Town Board to decide the SAP; only to start its consideration after the Planning Board’s window closes.
- The SAP will steer but not fix: SDPs remain the stage where roads, parks, utilities, and phasing meet real-world constraints—and must return to the Town Board.
- Transportation is likely to change on the east side; the Town is poised to update the CTP once RK&K’s review concludes.
- Utilities partners say they can meet demand, with the new force main slated to be operational by July 2027 and GAC filtration in the treatment plant modernization program.
- Stormwater accountability sits squarely with the developer (annual reporting to the Town), while erosion control remains a county function.
- Parks planning will refine usable acres and maintenance roles; early signals suggest D2/C2 as strong candidates for athletic facilities, with acreage shifts possible at SDP.
- Public art will be programmed later; the Board wants a local lens on selection.
- The FIA needs full-scale scenarios and public safety costs to guide budgeting for the long haul.
As one commissioner summarized near adjournment, the central question ahead is simple but sweeping: What is the net benefit of adopting a conceptual SAP at this scale—for Pittsboro’s people, budgets, and identity? Staff has promised a written pros-and-cons. The community will want to read it closely.
Editor’s Note: This report is based on the videotaped October discussion of the Pittsboro Board of Commissioners regarding the Chatham Park South Village Small Area Plan. Quotations reflect the meeting’s public dialogue among town staff, commissioners, Chatham Park representatives, and utility partners.