Residents urge slower review of Chatham Park South Village plan; planning board tables recommendation

Dozens of residents, conservation groups and planning experts urged the Town of Pittsboro Planning Board on Monday to slow its review of the Chatham Park South Village small area plan, raising concerns about a new two-step approval process, limits on public input for later site-level plans, incomplete financial analysis and flood and stormwater risks.

The concerns came during the meeting’s public-comment period and during the staff presentation on the plan. In response the board moved to table the item to its Oct. 20 meeting and to schedule a work session for more detailed review.

The small area plan submitted by Chatham Park Investors covers roughly 5,000 acres and, unlike the 2015 agreement that anticipated multiple small area plans, proposes an initial “conceptual” single-plan approach with later section design plans that would be reviewed at staff level unless the planning board or town board requires otherwise. Several speakers said that change would curtail board and public oversight.

Liz Cullington, a Pittsboro resident, told the board: “The timeline for review of a small area plan was written for a plan covering one or at most two planning sections. It also seems wrong to ask you to review a totally different type of plan and a new two-step process without the town board revising those requirements.” Cullington urged the board to reject the proposal or to slow the process so the town board can review the changed procedure.

Emily Sutton, Haw Riverkeeper and executive director at Haw River Assembly, said the consolidated plan “fails to address each area of the 5,000-acre plan as individual designs as initially proposed in Chatham Park’s commitment to the Town of Pittsboro” and warned that treating the whole project as one plan would reduce the town’s ability to protect streams, wildlife corridors and steep slopes. "These areas of high risk must be addressed as individual small area plans," she said.

Other public commenters echoed those points and asked the board to seek additional analysis on traffic, stormwater, fiscal impacts and the proposed process for section design plans. Several speakers asked the board to formally request a work session and to seek extensions so commissioners and planning board members have additional meetings before making a recommendation.

Town staff said the submission was received in late 2024 and that staff views the filing as sufficient to start formal review but not final. Theresa Thompson (staff member) told the board the plan should be treated as conceptual at the 5,000-acre scale and that the town and applicant need a clearer, written process for how later section design plans will be reviewed, including what issues will return for legislative approval. Thompson said staff recommends that applicants start coordinating with town staff “3 to 6 months prior to the section design plan being submitted.”

Multiple speakers and board members said the financial impact analysis included with the submittal lacks expense detail that the board considers important to judge net fiscal effects. One planning board member said the traffic and financial modeling had been reviewed by staff but not yet provided in full to the board; others asked that the town’s finance and traffic consultants present findings in a work session.

Planning staff confirmed some technical reviews were still outstanding (transportation, parks and river utility comments) and said those reviews are not expected to produce major changes but could affect conditions applied to sections or construction drawings. Staff also highlighted that the 2015 rezoning grants broad permitted-use flexibility across sections, and any additional numeric minimums or maximums for nonresidential uses would require mutual agreement between the town and Chatham Park.

After discussion, the planning board voted to table the small area plan item to Oct. 20 at 6 p.m. and asked staff to schedule a joint work session with commissioners and to prepare a side-by-side comparison of the small area plan requirements versus the proposed section design plan process. The motion to table was seconded by Alan Wilson and the board approved the tabling vote.

The board and members of the public asked staff to publish outstanding technical reviews and to include the Southern Environmental Law Center and other stakeholders in the planned work session. Several speakers said they want written clarity that section design plans will include meaningful public input and that town commissions retain discretion on public facilities and other community amenities.

The planning board’s tabling vote does not approve the small area plan; it paused recommendation to the board of commissioners and scheduled follow-up work to review outstanding technical reports and the proposed section-design approval procedures before the Planning Board issues a formal recommendation.