SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1999, AT 7:00 P.M.

Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Council Members present were: Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Julie McClintock, Lee Pavão, and Edith Wiggins.

Staff members present were: Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Ruffin Hall, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper, Engineering Director George Small and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.

Item 1. Public Hearing on Special Use Permit Modification

for Campus at VilCom Center

1a. Swearing in of persons wishing to present evidence.

1b. Introduction and preliminary recommendation by the Manager.

Ms. Culpepper explained that the proposed Special Use Permit Modification involved three new office buildings to be located on the north side of Weaver Dairy Road at the Kingston Drive intersection. She said that the buildings totaled just under 200,000 square feet of floor area, and that there would be 714 parking spaces. Ms. Culpepper explained that the applicant proposed widening and building a meandering sidewalk and a bikeway along Weaver Dairy Road and a greenway along VilCom’s northern property line.

Ms. Culpepper reported that the staff had recommended approval with a number of specific conditions: modifying regulations to allow the greenway trail; allowing an existing parking lot to remain; requiring any purchaser who is exempt from property taxes to make a payment to the Town; stipulating a payment-in-lieu for a traffic signal at Kingston and Weaver Dairy; and, installing bike racks and showers in the buildings.

1c. Presentation by the Applicant.

Developer Joe Hakan introduced a videotaped presentation (incorporated herein by reference). On tape, Mr. Hakan explained that the proposed development, which is owned by Jim Heavner and Bob Woodruff, would be located on land originally owned by the Village Companies, whose Special Use Permit was first issued in 1979. He explained that the proposed twenty-acre development on Weaver Dairy Road had met all the Special Use Permit requirements: floor/area ratios, open space, livability at twice the requirements, and parking exactly as required by the ordinance (three cars per 1,000).

Mr. Hakan said that the applicant had addressed the Town Council’s ongoing concerns about traffic, buffers, stormwater management, scale, and general planning. He explained that they had attempted to produce an architectural design that would be timeless and symmetrical. The video showed an aerial view of the site with a superimposed digital image of the plan, showing that many of the trees would remain. Mr. Hakan pointed out that the amount of green space would be twice that required in the ordinance.

Michael Latimer, a landscape architect and land planner with Kline Davis Architects, explained that the design team had identified and addressed several key design issues: visual appearance; impact of traffic on surrounding roadway systems; protection and buffering of existing adjacent residential properties; and, detention and slow release of stormwater runoff from parking lots and other impervious surfaces onto the adjacent residential properties. He said that the visual impact of the office buildings would be minimized by setting the structures back more than three times the required distance from the right-of-way.

Mr. Latimer said that they also planned to angle the building closest to the roadway and to limit its height to three stories. He noted the meandering sidewalk would allow glimpses of the development’s landscaping and water features through the trees. Mr. Latimer added that there would be two entrances to VilCom along Weaver Dairy Road, and outlined some of the development’s special features, such as a day care center, restaurant and various outdoor areas.

George Alexiou, a senior transportation engineer and associate with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., explained that he had conducted traffic counts, determined how much traffic the development would generate, calculated background traffic growth unrelated to the proposed development, and analyzed the road system with and without VilCom. He said that Weaver Dairy Road would be widened by 22 feet on the north side for the entire length of the site to ultimately provide a five-lane section that he said was in the Town’s plan. Mr. Alexiou noted that additional turn lanes into the site would also be constructed.

Mr. Alexiou explained that the intersection of Weaver Dairy and Airport Roads would operate at the level of service D with build-out of the project. He stated that this level of efficiency meets the Town’s and NCDOT’s standards. Mr. Alexiou added that the two unsignalized entrances would also operate at an acceptable level of service. He pointed out a signal at the corner of Weaver Dairy Road and Kingston Drive would be warranted in the future, and that the developer would make a payment to the Town for that purpose.

Mr. Alexiou also stated that transit stops on Weaver Dairy Road would be retained. He said sidewalks and a bike lane would be added on the Weaver Dairy side abutting the property. He noted that Town staff had concurred with those conclusions and recommendations.

John Felton, an architect with Kline Davis Architects and senior designer for VilCom, explained that the goal was to create a modern work environment that captures a timeless quality. He said that the VilCom design is based on a campus model—with a quadrangle and traditional forms—but includes modern materials and concepts as well. Mr. Felton pointed out the balconies that face the quadrangle and noted that those and other design considerations would make working at VilCom as pleasant as possible. He explained that the brick and steel buildings would be muted in color and there would be subtle detail changes between buildings to give them individual characteristics.

John McAdams, of John R. McAdams Company, Inc., the site engineer for VilCom, said that he had addressed the following issues: widening of Weaver Dairy Road; stormwater drainage and retention ponds; sedimentation control; and, site utilities. Mr. McAdams explained that there would be a series of stormwater management ponds that would reduce peak runoff rates so that in a twenty-five year storm the maximum runoff rate would not exceed the runoff rate prior to development. He noted that there would be other ornamental water features on the site as well.

Mr. McAdams said that the stormwater ponds would be utilized during the construction process for sedimentation control, and that the latest management practices, raffles and skimmers, would be used for capturing silt. He said that care had been taken with the parking lot layout so that parking would be disperse throughout the site, thereby enabling them to save many of the trees by combining new and existing parking.

The videotape also showed a virtual tour through the development. In summary, Mr. Hakan said that the project meets all four criteria for approval. He added that two appraisers were available to discuss the land values that would be created if the Special Use Permit for VilCom was approved.

After the videotaped presentation, Chapel Hill Real Estate Appraiser Joseph Saponaro addressed the impact of the proposed development on adjacent property values. After describing the “paired sales” model which he had used, Mr. Saponaro said that he had concluded there would be no impact.

1d. Recommendation by the Planning Board.

Chairman John Hawkins reported that the Planning Board had voted unanimously (9-0) to approve Resolution B. He noted that this approval did not mean that the Board disapproved of the recommendations in other resolutions, but only that those were issues they had not taken up themselves.

1e. Recommendations by other boards and commissions.

No one was present to speak. Mayor Waldorf noted that the Council had been given those materials.

1f. Comments by Citizens.

Don Sweezy, who resides near the proposed development and a candidate for Town Council, expressed concerns about stormwater runoff and asked if the clearcutting could be done in stages. Mr. Sweezy also pointed out that the traffic analysis had not presented the raw data and questioned the statement “no data was available for Kingston Drive,” which he said had been studied in conjunction with The Estates. Mr. Sweezy noted that traffic studies referred to the eastern entrance to the property as the main entrance. Pointing out that that would mean having two traffic lights close to each other, he asked if that had been misstated in the traffic information.

1g. Questions by the Mayor and Council Members.

Council Member Brown asked that both the applicant and the staff address the five-lane proposal in the context that the Town had not definitely decided to widen Weaver Dairy Road to five lanes. She noted, on page 62 of the memo, that the traffic analysis was different after revised growth rates were given to Mr. Alexiou, and asked what the level of service estimate had been before. She also inquired, regarding page 26 of the memo, why there had been the need, under “permitted land uses” in Resolution A, for special mention of daycare, restaurant, etc.

Council Member Edith Wiggins asked if the retention ponds that would be used for silt control during construction would be built according to current requirements and standards, or if they would exceed those standards. Mr. McAdams stated that the Erosion Control Office had extremely strict standards and that he intended to meet those standards.

Council Member Wiggins asked for a comment on exceeding those standards because, she said, present construction controls have not been enough to protect this neighborhood from recent weather extremes. Mr. McAdams asked if Council Member Wiggins was referring to sediment ending up downstream or to the quantity of flooding that resulted from construction. She replied that she was concerned about both.

Council Member Julie McClintock asked where the runoff water would go if the ponds do not retain it. Stating that established standards regarding stormwater fences and ponds have not been adequate, she asked what standards the staff could suggest that the applicant might be willing to do, such as those being implemented at University Mall. Council Member McClintock agreed with the plan to phase development so that the area would not be cleared all at once. She asked if the sidewalks would be raised, as illustrated, and what percentage of overall parking spaces would be available for bike racks. Council Member McClintock also asked for more information on the connections to the properties east and west, and inquired about what the staff thinks the consequences of limited buffers next to the trailer parks might be. She also urged the staff to establish that utility lines were free and clear from the trailer park.

Council Member Evans asked if the buildings would be visible from Interstate 40. Ms. Culpepper explained that there is an undeveloped forty-acre parcel of land between the proposed development and I-40. She offered to have the staff provide specific dimensions on that property.

Council Member Evans described the filtration ponds that will be installed at University Mall and asked if VilCom’s ponds would be detention or retention, with water remaining in them. Mr. Hakan replied that they would be retention ponds with low shrubbery. He added that the proposed buildings would be located at high elevations at the top of the water table.

Mayor pro tem Capowski stated that this was the best development proposal he had ever seen, but expressed concern about mud flowing away from VilCom onto someone else’s property as, he said, it had from The Estates. He asked if there was a plan for the land adjacent to VilCom to have road access through it, and added that number six on page twenty-six of Resolution A needed to be formalized.

Council Member Foy also expressed concern about erosion and asked for an answer to Mr. Sweezy’s question about phasing. Mr. Hakan replied that they would construct one building at a time, and that the land would not be clear-cut. Council Member Foy suggested that the staff provide information to the VilCom developers about bio-retention filtering systems, such as the one planned for University Mall.

Council Member Foy asked if there was a plan for buses to go in and out of the site. He also asked the staff to explain briefly what circumstances might permit a disturbance, under the applicant’s Landscape Protection Plan on page twenty of the memo. Ms. Culpepper replied that there was, for example, some drainage easements on the eastern property. She said that the Town had some concern when the staff looked at the drainage area that the developer was not going to be able to achieve what they plan to achieve and may need to install some other devices there. She added that emergencies could come up that might also necessitate a disturbance. Ms. Culpepper pointed out that the Landscape Protection clause was put in the resolution because the staff was concerned about the drainage areas that run through those particular tree-save areas.

Council Member Bateman expressed doubt that the type of “semi-phasing” that Mr. Hakan had described would help. She pointed out that the drainage facilities would not yet be set up for the first building when construction begins on the second one. Mr. Hakan acknowledged that such phasing is not perfect protection, but pointed out that it would not be as bad as clear-cutting and/or not doing it in phases at all. He noted again that the lot is at the top of the water table and so there is no off-site runoff contributing to the problem. Mr. Hakan added that they were prepared to solve problems if problems developed but were proposing to do it in a way that they believed would not cause problems.

Council Member Bateman asked if the sidewalk would connect to other sidewalks. Ms. Culpepper replied that it would connect to Kensington Trace apartments on the west, but not to the mobile home park on the east.

Mayor Waldorf pointed out that paving those sidewalk portions would be a Town ordinance issue and not something that the Council can require the developer to do. Council Member Bateman suggested that the developer might want to do so to enable employees to walk more easily to nearby buildings.

Council Member Wiggins, speaking for Council Member McClintock who had laryngitis, requested that the Manager bring back a stipulation regarding phasing. Mayor Waldorf asked what making a payment-in-lieu for a traffic light meant, and, more specifically, what the Town would have to do with the NCDOT to actually get the traffic light installed if the applicant pays. Ms. Culpepper replied that Weaver Dairy Road is a NCDOT road. She stated that the intersection warrants signalization and explained that the payment can be held in lieu for seven years.

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, THAT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY BE CONSIDERED CONTIGUOUS AT 1500 FEET. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 8, 1999. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Mr. Hakan noted that he was offering the tape as evidence as part of the applicant’s legal presentation.

Item 2. Public Hearing on Development Ordinance Text Amendments

regarding an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance

2a. Introduction by the Manager.

Mr. Horton noted that the Council had copious materials on this subject and that there had been materials available in the Library and the Town Hall for public review. He then introduced Ms. Culpepper to make the staff’s presentation.

Ms. Culpepper pointed out that adequate public facilities ordinances are a tool for managing growth. She explained that they generally state that a new development cannot be approved if some component of infrastructure (i.e. roads, schools, water and sewer systems, parks, stormwater systems, and public safety) is less than adequate. Ms. Culpepper noted that in May the Council had reviewed five options: Ordinance A, which was modeled after the current County ordinance; Ordinance B, a modification of the current County ordinance; Ordinance C, modeled after Cary’s ordinance; Resolution D, which would enable the Council to direct the Manager to pursue the classic approach; and, Resolution E, which would direct the Manager to prepare a rezoning proposal for the Council’s consideration. She noted that there recently had been another group meeting of the schools and the Orange County Land Use Council to discuss a County-wide ordinance for schools. Ms. Culpepper stated that the staff had recommended Resolution E.

2b. Recommendations by the Planning Board.

Chair John Hawkins explained that the Planning Board had not addressed this issue since they first discussed it last spring, when they had voted 4-2 against implementing such an ordinance. He added that the Comprehensive Plan Work Group also had voted against it (10-2), and pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan draft makes specific proposals for a Community Facilities Plan and for establishment of a Growth Management Protocol.

2c. Recommendations by other boards and commissions. None.

2d. Comments by Citizens.

Gloria Faley, founding member of SOS (Stop Overcrowding Schools) and a School Board candidate, spoke in support of the Ordinance A, which includes schools. She stated that two Chapel Hill schools already were over capacity and that several more were operating just at capacity.

Ruby Sinreich, a candidate for Town Council, stated that an ordinance was not the right tool at this time to manage growth. She said that Resolution D sounded like a good idea, but argued that the Town does not have enough control over key facilities, such as schools, roads, sewers, and so forth, and that the impact would be unfair to new developers. Ms. Sinreich suggested continuing to work with the schools’ Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance currently being developed, adding that the County may be an appropriate place to deal with that. She agreed with the staff and the Planning Bard that this is not the time for a public facilities ordinance.

Madeline Jefferson, a member of the Comprehensive Plan Work Group and a candidate for Town Council, said that she had voted in favor of Ordinance B and Resolution D. She argued that the cost of growth is exorbitant and that infrastructure should be in place before development.

Don Sweezy expressed support for the concept but not for the proposals before the Council because of their “legal viability” and potential to increase taxes. He suggested modifying the Enhanced Capital Improvements Plan, which he believed would pace the schedule of expansion with the addition of a voluntary impact assessment formula. Mr. Sweezy noted that this is not what he means when he talks about “growth paying it’s own way,” adding that growth would be funded by taxes.

2e. Questions by the Mayor and Council Members.

Council Member McClintock suggested that the Council and advisory boards meet with Craig Benedict, a new Orange County Planning Department expert who has had extensive experience with such ordinances. She noted that the Town can implement this without going before the General Assembly, and she recommended taking advantage of that. Council Member McClintock noted that the advisory boards had not taken much time to consider this “huge concept.”

Council Member Bateman commented that it had been proposed at a recent school land use meeting that the three governments get together and hear Mr. Benedict speak. She stressed that all three governments have to buy into an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance for schools in order to have it work. Council Member Bateman described the issue as “incredibly complicated,” and noted that Mr. Benedict is reportedly very good at explaining it.

Mayor pro tem Capowski agreed with Council Members McClintock and Bateman, but disagreed with the staff’s recommendation against pursuing the ordinance. He noted that a new school raises County taxes by three cents, pointed out that the Town provides 53% of Chapel Hill/Carrboro school children, and remarked that education in general is Chapel Hill’s biggest community value. Noting that the school system is one of the reasons why people are drawn to Chapel Hill, Mayor pro tem Capowski added that it probably was the most important adequate public facilities need for the Town.

Mayor Waldorf asked for clarification of whether Mayor pro tem Capowski was saying that the Town should go ahead and do this regardless of whether or not the County wants to. He replied that the Town should make it clear that it will proceed on this for schools and roads regardless of what the County decides to do.

Council Member Brown resisted limiting it to schools and roads because, she said, the Town will have continuing needs for public facilities of all sorts. She asked if there had been any date set for hearing Mr. Benedict. Council Member McClintock suggested that Mayor Waldorf talk with the County Commissioners about setting a date in November.

Council Member Evans read, on page six of the memo, that the number of school children in Chapel Hill was decreasing. She suggested that a great deal of the impact on schools is coming from outside of Chapel Hill. Council Member Wiggins said that she would like to hear Mr. Benedict speak before taking a definitive position.

Council Member Foy asked if it was possible to have separate ordinances — one for adequate school facilities and one with regard to other adequate public facilities.

Mayor Waldorf said she agreed with those who had said that an adequate public facilities ordinance hinged to school growth and capacity is the most important point. She argued that if the Town does something it must do so in conjunction with the school system and the County. Mayor Waldorf asked how much it would cost to figure out how to implement the ordinance and then how much to actually implement it. She also asked how the initiative that the Town had started on investigating a stormwater utility, with the potential fees that might be levied, might be compared or contrasted to the potential effects of a public facilities ordinance.

Mayor Waldorf noted that the Council has the authority to levy a parks and recreation impact fee, but has never exercised it. She asked if that fee is defined or if it is something that the Council would have to define. Mayor Waldorf suggested there might be some tools in hand that the Town has not used yet.

Council Member Evans wondered if there was a way to waive fees in order to achieve affordable housing. She remarked that the cost of housing is rising in Chapel Hill because of the fees.

Council Member Wiggins requested that the staff return information in matrix form, with the Growth Management Protocol in one column and the Public Facilities Ordinance in another, including associated costs with each.

Council Member Bateman pointed out that the Council would get answers to some of its questions when it hears Craig Benedict speak, and that this would save staff time.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN, THAT THE COUNCIL HEAR FROM CRAIG BENEDICT BEFORE MOVING FORWARD ON THE ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 3. Public Hearing on Development Ordinance Text Amendment

regarding a Solid Waste Management Facility

3a. Introduction by the Manager.

Mr. Waldon explained that the Interlocal Agreement, which was signed in September, is a three-party agreement between Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro which allows for the transfer of some assets from joint ownership to County ownership. The goal of that Agreement, Mr. Waldon pointed out, was to move to the point where Orange County would assume ownership and management responsibility for solid waste management functions. He added that the three parties are in the process of transition according to terms that have been defined by the agreement.

Mr. Waldon explained that the fifth point of the Interlocal Agreement addresses the Greene Tract, and specifies, among other things, that Chapel Hill has agreed to amend its regulatory system to allow a situation whereby a solid waste management facility could be permitted on a portion of the Greene Tract. He explained that 60 acres would be transferred to the County and might be made available for a solid waste management facility, with transfer and recycling but no burial of trash.

Mr. Waldon stated that Chapel Hill could agree to amend its Development Ordinance to create a new zoning district to permit this use. If that happened, he explained, an application would be submitted to rezone a portion of the Greene Tract to this new zoning district, which would then trigger notice requirements, protest petition requirements, and a joint public hearing since it would be a multi-jurisdictional activity involving the Town Council and the County Commissioners. Mr. Waldon said that if the property were rezoned then an application for a specific solid waste management facility would require staff approval.

Mr. Waldon explained that the current discussion concerned amending the Development Ordinance to allow these other things to happen. He stated that tonight’s public hearing would address the proposal to amend the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance, which would: define a solid waste management facility; create a new zoning district; designate a solid waste management facility as a permitted use in that district; and, specify that the Town Manager has the authority to approve a solid waste management facility in that zoning district. He added that the staff believes that amending the ordinance is consistent with and in pursuit of directions outlined in the Interlocal Agreement.

3b. Recommendation by the Planning Board.

Chair John Hawkins reported that the Board did not have a strong position on this issue, but concurred with Option One because it would require participation of the County, allow more opportunity for citizen input, and produce a broader consensus with the outcome.

3c. Recommendations by other boards and commissions. None.

3b. Comments by Citizens.

Kenneth Rudo, a State toxicologist and neighbor of the Greene Tract, expressed concern about what the solid waste management facility could include. If it were merely a transfer station and recycling facility, he said, that would be one thing. But he pointed out that it could allow a thermal processing facility (which might be an incinerator) or a compost facility (which could be the equivalent of putting a hog farm within several hundred feet of people’s homes with the attendant odors).

Mr. Rudo pointed out that there was new State rules regarding possible health risks from odors, and pointed out that neighbors already can smell the facility. He recommended that, from a public health standpoint, the Council should not pass the amendment as it is now, and cautioned that doing so probably would lead to conflict in the future. He added that there would be a completely different set of arguments if the facility were defined as just a transfer or recycling station in a way that would be legally binding to Orange County.

Mr. Rudo advised the Council not to rid itself of one of its headaches at the expense of posing a public health risk to the people who live next to the facility. He added that those people might then sue the Town and pointed out that the State health director has the power to close down facilities that pose public health risks. He said that if the broad definition were to remain as it is there was no doubt that there would be public health problems as a result.

Council Member Brown noted that there were differences between Ordinances A and B. She asked where the language in Ordinance B had come from, noting that it had not been in the Interlocal Agreement. Mr. Horton replied that he had the same question and had discovered that an “overzealous” staff person had suggested that language. Mr. Horton stressed that he did not recommend Ordinance B. He then read, from Ordinance A: “shall include but not be limited to a solid waste transfer facility and a materials recovery facility.”

Council Member Brown asked if the language in Ordinance B could ever become a possibility if the Council does not specify otherwise. Mr. Horton replied that the language the Council had adopted (“...but not limited to...”) would mean that it could be considered for other items.

Mayor Waldorf added that she had intended to bring the issue of the language in Ordinance B up herself because she did not want to pass anything that approves a thermal processing facility or a large compost facility. She asked if Ordinance B could be set aside. Council Member Brown pointed out that even the language in Ordinance A, “but not be limited to” opens up those possibilities.

Gloria Faley, a member of the Fox Meadow/North Highlands neighborhood and a candidate for the School Board, spoke against the amendment and urged the Council to support the racially and economically diverse population along Eubanks and Rogers Roads, which she characterized as unique to Chapel Hill. She pointed out that those residents—many of whom have land that has been in their families for generations—have carried the brunt of solid waste long enough.

Ms. Faley noted that the Horace Williams Airport is near the Greene Tract, and mentioned the safety concerns associated with birds from the trash facility getting into the flight path. She also pointed out that there are five schools under that flight path as well. Ms. Faley noted the high amount of bike and child traffic on Rogers Road and Purefoy Road, and said that automobile traffic on Rogers Road increases each year. She argued that adding heavy vehicle traffic along that road would be detrimental to children and bikers. Ms. Faley stressed that there are better uses for the Greene Tract, and reported that her neighbors oppose the ordinance amendment on safety and social justice grounds.

R. D. Smith stated that he has a daughter, a son-in-law and three grandchildren who live on Rogers Road. He outlined the history of the landfill search and explained that 25 years ago when both Orange County and Carrboro had filled up their landfills and could not find land for another one, Chapel Hill agreed to let them buy into the one on Eubanks Road and turned it into a regional landfill.

Mr. Smith opposed having another waste facility at the Greene Tract. He asked how the Town would keep garbage from becoming airborne when transferring it, and cautioned that the area could becomes a “stump dump,” which he said the County was looking for. Mr. Smith suggested letting the land stay as it is until the three groups can decide on its best use. He argued that the County could find a better place for a transfer station, away from residential neighborhoods.

Mr. Smith asked Council Members how many of them would like to live in that neighborhood when the noise from the transfer station begins. He asked how many had visited the Durham site to hear how loud that transfer station is. Mr. Smith said that there was an opportunity right now for the County to acquire other land between Chapel Hill and Person County. He complained that the County had not tried to do that because Chapel Hill was offering them the Greene Tract “on a silver platter.”

Mayor Waldorf pointed out that because the 60 acres cannot be used for construction and demolition waste, it could not become a stump dump. She added that having the 60 acres as a landfill asset was something that the County Commissioners had insisted on.

R. L. Campbell noted that two citizens who were present had yielded their time to him to discuss the neighborhoods of Eubanks, Mill House and Rogers Roads. He stated that the governing bodies had promise, in the 1970s, that they would not put an active facility in that neighborhood. He added that the Landfill Owners Group (LOG) had also stated that it would not put another waste facility in that neighborhood. Mr. Campbell pointed out that public officials have argued against putting a water line in that area because they do not want to change the nature of the rural buffer zone. If a water line will change it, he asked, what would a transfer and recycling facility do?

Mr. Campbell stated that it had taken twenty-five years to get a containment fence placed around the existing landfill. He asked what would keep the trash from blowing into the stream near the recycling facility. Asserting that the Council had a moral obligation and a responsibility to enhance the lifestyle of this neighborhood, Mr. Campbell suggested forgetting about man-made laws and thinking about what God said about our responsibility to take care of the land.

Mr. Campbell noted that tipping fees seemed to come before human beings, and suggested that the universities and researchers in the area find a better way to deal with solid waste. He questioned the Town’s ability to police a transfer station because, he said, it took them twenty-five years to police Eubanks and Rogers Roads and it is still not being done efficiently. He reminded the Council that it had taken a public meeting to require that trash trucks be covered, even though that was State law. Mr. Campbell reported that debris still falls all over the roads, that people are still dumping illegally, and that members of his community have had to police the area themselves.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that his neighborhood could not vote for the Town Council. But, he said, they wanted to make their opinions known. He complained about the stench on Rogers Road from six o’clock in the morning until noon, as well as the buzzards and pigeons that he said pester the neighborhood. He suggested looking elsewhere for land, such as the Buckhorn area, and asked the Council to stand up to Orange County and reject having any facility on the Greene Tract. Mr. Campbell suggested putting a school on the Greene Tract and bringing water and sewer to his neighborhood.

Lyn McClay asked the Council how the Town, which places so much emphasis on buffers between office buildings and residential areas (such as had been discussed during the VilCom presentation earlier in the evening) could consider putting a solid waste transfer facility in an area surrounded by residential zoning.

Carole L. Crumley, an anthropologist, archeologist, specialist in land use change, member of the Shaping Orange County’s Future Task Force, member of the Solid Waste Management Committee for the County, and member of the Rural Character Study Committee, explained that she had been involved in the planning for the rural buffer. She said that in April she had submitted a letter to the governing bodies in which she explained that there had been no cultural or environmental impact statements done for the Greene Tract because it was bought back in 1984.

Ms. Crumley said that there are some very interesting aspects of the Greene Tract that relate to the history of free black farming communities to the north of Chapel Hill dating back into the early part of the last century. She added that there are oaks there that are equivalent in size to those outside her office at historic McCorkle Place. Ms. Crumley referred to the surrounding areas as “already targeted neighborhoods.” She showed on a map that the area is isolated from police and fire protection and pointed that the one fire station nearby is not allowed to respond to that neighborhood.

Ms. Crumley suggested, based on a new Orange County Conservancy study called “Rating Land in Orange County by its Wildlife Value,” that this is a public forest with a greenway connection to the Orange County Greenway. She noted that a connection with Duke Forest is already planned to the northwest with property just acquired by the Triangle Conservancy. Ms. Crumley explained that there are plans to create a greenway all around the northern side of Chapel Hill.

Sylvia Lacey, who lives on Billabong Lane, expressed concern that there had not been a hydrological study conducted on the Green Tract. She presented maps showing streams that run from the Greene Tract into the watershed. Ms. Lacey indicated that part of the area is more than 600 feet high and noted that all of the water flows from there into the creeks. She said that she worries about future contamination of her well and her pond, and suggested that the land would make a nice park.

Sally Council stated that her neighbors have been protesting against the landfill for thirty years, and have received reassurances (even signed agreements) that “it won’t be much longer,” only to witness the expansion of solid waste operations. She said that the Greene Tract was purchased because it was near the current landfill, rather than because it was an appropriate site for solid waste disposal operations.

Ms. Council wondered about the “obsession” to continue solid waste disposal operations in this community. She said that the amendment proposal was specifically directed at the Greene Tract, noting that no other property is identified in the proposal. She pointed out that the facility requires only ten acres and that the Council’s agreement to adopt the proposal would mean that the Greene Tract would be marked in a way that no other land is in the community. She asked if it was any more unreasonable to ask the Meadowmont developers to set aside ten acres for this purpose.

Ms. Council noted that the only other piece of land being considered for this purpose was the one on Eubanks Road. She expressed concern that consideration of the Greene Tract was really just a diversion from the real intent, which was to use the land on Eubanks Road. Ms. Council said that both the proposal to amend the Development Ordinance and the Master Plan (which sites the facility on Eubanks Road) threaten to continue bringing solid waste to this neighborhood for another generation. She distributed a statement of concern that had been signed by 106 members of her community.

Judy Nunn-Snipes, who had served on the Northwest Planning Group, expressed opposition to the ordinance as well. She said that 200 acres of land on both sides of the railroad on Eubanks and Millhouse Roads had been in her family since slavery ended in 1862. Ms. Nunn-Snipes explained that her family has had to endure living next to an active landfill for the past twenty-five years. She argued that it would be extremely unjust and unreasonable to add insult to injury to a family that has been in jeopardy for so many years.

Bill Inman, who owns property adjoining the Greene Tract, opposed the ordinance amendment and labeled the Interlocal Agreement, which forces a change in local zoning, as “blackmail.” He said it would require the Town Council to make changes in zoning which are not beneficial to its citizens. Mr. Inman pointed out that the area to be rezoned is approximately one-quarter mile from the present city limits, approximately one-half mile from the Weaver Dairy/Airport Road intersection, and about one-quarter mile from the extension of Weaver Dairy Road to Homestead Road. He predicted that rapid growth and development in northern Chapel Hill would lead to expanding the city limits. Mr. Inman remarked that the Greene Tract is one of the prettiest undeveloped pieces of land in Orange County. He suggested that the Council walk through there as well as the Neville Tract, which has been excavated for dirt for the landfill, before voting on this amendment.

Calvin Mellott, a local businessman, said that he had been asked by about 158 landowners across the tracks from this site to protest it on their behalf. Mr. Mellott commented on various areas in Town that had been used for dumping over the years and stated that the Town had not given the private sector an opportunity to locate an appropriate site for a landfill. He said that the private sector could do the job if the governments would give them a chance.

Ruth Miller noted that most people affected by this decision have no vote and no power over the matter. She said this waste site would destroy the land as well as the integrity and character of these communities. Ms. Miller pointed out that “hundreds and hundreds” of people from communities around the Greene Tract (Eubanks Road, Rogers Road, Purefoy Drive, Billabong Lane, Marin Road, Northside, Parkside, Homestead Village, Fox Meadow, and more) were asking the Town Council to take a stand on justice and to be leaders with a vision for the future. She questioned how a waste site could even be considered for that area, with the new Northern Community Park being built nearby. Ms. Miller commented that there would be no peace, no quiet, and no clean air, and that the beautiful land would be destroyed to create a wasteland.

Perry Miller, a Presbyterian minister who lives on Billabong Lane, stated that even considering this amendment is another insult to the Black community, which he said had been burdened by landfills for thirty years. Noting that the Council appears to want to do the right thing, Mr. Miller challenged them to stop this issue tonight and create a special task force to try and enhance property values in this community so the neighborhood can recover.

Ruby Sinreich, a candidate for Town Council, explained that she had written her senior thesis in college on the subject of environmental racism. She said this is a total textbook case of it, noting that the community is caught between a rock (the Town) and a hard place (the Rural Buffer). Ms. Sinreich said that it seemed to be a foregone conclusion that this site would be selected. Adding that she knows how important the Interlocal Agreement is, Ms. Sinreich pointed out that the current situation for Rogers Road residents is unacceptable and said that she was alarmed at the thought of burdening them with any more of Chapel Hill’s waste. Ms. Sinreich argued that this amendment would create “spot zoning,” which, she pointed out, everybody complains about regarding affordable housing.

Dawn Gerakaris, a Billabong Lane resident, called the proposal “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” She pointed out that the Town would either have to send more trucks along Rogers and Purefoy Roads or it would have to condemn more property along Eubanks Road in order to get to the land. Ms. Gerakaris said that this would amount to red-lining hundred of homes, inflicting planning blight on prime developable land, and “throwing one more handful of dirt on the grave of affordable housing for this community.” She argued the Greene Tract is unsuitable in terms of access and location, because of environmental and watershed concerns, and for economic development reasons. Ms. Gerakaris added that siting this facility next to the only traditional rural African American community in the Chapel Hill planning jurisdiction would be an act of abuse and disrespect.

Emma Jean Levi recommended that those who have access to the Internet get information on “Fighting Environmental Racism.” She pointed out how much new development was taking place in the area and commented that the Greene Tract is valuable land. Ms. Levi also mentioned the lack of affordable housing in Town and suggested using the land for that purpose. Referring to the phrase “not limited to” in the ordinance amendment, Ms. Levi expressed concern that there may be no limit to what can be placed on the Greene Tract. She noted that exempting the Blackwood and Nunn properties from acquisition was almost the same as condemning them because they are so close to the landfill.

Pang Yao, a newcomer from Boston who is a cancer biology professor at Duke University, expressed shock that such a facility could even be proposed so close to where people live. He pointed out that toxic material could be dumped there in close proximity to five schools and hundreds of children. He said it doesn’t take a cancer biologist to understand the potential danger of that facility to a neighborhood where so many families live. Mr. Yao stated that whoever had brought up this proposal was “simply irresponsible.” He asked the Council to help the neighborhood by finding somewhere else to put the facility and making something worthwhile on the Greene Tract.

3e. Questions by the Mayor and other Council Members.

Council Member Brown said that all of the ordinances were inappropriate and that Ordinance A would just prolong the process. She suggested either sending it back or, at least, not going forward with any of them.

Council Member McClintock asked what Council Member Brown was in favor of going ahead with. Council Member Brown replied not the use of the Greene Tract for solid waste activities.

Council Member Foy asked what the buffer requirements would be if Option One were enacted. He also asked if the Town would draft those requirements. Mr. Horton said that the staff could look that up and comment later on it. Council Member Foy suggested that if there was going to be a new zone the buffer requirements should be able to be modified to whatever the Council chose. Mr. Horton replied that Council Member Foy was correct. Council Member Foy asked if a cultural impact statement and an environmental impact statement could be asked for as part of the requirements.

In response to Council Member Foy’s question, Mr. Waldon said that the staff had suggested a type E landscape buffer, which is a 100-foot buffer such as the one along Interstate 40. Council Member Foy noted that this could be changed.

Mayor pro tem Capowski said that the Council had a responsibility to balance the needs of the applicant with the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. He asked if it was true that choosing Option One would mean that the Town Manager would decide whether the transfer station and a recycling center would be built, and that there would not be another public forum on it. Mr. Waldon again described the process that he had outlined earlier.

Mayor pro tem Capowski pointed out that when the Town receives a development application it has a Special Use Permit process and gets a traffic impact statement so that it can get an idea of what the development will look like and smell like. He noted that none of that had taken place with the Interlocal Agreement. Mr. Waldon replied that the site plan would be approved by the Town Manager.

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked where in the process would it be determined whether the truck routes were reasonable or not. Mr. Horton replied that the County Commissioners would have that role under the Solid Waste Management Agreement. Mayor pro tem Capowski stated that there was something missing in the approval process, and that neighbors were not able to react to a public elected body. Mr. Horton replied that the body, by the terms of the Solid Waste Management Agreement, would be the County Commissioners.

Council Member Brown said that the process had not been clearly defined. She asked if the statement on page two (“the Town Council as the responsible zoning and land use authority”) was correct. She explained that she had understood that Chapel Hill and Carrboro would have a joint public hearing, then it would go back to their governing bodies, then if a decision is made it would go forward, and then it would be turned over to the County. Mr. Waldon explained that, as it is set forward in the Interlocal Agreement, the Town would amend its Development Ordinance and then a proposal to apply this to a specific piece of property would be a rezoning action. The Greene Tract, he explained, is in an area that is covered by the Joint Planning Agreement, so a rezoning would have to be subject to a joint public hearing that would involve the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Orange County Commissioners. Mr. Waldon said that both bodies would then have to approve the rezoning in order for it to take effect. If the property were rezoned, he said, then the Interlocal Agreement calls for the next step, which is the approval of the specific facility by the Town Manager.

Council Member Foy asked the staff to bring back information on what the buffers would be if they were 500 feet, 1000 feet and 2000 feet.

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO SEND FIVE VIDEOTAPES OF TONIGHT’S SESSION AND TO REFER ALL COMMENTS AND MATERIALS FROM TONIGHT’S MEETING TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

Council Member McClintock said that she agreed with the speaker who said, “if you’re against something you have to provide a realistic alternative.” She argued that it was irresponsible for the Council to just say lets find someplace else after fifteen years of work on this issue. She expressed support for the neighbors but said that she did not see any realistic alternatives. Noting that this is a national problem, Council Member McClintock pointed out that there is much information available on transfer stations and that protections can be built into them wherever they are located. She described as “unthinkable” the notion of opening the matter up again and starting over.

Council Member Wiggins expressed support for Council Member Pavão’s motion, adding that it was unfortunate that the Town did not have as one of its requirements a moral and social justice impact statement. She stated that it was easier for the Town to use the Greene Tract for this purpose than to go out and find another way of dealing with the solid waste problem. Council Member Wiggins asserted that the neighborhoods deserve the kind of response that the Council gives other neighborhoods that can vote for the Council. She pointed out that the Council gives other groups of citizens a very serious listening ear and does everything it can to address their concerns.

Council Member Evans, explaining that she had served on the Northwest Planning Committee with Ms. Nunn, expressed irritation that that plan had been delayed because of the issue of the Greene Tract and solid waste. She said that the Town would not be in this position if the Northwest Plan for housing, school, and commercial area had been approved. Council Member Evans agreed that the Town should find ten acres somewhere else.

Council Member Brown commented that when the Council had gone into negotiations with the County it had been with the explicit understanding that the Greene Tract would be left out and all the facilities would be sited before the Interlocal Agreement was signed. She explained that as the negotiations went on that had changed and the Greene Tract became essential for a solid waste facility. She then asked Council Member Pavão to repeat his motion. He did so and she stated that she would support it. Council Member Brown stressed, though, that the Council still would have to make a decision on the matter when it comes back.

Mayor Waldorf offered a friendly amendment that the Commissioners also be sent a copy of the hearing record. Council Member Pavão agreed. Mayor Waldorf noted that a number of Council Members had concerns about this and suggested that they talk to the County Commissioners. Council Member Pavão pointed out that the Council had done that before and had been placed “over a proverbial barrel” of sign or else.

Council Member Foy stated that the Town has an obligation to communicate with the County Commissioners their desire that the 60 acres not be used for solid waste activities. But the Town also has an obligation, he said, not to scuttle the Interlocal Agreement. He said that he agreed with Mayor Waldorf that they should communicate strongly that they do not want that to occur.

Council Member Pavão noted that the last time they said that, they were told that the County would not go forward unless they agreed.

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if it was the Interlocal Agreement that had specified that the approval process could not be like that for a Special Use Permit. Mr. Horton replied that it was. Mayor pro tem Capowski asked what the status of the Agreement was, and Mr. Horton replied that it had been executed by the three parties. Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if it was feasible to change that one portion of it. Mr. Horton replied that there was provision for the parties to initiate amendments if they agree to do so.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 4. Public Hearing on Ideas Compiled by the Town/State Technical Committee

for the Study of Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvement Opportunities

on State Roads in Chapel Hill

4a. Introduction by the Manager.

Mr. Horton noted that although staff members who were working with members of the NCDOT had not been able to keep exactly to the original schedule, they had made good progress. He introduced Engineering Director George Small to give the report.

4b. Comments by the Town/State Technical Committee.

Mr. Small reported that the Committee had put together an excellent pallet of opportunities for the Town to pursue to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities and safety throughout the Town on State roads. He said that there had not been many changes suggested at the public forum and added that he was not aware of anyone wishing to speak at tonight’s hearing. Mr. Small suggested that the Committee convene again after the public hearing and go over any changes that might result from the public forum and/or hearing and return to the Council with the list.

Mr. Small suggested that the new Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board work on two or three issues at a time, and implement some of them. He suggested that the Council identify those that they would like the Board to work on, adding that the Committee could suggest ways to implement them and what the costs might be.

4c. Comments by Citizens. None.

4d. Questions by the Mayor and Council Members.

Council Member Evans pointed to a “large omission” on page four of the memo regarding the absence of a sidewalk along Fordham Boulevard between Estes Drive and the Days Inn. Mr. Horton and Mr. Small replied that that was on the TIP. Council Member Evans also suggested adding information under “instruction” which would tell pedestrians of the advantages of pushing the crossing button at crosswalks.

Council Member Brown noted that the report listed technical things, such as the stoplight and crosswalks, which the staff could pursue with NCDOT. She noted that more citizen-oriented ideas could be developed more fully by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board in conjunction with citizens. Mr. Small agreed and explained that he had outlined such a process earlier.

Mayor pro tem Capowski thanked Mr. Small for the good suggestions and noted that they would not cost $3-million dollars to implement. He suggested that the Committee “think small, think easy, think specific, and don’t aim for perfection.”

Council Member Bateman mentioned the need for a stoplight at the Stateside Drive and Highway 86 intersection and thanked Mayor Waldorf for pushing for that with NCDOT. She asked Mr. Small to look at the width of the opening at that intersection, which she described as a “glorified mess,” adding that something needed to be done about that immediately. Council Member Bateman suggested that if the NCDOT does not agree that the intersection justifies a full stoplight, then the Town should ask for one that blinks except during peak hours. She noted that there also is no pedestrian crossing to the bus stop. Mayor Waldorf explained that she and the Manager had met with the Transportation Secretary last Tuesday and that he had agreed to go out and look at that intersection last Friday afternoon at rush hour.

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO REFER THE REPORT TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Council Member McClintock left at 10:45 p.m. due to illness. Her absence was excused.

Item 5. Request for Closed Session to Discuss Litigation or Other Matters

Disclosure of Campaign Contributions

Mayor Waldorf, noting that there was a speaker on this subject, explained that the Attorney had advised her that the Council was within their rights to go into closed session. She suggested, though, that since the subject was public disclosure they might as well discuss it in open session.

Deborah Ross, from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), asked the Council to consider amending the new campaign finance ordinance with respect to the “first dollar reporting” section, which requires disclosure of the names of people donating to campaigns. She said that the ACLU has had many cases of people who have been discriminated against because of their political activities. Ms. Ross argued that people should be allowed to engage in anonymous political support at a low level and asked that the Council amend the ordinance so that people contributing up to $50 would not have to reveal their names.

Council Member Evans asked if the ACLU had addressed the fact that the candidates also had to identify their jobs and employers. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos interjected that he did not know where that was coming from, since the ordinance does not provide that. He said he understood that information was coming from the Board of Elections, and pointed out that it was not part of the Town’s ordinance.

Ms. Ross explained that that was a new State law that had been passed the session before last. She said that she would resist giving legal advice about that and explained that the ACLU’s only concern tonight was that people be permitted to have anonymous political speech. She pointed out some people would rather give five dollars than put up a yard sign because they do not want to reveal their candidate choices.

Council Member Foy asked how the ACLU proposed to mitigate the ability of contributors to “bundle.” Ms. Ross replied that bundling is unlikely to be revealed by identifying who gives small donations. Council Member Foy noted that ten people giving fifty dollars each could become a $500 contribution, and explained that this was part of what the ordinance was attempting to address. Ms. Ross replied that bundling is protected by the first amendment and that people have a right to associate with other people and solicit money.

Council Member Foy noted that the Council was not questioning whether people had that right. He asked Ms. Ross what she would say with regard to the public’s right to know about linkages such as that. Ms. Ross replied that she does not know of any case that says the public has a right to know that is balanced against an individual’s right to make a small contribution anonymously. She added that this would be an interesting issue to test in the courts, and remarked that the ACLU was prepared to do that. Council Member Foy asked why they had set the limit at $50. Ms. Ross explained that the ACLU had interpreted the Town’s ordinance as intending to be significantly lower than the State limit. She said that they thought it was consistent with the Council’s intent.

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if there was anything else that required going into closed session. Mr. Karpinos replied that there was not. Mayor pro tem Capowski said that the Council had included the “first dollar reporting” section in the ordinance to avoid the problem of bundling.

MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. THE MOTION FAILED (3-5) WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, BROWN AND CAPOWSKI VOTING IN FAVOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS FOY, WALDORF, EVANS, PAVAO AND WIGGINS VOTING AGAINST.

Council Member Wiggins expressed concern about the issue that the ACLU had raised. She also pointed out that candidates and political action committees are not required to file their campaign statements in Orange County, and commented that the press probably would not go to Raleigh to analyze a statement. “If we’re going to be about full disclosure,” Council Member Wiggins said, “let’s be serious, colleagues.”

Council Member Brown asked Mr. Karpinos to comment on what Council Member Wiggins had just said. Mr. Karpinos replied that he was not an expert on election law, adding that the Board of Elections receives those reports and it was not something that town government was involved with.

Council Member Wiggins pointed out that even though State law had suggested disclosure of $100 or more, the Town had changed that in their ordinance. She suggested instituting a standard in Chapel Hill that political action committees that operate locally must file their statements locally. Council Member Wiggins stressed that she was not accusing anyone of violating a law, but was merely suggesting really achieving full disclosure.

Council Member Brown said that she had supported Mayor pro tem Capowski’s motion because she felt the Council had made the right decision and she wanted to stand by it.

Mayor Waldorf asked Ms. Ross to define “bundling.” Ms. Ross replied “when one or more individuals put together a bunch of checks of other individuals and deliver them to the candidate.” She added that it is the same thing that happens when somebody holds a fundraiser for a candidate.

Mayor Waldorf asked how that was different than a political action committee. Ms. Ross replied that a political action committee has to formally register with the State as such and is subject to certain reporting and disclosure requirements as well as contribution and expenditure restrictions. She added that she had reservations about whether the Town Council had the authority to regulate how a State-wide political action committee could operate in Chapel Hill.

Mayor pro tem Capowski left at 10:45 p.m. His absence was excused.

Council Member Wiggins summarized Ms. Ross’s request to the Council. She said Ms. Ross was asking them to rethink and balance protecting the right of the individual to participate against the Town’s right to know who’s making the contribution. Ms. Ross replied that this was correct and said that she wanted be clear that the ACLU is very much in favor of disclosure when it is a large amount of money. North Carolina is an “employment at will” State, which means that private employers can fire people for anything, she said, giving an example of a person who works for a factory which wants to unionize but who supports a candidate who opposes that.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO PLACE THE ISSUE ON A FUTURE AGENDA. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m.