Justice Facility Parking FAQ
These questions are answered below:
- What is the problem?
- Why did the town approve the courthouse expansion with a conditional approval and without the construction of additional parking?
- Why did the town issue the permit for the courthouse expansion to get under construction without a parking plan?
- What has Orange County proposed to address the parking requirement?
- What was the parking plan that Orange County submitted in 2007?
- Can the Eno River Parking Deck spaces be counted toward the courthouse “need”?
- How many spaces are actually needed?
- How can there be a problem when there are still empty spaces in surface lots and in the deck since Chief District Court Judge Joe Buckner ordered courts to re-open?
- What are some of the options to resolve this problem?
- Why doesn’t the Town Board just negotiate a solution with the county?
- What is the current parking situation near the courthouse?
In 2006, the town approved the courthouse expansion with a condition, specifically requested by Orange County, to meet parking ordinance requirements by operating a shuttle for employees to a 125-space, off-site, park-and-ride lot.
A specific part of the condition required the county to submit "process documents" about how the shuttle would operate for Board of Adjustment approval. The town requested that documentation throughout 2009.
In March 2010, shortly before the building was scheduled to open, county officials said they would not provide a shuttle service because of the cost and difficulty to manage it.
No alternative plans offered by the county substantively increase the number of parking spaces for the expanded courthouse, with the exception of a proposal to turn most of River Park into a gravel parking lot. The park is located along the Eno River behind the Justice Facility and contains the Public Market House where the Eno River Farmers Market is held.
Because the county has not met the site plan approval's original requirements or obtained approval for an alternative plan — in short, because it has not increased the parking capacity — the town cannot issue a Certificate of Occupancy, which would allow the courthouse to be legally occupied.
- Timeline — Click to open for details of how this issue unfolded.
To stay on the construction timeline, Orange County requested the conditional site plan approval, including a condition that the county operate a shuttle to a remote parking facility. The town agreed to the request.
More specifically, in 2006, Orange County proposed the addition to the Justice Facility, which is also called the new courthouse. When the site plan application reached the Board of Adjustment in November 2006, Orange County was approaching a critical point in its schedule for soliciting bids for the project. The county needed an approved site plan upon which an invitation to bid could be based. At that time in November 2006, the county and its representatives acknowledged that the site plan did not satisfy the Zoning Ordinance requirement for off street, on-site parking. Because of their tight schedule, Orange County staff and the project architect requested that the town not delay the addition's construction schedule because of the parking deficiency. Instead, Orange County staff and the project architect suggested a condition to implement a shuttle service for employees and the public during the final meeting on the development plan. Orange County staff indicated the service was certain and funding was definitely available, but the exact operational and policy details were not finalized. To keep the project on schedule, Orange County staff and the project architect asked for approval of the plan subject to a condition. The Board of Adjustment agreed to this scenario at the county’s request to keep the county’s project on schedule.
- Excerpt from the transcript of the Nov. 8, 2006, Board of Adjustment meeting regarding this discussion — Click to open.
- Below is an audio clip from the Nov. 8, 2006, Board of Adjustment meeting with Orange County's firm commitment:
- Below is an audio clip from the Nov. 8, 2006, Board of Adjustment meeting explaining what a process document is:
These audio clips are available for download at the bottom of this page.
Orange County requested a conditional approval to stay on the construction timeline, and the town agreed to the request. The approval motion in 2006 by the Board of Adjustment did not attach a specific requirement for the parking plan to be submitted before the permit was issued, although that deadline was discussed in the meeting.
Town staff reminded Orange County staff about the unsatisfied condition of the site plan approval when county staff asked the town to approve the occupancy of the courthouse addition in early 2009 to allow for renovation of the existing building. The town did not require the parking plan prior to that time because all functions in the existing courthouse building were simply relocating then to the new courthouse expansion while the existing courthouse building was renovated; essentially the same business was being transacted in the new building as had been transacted in the old building, so the town believed there was no new or additional parking demand yet. Town staff continued trying to engage county staff in discussions about parking throughout the renovation period, knowing it needed resolution before the entire building could be approved for occupancy.
What has Orange County proposed to address the parking requirement?
In 2006, the county originally proposed a shuttle service to an off-site, park-and-ride lot. None of the alternative plans offered by the county substantively increase the number of parking spaces for the expanded courthouse, with the exception of a proposal to turn most of River Park into a gravel parking lot.
As part of obtaining site plan approval from the Board of Adjustment in 2006, Orange County proposed a condition for meeting the parking requirements that included constructing a 125-space, park-and-ride lot next to the community college and providing “process documents” about how the county would shuttle employees between the lot and the courthouse. The park-and-ride lot was constructed as part of the Orange County Campus of Durham Tech. Town staff requested process documents throughout 2009. In March 2010, the county informed the Board of Adjustment they would not provide the shuttle service or make any requirements for employees to use the park-and-ride lot. Instead the county offered alternative proposals.
The Board of Adjustment met on four occasions (once in March, twice in April, and again on May 12, 2010) to review and consider various county proposals, which included:
- A plan calling for better management of existing parking and encouraging people to use the TTA 420 bus route. The proposal is laudable but does not add any parking capacity to the facility.
- Suggestions that the town change its calculations for currently used building space and employees in a way that no additional parking capacity would be required.
- Arguing that a parking plan was submitted in 2007, and that because the process documents were not mentioned in a 2007 zoning compliance letter, the county was not legally obligated to meet the condition. The 2007 document was clearly for temporary parking during the construction — see below.
- Meeting a strict interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance by constructing a 255-space parking lot that would cover most of River Park. Much of the proposed parking area is in a floodplain, is archaeologically sensitive and would be built over the courthouse facility's geothermal system. The proposed parking still would have to meet Historic District standards for removal of trees and for maintaining the property's character.
The Board of Adjustment concluded that the county did NOT present a plan that either (a) satisfied the condition of site plan approval (by submitting a process document describing how the remote parking lot would function in a way to help address the courthouse area's parking concern) or (b) satisfied the existing Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance requirements for off-street parking (the 255-space lot was unlikely to meet regulatory requirements for approval to be built) and denied the county’s request that the board approve its modified parking plan.
Nothing in the Board of Adjustment’s decision prevents the county from complying with the site plan approval's original condition by establishing a program — to be described in process documents —of remote parking at the Durham Tech campus for employees and possibly others with shuttle service to the courthouse or from continuing to approach the Board of Adjustment with an alternative plan.
Following the Board of Adjustment’s decision, Orange County has sued the Town of Hillsborough, presenting a legal argument that it can build whatever parking it wishes on its land and that town ordinances and regulations do not apply to county government.
In 2007, the contractor for the courthouse expansion was ready to begin construction and requested a permit. At that time, county staff did submit, upon town request, a letter detailing the arrangements made to accommodate parking during the construction period because existing parking at the courthouse would not be available during construction. This plan included relocating high-volume court operations to Chapel Hill, partnering with First Baptist Church to use 30 of its parking spaces for court and juror parking, creating a 77-vehicle temporary gravel lot on Burnside Drive for staff use, restricting county employees from on-street parking, and referring the public to the Eno River Parking Deck.
The construction-period parking plan was a short-term solution to address the removal of all on-campus parking during construction operations; it did NOT address the long-term parking that would be addressed by the condition approved by the Board of Adjustment in November 2006. Now that construction is complete, all short-term, construction-period parking arrangements have ceased and the town still is waiting for the county to submit details of the permanent parking plan to satisfy the November 2006 condition of site plan approval.
The Eno River Parking Deck was built at its size to meet the parking requirements for the county's West Campus (office building and library) and the Gateway Center. Counting any deck spaces for use by any other facility, including the courthouse, would be double-counting for the purposes of meeting the town's ordinance.
Looking at this in more detail, the Eno River Parking Deck is a privately owned facility constructed to meet the parking demand for the Gateway Center and Orange County West Campus offices, as calculated using the criteria in the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance requires parking for each use and generally requires that parking be on the same parcel as the use, but it does not require that parking be free of charge. There are provisions for remote or off-site parking with formal agreements. The parking requirements are based on building square footage and the number of employees expected in each use. The parking deck is sized specifically to accommodate the ordinance-mandated parking for the West Campus buildings (library and office building) and the Gateway Center. To allow those spaces to also meet the courthouse parking requirement would be double-counting, or overbooking, the parking.
The town is in the process of reviewing its parking standards for all uses as part of creating a unified development ordinance (UDO, a k a the Zoning Ordinance rewrite). A change in the ordinance MAY make spaces in the deck available or surplus under the revised standard. The deck owner may then choose to make those spaces available to some other entity. The town cannot mandate that the deck owner keep those spaces available for the general public if they become surplus. The deck spaces were constructed because they were required under the Zoning Ordinance parking requirements at the time. If parking deck spaces become surplus as a result of parking requirement revisions during the UDO process or otherwise, then it is a business decision for the deck owner regarding how to use or allocate any “excess” parking spaces (any spaces that exceed the number required by the parking standards for the county's West Campus). Under these circumstances, the owner may be willing to enter into an agreement with the county for use of excess parking spaces to satisfy the county's East Campus parking requirements if both parties are willing to do so.
How many spaces are actually needed to satisfy the ordinance?
Under our current ordinance, parking requirements are determined based on both the building size and the number of employees/people expected to use the building.
Using current employee figures and gross building square footages provided by Orange County, the Justice Facility Campus — the new courthouse, courthouse addition, Sheriff's Office and District Attorney's Office (former Sheriff's Office) — would be required to have 363 off-street parking spaces. The site contains 144 spaces, creating a 219-space shortfall. Calculating the number of required spaces can vary depending on whether additional county facilities are added into the math and whether different standards are applied to the different types of spaces within the Justice Facility campus buildings. The 363-parking space figure treats the entirety of the buildings as office space. The requirement would increase if the courtroom spaces were calculated as an “assembly” or auditorium use rather than office under the current Zoning Ordinance parking requirements.
The footprint of the addition did eliminate parking spaces from the campus. In 2006, before construction began, 198 off-street parking spaces were on the parcels occupied by the courthouse and the now-former Sheriff’s Office. Today, at the conclusion of construction, 144 off-street parking spaces are in the same area. That is a net reduction of 54 off-street parking spaces east of Churton Street, south of Margaret Lane, and west of Stillhouse Creek.
Parking requirements are based on the full usage of a building. Due to recent changes on the county’s campus, some areas are not being used to their maximum potential — some offices are vacant; and some spaces are awaiting renovation. Parking must be available when those spaces are occupied, just as parking must be available as downtown businesses change and uses shift. Establishing a requirement based on a less-than-maximized use, even if it is a future use, is shortsighted and would not be in the town’s best interest.
The town's parking requirements are based on maximum use of facilities in the long term. Currently, both the number of employees and the space use of county facilities on the east side of Churton Street have been reduced.
Also, current parking is not perceived to be conveniently located or easy to find for court visitors and others unfamiliar with town — a situation that encourages folks to create illegal parking spaces and to park in dangerous situations or locations. A majority of the illegal parking that is taking place occurs on county property where town police cannot enforce parking requirements. The town is monitoring unsafe parking conditions on street and expects to increase on-street parking enforcement to ensure safety in the coming weeks.
What are some of the options to resolve this problem?
Until an alternate plan is approved, the 2006 condition of approval is still in effect. The town can authorize a permanent unconditional Certificate of Occupancy for the Justice Facility immediately if the county provides a shuttle and process documents detailing how the shuttle would operate to ensure employees will use it rather than parking on site. This is the condition that the county asked for, and the Board of Adjustment adopted, as part of its original site plan approval in 2006.
The county can propose other options to meet the parking requirements for the Justice Facility under the Zoning Ordinance and submit those plans to the Board of Adjustment, the entity within the town structure with authority to review development plans of this type.
The town has indicated throughout this process that there may be other options the county may want to pursue and that those options may require changes to the town’s development regulations. Consideration of any such requested modification would be in light of the best interests of the town as a whole.
Why doesn’t the Town Board just negotiate a solution with the county?
The town does its best to apply its rules and procedures equally to everyone, including Orange County government. In this instance, the Board of Adjustment was responsible for approving the site plan in 2006 and still has that responsibility today. The Town Board maintains its faith in the Board of Adjustment to follow due process and to be fair and impartial in carrying out its responsibilities, including this application. It would be unfair for the Town Board to give special treatment to any applicant.
What is the current parking situation near the courthouse?
The town staff has studied the parking situation downtown, inviting all downtown stakeholders to collaborate on managing both private and public parking to create a positive downtown experience for everyone. As the new traffic courts have begun operations, town staff have studied the courthouse and the East Margaret Lane area in detail, recording parking availability and how many parking violations were occurring at different times over a number of days.
- The following charts show that all available parking is regularly taken and that there are many parking violations.
- Photo inventory — Click to open to see the kinds of parking violations that pose serious safety problems for drivers, pedestrians and emergency vehicles.
Illegal parking in the Justice Facility lot has decreased since May 24, in part due to Orange County painting curbs yellow to indicate no-parking zones, as well installing signs directing visitors to additional parking at the Government Services Annex. The town may see similar improvement with on-street compliance once parking spaces and no-parking zones are repainted, which is planned within the next 60 days.
The town fire marshal has proposed some safety improvements within the county-owned lot to ensure emergency access. The town Police Department has begun issuing parking citations for illegal and unsafe parking on the town streets. The county has installed some temporary signage to help direct traffic and is working on a comprehensive sign proposal.