MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN

    OF CHAPEL HILL, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1993 AT 7:30 P.M.

 

Mayor Broun called the meeting to order.  Council Members in attendance were Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Mark Chilton, Joe Herzenberg, Barbara Powell, Alan Rimer and Arthur Werner.  Also in attendance were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, Library Director Kathleen Thompson, Planning Director Roger Waldon and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos.

 

                      Item 1  Ceremonies

 

Noting that the week of February 21st through 27th was Severe Weather Awareness Week, Mayor Broun introduced Orange County Emergency Management Director Nick Waters.  Mayor Broun urged all citizens to increase their awareness about severe weather and to participate in a practice drill on February 24th.  Mr. Waters emphasized the importance of people identifying places of relative safety in their homes, such as interior closets and hallways.  He added that tornado watches and other severe weather advisories should be taken seriously by all citizens.  Mr. Waters urged people to take appropriate actions prior to the issuance of severe weather warnings.

 

Mayor Broun introduced Josh Gurlitz and Gary Giles of GGA Architects.  Mr. Gurlitz said it was a great pleasure to present the model of the proposed new library building and surrounding Pritchard Park site.  He stated that the model would prove beneficial in tracking progress of the library project.

 

Mayor Broun noted that a special guest, Taoufik Baccar, Secretary General, Tunisia Ministry of Planning and Regional Development was in attendance to observe this evening's Council meeting.

 

                       Item 3  Petitions

 

Antoine Puech said residents of the Cedar Hills neighborhood had signed a petition expressing concern about possible rezoning of four tracts of land at the corner of Silo Drive and Weaver Dairy Road.  Noting that the petition appeared to be pre-emptive, Council Member Werner inquired about the nature of the issue.  Mayor Broun inquired whether an application for rezoning of the subject tracts had been received.  Mr. Horton said no, adding that the Design Review Board had conducted a courtesy review of a long-term care facility on the site.  Council Member Werner inquired whether there was an active application.  Mr. Horton said there was no active applications for the sites.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER, TO RECEIVE THE PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

Howard Diamond requested that storm drainage inlets be reduced from eight to six inches in standard depth.  He stated that three of four incidents involving small children falling into inlets involved openings of six inches or less.  Mr. Diamond suggested that staff confer with Public Works officials in communities with storm drain inlets of six inches or less.  He stated that the provision of smaller openings would reduce lawsuit exposure as a result of small children falling into and injuring themselves in drainage inlets. Acknowledging the staff's concerns about debris build-up, Council Member Rimer inquired why vertical bar inlets had not been considered.  He added that drainage-related lawsuits could also result from flooding of properties.  Mr. Heflin said although no actual calculations had been performed on vertical bar installation, such bars tended to be counterproductive in terms of maximum the efficiency of storm drainage grates.

 

Council Member Capowski inquired about the ultimate disposition of storm sewer debris.  Mr. Heflin said most debris washed through grates and down into collection wells. He added that most blockages occur in drainage pipes, with clogging ultimately occurring at storm sewer drains.  Mr. Heflin also noted that catch basins were required in new developments.  Mr. Horton stated that vertical bars could also contribute to snagging problems wherein brush and debris would accumulate at drainage inlets.  He said such snagging could create dangerous traffic conditions and street flooding.  Council Member Werner said retrofit of drainage facilities might merit investigation in some parts of the Town.

 

Council Member Rimer suggested performing a model test with different types of storm drains on a street such as Kenmore Drive. Mr. Horton stated that an experiment of this type would need to be conducted over a long period of time.  Council Member Capowski inquired whether the staff's memorandum was correct that no one had fallen into storm drains in the City of Richmond, Virginia.  Mr. Heflin said this was information provided by Richmond city staff.

 

Noting that the Triangle J Council of Governments was holding a retreat on February 24th, Council Member Andresen suggested that the Council should attempt to reach consensus on the proposal for a Triangle J regional leadership council.  She also suggested that a letter could be forwarded to Triangle J outlining the Council's position on the proposal.  Stating that he would be unable to attend the Triangle J retreat, Council Member Rimer said he hoped a staff member would be able to attend.  He suggested that a Council Member could possibly represent the Council on the committee exploring the possibility of a regional leadership Council.

 

Council Member Werner said another important issue was determining whether Triangle J provided services desirable to the Town.  He also noted that there did not appear to be unanimous Council enthusiasm to proceed with the concept of a Triangle J Regional Leadership Council.  Council Member Werner noted that several other local governments including Wake County, Orange County and the Town of Carrboro appeared to be in a similar position.  Noting that Council Member Rimer sat as an ex-officio member of the leadership group, Mayor Broun inquired whether any Council Members were willing to participate in exploring the leadership group.  Council Member Werner suggested that Council Member Rimer put together a briefing paper on the leadership council proposal.  Council Member Rimer said although some government and business leaders were interested in the concept of a regional leadership group, there was no certainty that such a group would be formed.  Council Member Andresen said the Council could take a softer approach of providing some leadership on the proposal or a harder approach, outlining decision-making powers.

 

Council Member Herzenberg noted that many individuals were concerned about possible efforts by business interests to take control of regional coordination and leadership matters.  Council Member Brown inquired about the nature of the Triangle J retreat.  Mayor Broun said an overall planning retreat was proposed.  Mayor Broun added that he was willing to draft a letter outlining the Council's concerns about the proposal for a regional leadership council.  He also inquired whether staff could provide a report on services by the Triangle J Council of Governments.  Mr. Horton said such a report could be prepared.  Council Member Brown requested a follow-up report on the Council's responses to questions about Triangle J's program priorities.  Council Member Rimer said he would provide follow-up tabulations of responses.

 

Mayor Broun noted that as part of the 1993-94 budget formulation process and in an effort to begin cost-cutting in the Mayor's office, he was recommending that the position of Assistant to the Mayor be reduced to half-time.  He expressed appreciation to Assistant to the Mayor Lisa Price for her flexibility in this matter.

 

                Item 4  Boards and Commissions

 

COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO NOMINATE ALL THREE APPLICANTS FOR APPOINTMENT CONSIDERATION TO THE GREENWAYS COMMISSION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO NOMINATE ALL FIVE APPLICANTS FOR THREE VACANCIES ON THE AD HOC TREE COMMITTEE.

 

Council Member Andresen inquired whether Council Member Herzenberg was willing to update and bring back the committee's charge for Council review.  Council Member Herzenberg said he would do so.

 

THE MOTION TO NOMINATE ALL FIVE APPLICANTS WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

Council Member Andresen noted that it was important to have all affected neighborhoods represented on the Northwest Area Planning Group.  Mayor Broun noted that the group was to be composed of five neighborhood, two at-large and one University representative.  Council Member Rimer suggested that staff provide a map showing the residence location of applicants for the group.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO NOMINATE ALL APPLICANTS FOR THE NORTHWEST AREA PLANNING GROUP.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

Item 5  Columbia Place Subdivision Request for Preliminary Plat

 

Mr. Horton requested that additional materials pertaining to the application be entered into the record of the hearing.  Mayor Broun concurred with the request.  Mr. Waldon briefly reviewed the request noting that standard curb, rather than rolled curb, was proposed for new streets in the subdivision.  He stated that adoption of Resolution A was recommended for adoption.

 

Council Member Capowski inquired whether concrete or asphalt rolled curbs were proposed.  Joe Hakan, the project's developer, said most rolled curbs for affordable housing projects involved the use of asphalt.  He added that either concrete or asphalt curbs could be constructed.  Council Member Capowski inquired about the impact of rolled curbs on the cost of housing.  Mr. Hakan said approximately $200 to $300 per lot.  Council Member Brown inquired whether sidewalks were proposed in the subdivision.  Mr. Waldon said sidewalks were proposed along new streets.

 

Council Member Brown inquired about the advantages and disadvantages of rolled curb to bicyclists.  Mr. Waldon reviewed anticipated advantages and disadvantages, including possible problems related to seams in rolled curbs.  Council Member Werner inquired about the impact of rolled curbs on stormwater management.  Mr. Waldon said the resulting difference in additional stormwater would not be very great.  Mr. Horton noted that more curb and sidewalk damage might result from cars parking on rolled curbs and front yards.  Council Member Werner asked whether the Town would bear repair costs.  Mr. Horton said yes.

 

Council Member Werner inquired whether stormwater retention rather than detention was proposed by the applicant.  Michael Hammersley said a combination of retention and detention was proposed.  He stated that more retention than detention was needed for the site.  Council Member Werner inquired how the proposed system differed from other detention basins.  He inquired whether volume was spread out.  Mr. Hammersley said yes.  Council Member Andresen inquired how often the basins needed to be maintained.  Mr. Hammersley said if the basins were installed correctly upfront, less maintenance would be necessary.  Council Member Werner inquired whether basins were regularly inspected.  Mr. Horton said inspections only occurred at the Chesley subdivision.  He noted that other detention basins were maintained by private property owners.   Council Member Rimer inquired about the difference in capacity of the proposed basin compared to standard detention and retention basins.  Mr. Hammersley said he could provide this information at a later date.

 

Lightning Brown said although residents of the Northside neighborhood were not requesting any stipulation regarding housing affordability, the project did offer a tremendous opportunity to dedicate twenty-five percent of the units for affordable housing. Mr. Brown said the proposal could result in good things benefitting the neighborhood and Town.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

 

Council Member Andresen asked if there was any way to make a stipulation requiring periodic maintenance of the retention basin.  Mr. Horton noted that general language was outlined in the second paragraph of stipulation twenty-one, although no regular maintenance period was specified.  He stated that a stipulation requiring an annual inspection and report could be added.  Council Member Andresen inquired about the Town's recourse for non-compliance with facility maintenance.  Mr. Karpinos said there were several remedies, including the court system, if necessary.  Council Member Rimer noted that the State of Virginia required that all subdivisions have a means to maintain good maintenance practices for non-point drainage systems.

 

Council Member Powell inquired about the staff's response to Mr. Brown's comments concerning housing affordability.  Mr. Horton noted that the Orange Community Housing Corporation (OCHC) was engaged in conversations with Mr. Hakan in his role as developer of the project.  He stated that Donna Dyer of OCHC could provide future updates on these negotiations.  Council Member Capowski inquired about the rationale for the proposed bus stop location on Airport Road or North Columbia Street.  Mr. Waldon noted that the Transportation Board had recommended adding a bus shelter and bench on Airport Road.  Council Member Capowski inquired about the logic to improve the shelter on Airport Road rather than North Columbia Street.  Noting that this was the Transportation Board's recommendation, Mr. Waldon stated that the staff had worked with the applicant to assure good and safe pedestrian access to Airport Road.  Mayor Broun noted that Resolution B made the bus stop location optional on either Airport Road or North Columbia Street. Mr. Karpinos said the stipulation could be left flexible if the Council desired.

 

Noting that she strongly supported the provision of affordable housing, Council Member Brown inquired about ways of working with the applicant to support such efforts.  Mr. Horton said he was not sure what facilitation could be provided by staff other than to suggest the applicant work with the OCHC Board of Directors.  Council Member Werner inquired whether it was correct that the amount of right-of-way was unknown.  Mr. Horton said this was correct.  Council Member Werner suggested that the requirement of providing a five-foot sidewalk be eliminated to provide greater flexibility in case sufficient right-of-way was not available.  Mr. Horton said this was possible.

 

THE MOTION TO ADJOURN THE HEARING WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

Noting her support of regular curbing, Council Member Andresen moved adoption of Resolution A.  Council Member Andresen also said she was amenable to changes in the resolution concerning the proposed bus stop location.  Council Member Werner suggested that Resolution A delete the reference to a specific sidewalk width.  Council Member Andresen also suggested that language be added concerning the maintenance of drainage basins.  Mr. Horton noted that the transportation staff would likely have recommended a bus stop site other than Airport Road if one were needed.  Council Member Werner inquired about the possibility of a payment-in-lieu for bus facilities.  Council Member Capowski said his was concern that a bus facility be available in the vicinity of the proposed development.  Council Member Chilton said bus riders would use the shelter wherever it was built, particularly during inclement weather.  Mayor Broun said a primary question was whether the developer ought to pay for the bus shelter.  He stated that housing costs could be kept down by not requiring the developer to provide the facility.

 

Council Member Herzenberg inquired about the estimated cost of a bus shelter and pad.  Mr. Horton said between $8,000 and $10,000 including a bus pull-out.  He added that a shelter and bench would likely cost between $3,000 and $4,000.  Council Member Rimer inquired whether any Federal or State aid was available for bus shelter construction.  Mr. Horton stated that the Town periodically received funding for shelters.  Council Member Capowski said the estimated cost per house for the bus shelter would be $75.  Council Member Andresen said the developer could possibly contribute toward the cost of a bus shelter facility.

 

Mr. Karpinos suggested that the Manager could determine when and where the bus shelter would be constructed.  Council Member Capowski said he would support the proposed Airport Road bus shelter location.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1A, AS AMENDED.

 

Council Member Rimer noted the need to carefully examine the nature of the annual inspection report on drainage facilities.  Council Member Brown inquired about the availability of funds for bus shelters.  Mr. Horton stated that federal funding was occasionally available.  Council Member Chilton said he supported Resolution B, rather than Resolution A.  Council Member Capowski noted that the Council had received a letter from Horst Kessemeier critiquing the proposed project design.  Council Member Brown inquired whether there was any way to share the costs of the bus facilities.  Mr. Horton said the Council could instruct the staff to spend money for this purpose.  Mayor Broun said he would vote against the motion because he felt that the developer should not be asked to pay for the shelter.

 

RESOLUTION 1A AS AMENDED FAILED BY A VOTE OF 3-6, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS ANDRESEN, CAPOWSKI AND WERNER VOTING AYE.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER MOVED THAT THE BUS STOP STIPULATION IN RESOLUTION 1A, AS AMENDED, BE REMOVED.  COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG SECONDED THE MOTION.  THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 7-2, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS CHILTON AND POWELL VOTING NO.

 

Mr. Hakan expressed concern about project phasing. Mayor Broun

inquired whether Mr. Hakan accepted the proposed conditions of approval.  Mr. Hakan said yes, noting his concern about the proposed construction phasing for a sewer line in phase two of the project.  Mr. Waldon noted that stipulation three in Resolution A was intended to accomplish a one-time land disturbance for grading and clearing.  Noting that the Council had taken on the matter, Mr. Karpinos noted that the Council would need to move to reconsider the Resolution if changes were proposed.  Council Member Herzenberg inquired whether an error had been made in not asking the developer about the proposed conditions of approval.   Mr. Karpinos noted that this inquiry had been made at the initial public hearing on the proposal.  Mr. Horton said that if the Council wished to entertain reconsideration, it was a simple matter of modifying language in stipulation number three.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER TO RECONSIDER THE MATTER.

 

Council Member Capowski inquired why there would be more disturbance if the sewer line were installed in phase one instead of phase two.  Mr. Waldon said the staff's primary concern was to minimize the number of times that slope disturbance would take place.  He added that Mr. Karpinos had advised that stipulation three as proposed could achieve the objective of minimizing site disturbance.  Mr. Horton read suggested language concerning site disturbance.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED REVISED LANGUAGE AND RE-VOTE ON RESOLUTION 1A AS AMENDED.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 7-2, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS CHILTON AND POWELL VOTING NO.

 

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR COLUMBIA PLACE CLUSTER SUBDIVISION (SD-83-A-1A) (93-2-22/R-1a)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that Columbia Place Subdivision proposed by the Bradley Company, on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 83, Block A, Lot 1A; and Tax Map 30, Lot 8C; if developed according to Site Plan dated October 14, 1992, and the conditions listed below, would comply with the following cluster development requirements from Subsection 17.8.2 of the Development Ordinance:

 

1.   The development tract is at least two (2) acres in size;

 

2.   Public water and sewer connections are available for each lot;

 

3.   The total number of building lots is not greater than the number determined by dividing the total gross land area by the minimum gross land area for each lot;

 

4.   The recreation area reserved within the tract conforms to the recreation standards of Section 17.9; and

 

5.   The minimum amount of land reserved as recreation area is the sum of all reductions in minimum gross land area as a result of the cluster form of development, or the minimum recreation are reservation required in Subsection 17.9.2, whichever is greater.

 

These findings are conditioned on the following:

 

           Stipulations Specific to the Development

 

1.   Realignment of Clark Road:  That Clark Road be realigned to form a T intersection with the subdivision entrance.  The realignment shall be designed to slow northwest bound traffic to a maximum of 20 miles per hour, and shall be reviewed for approval by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  Appropriate right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Town prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

     Stop signs shall be installed in locations approved by the Town Manager.

 

2.   Required Improvements:

 

     A.   That Clark Road be improved along the entire property frontage to one-half of a 27-foot cross-section, with curb and gutter and sidewalk.

 

     B.   That the internal streets be constructed to Class B standards, with a 27-foot back-of-curb to back-of-curb cross-section and sidewalk; and that standard width right-of-way shall be dedicated along the streets and cul-de-sacs.

 

          Curb and gutter shall be to Town standard.

 

          No curb shall be installed where the street edge abuts the rootzone of the large tree to be preserved (in the vicinity of Lots  18 and 23).  Instead, wooden posts with reflectors shall be erected near the street edge as a safety precaution.

 

     C.   A sidewalk shall be constructed along Clark Road south of the site to Longview Street, and along Longview Street east to Airport Road.  If the width of the right-of-way is insufficient for off-site sidewalk construction, the developer shall make a payment-in-lieu to the Town, for sidewalk construction.  If the funds are not used within 5 years, the Town shall return the money to the developer.

 

     D.   That sufficient right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Town where the property abuts the Greene Street stubout, so that a turnaround for Greene Street may be constructed in the future.

 

     E.   Pedestrian paths:

 

           i)  That a pedestrian path be constructed to link the northern end of the site down to the Bolin Creek Greenway.  The route shall be field located, in coordination with the Greenways Commission, and approval of the Town Manager, in order to avoid large trees.   Clearing of underbrush shall be done by hand in order to minimize disturbance of slopes and significant vegetation.

 

          ii)  This path shall have a connecting spur to the Greene Street stubout.

 

         iii)  That this path be identified with a sign stating the trail is for use by residents of Columbia Place.

 

          iv)  A pedestrian easement shall be located within the sewer easement proposed in the northeast corner of the tract.

 

     F.   Recreation Area:  That the recreation area be deeded and dedicated to a Homeowners' Association.

 

3.   One-time slope disturbance for sewer lines:  That sewer pipes down the slope to Bolin Creek be installed in such a manner that repeated construction activities on the slope are unnecessary.

 

4.   RCD crossings for utility lines and pedestrian paths:  That utility line and pedestrian path construction within the RCD shall meet the RCD encroachment standards outlined in Sections 5.6 and 5.8 of the Development Ordinance.

 

             Stipulations Related to Steep Slopes

 

5.   Lots with slopes of 10-15%:  That site preparation techniques shall be utilized which minimize grading and site disturbance.

 

6.   Lots with slopes of 15-25%:  That specialized site design techniques and approaches for building and site preparation shall be demonstrated to the Town Manager prior to recordation of the final plat.  In addition, a note about the specialized site design techniques and approaches shall be added to the final plans and final plat.

 

7.   Lots and street sections with slopes of over 25%:  That a detailed site analysis of soil conditions, hydrology, bedrock conditions, and other engineering and environmental considerations has been reviewed and approved by the Town Manager; and that sound building and site engineering techniques, with minimal disturbance of the area, have been demonstrated to the Town Manager.  The site analysis and building proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

     In addition, a note about the building and engineering techniques shall be added to the final plans and plat.

 

  Stipulations Related to the Resource Conservation District

 

8.   Boundaries:  That the boundaries of the Resource Conservation District be shown on the final plat and final plans with a note indicating that "Development shall be restricted within the Resource Conservation District in accordance with the Development Ordinance."

 

9.   Variances:  That all variances necessary for development within the Resource Conservation District be obtained before application for final plat or final plan approval.

 

10.  Setbacks for Preliminary Plat applications:  That any restrictive covenant applicable to lots adjacent to the Resource Conservation District not require greater setbacks than those required by the Development Ordinance.

 

11.  Buildable Lots for Preliminary Plat applications: That no lot be created that would require a Resource Conservation District Variance in order to be built upon.

 

            Stipulations Related to Recreation Area

 

12.  Access Easements for Preliminary Plat applications:  That the final plat indicate pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle access easements for the proposed pedestrian paths.

 

13.  Dedication of Greenway for Preliminary Plat applications: That the final plat dedicate and deed the greenway to the Town of Chapel Hill for Parks and Recreation purposes only.  The language granting the easement, the size and location of the easement, shall be reviewed for approval by the Town Manager prior to recordation of the final plat.

 

Stipulations Related to State and Federal Government Approvals

 

14.  State or Federal approvals:  That any required County, State or Federal permits or encroachment agreements be approved, and copies of the approved permits and agreements be submitted to the Town of Chapel Hill prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

15.  NCDOT approval:  That plans for improvements to state-maintained roads be approved by NCDOT prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

          Stipulations Related to Landscape Elements

 

16.  Landscape Protection Plan:  That a Landscape Protection Plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  (The final plan shall include only those trees deemed by the Town Manager to be most likely to survive proposed construction activities.)

 

   Stipulations Related to Water, Sewer, and Other Utilities

 

17.  Fire Flow:   A fire flow report, prepared by a registered professional engineer, and showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Design Manual, must be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

18.  Utility Service Laterals for Preliminary Plat applications: That prior to paving of streets, utility service laterals (including cable and telephone) shall be stubbed out to the front property lines of each lot.  Sanitary sewer laterals shall be capped off above ground.

 

19.  OWASA Easements for Preliminary Plat applications:  That easement documents as required by OWASA and the Town Manager be recorded before final plat approval.

 

20.  Utility/Lighting Plan Approval:  That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Duke Power, Cablevision, Public Service Company, Southern Bell, and the Town Manager, before issuance of Zoning Compliance Permit.  The property owner shall be responsible for assuring that these utilities, including cable television, are extended to serve the development.

 

                  Miscellaneous Stipulations

 

21.  Creation of a Homeowners' Association: That a Homeowners' Association shall be established for this development.  The documents creating the association shall be reviewed for approval by the Town Manager, shall provide that the Town may enforce maintenance of the recreation areas and stormwater detention basins, if not adequately maintained and shall be recorded in the Orange County Register of Deeds Office simultaneously with final plat recordation.

 

     The Homeowners' Association shall be responsible for the maintenance of the recreation area and the stormwater detention basin(s) and that an annual inspection report of the Stormwater detention basins be made to the Town.

 

22.  Solid Waste Management Plan:  That a detailed solid waste management plan, including a recycling plan and plan for management of construction debris, be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

23.  Refuse Collection:  That a note be added to the final plans and final plat that curbside refuse collection service may be necessary for some lots which include steep slopes.

 

24.  Detailed Plans:  That final detailed site plan, grading plan, utility/lighting plans, stormwater management plan (with hydrologic calculations), landscape plan and landscape maintenance plan be approved by the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance all applicable conditions and the design standards of the Development Ordinance and the Design Manual.

 

25.  Certificates of Occupancy:  That no Certificates of Occupancy be issued until all required public improvements are completed; and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plat.

 

     If the Town Manager approves a phasing plan, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for a phase until all required public improvements for that phase are complete; no Building Permits for any phase shall be issued until all public improvements required in previous phases are completed to a point adjacent to the new phase; and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plat.

 

26.  Sight Triangle Easements:  That sight triangle easements be provided on the final plat.

 

27.  For Developments with New Streets - Traffic Signs:  That the property owners shall be responsible for placement and maintenance of temporary regulatory traffic signs including street name signs before issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy until such time that the street system is accepted for maintenance by the Town.

 

28.  For Developments with New Streets - Names, Numbers:  That the name of the development and its streets and house/building numbers be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

29.  Erosion Control:  That a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

30.  Work Zone Traffic Control Plan:  That a work zone traffic control plan be approved by the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

31.  Silt Control:  That the applicant take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.

 

32.  Continued Validity:  That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.

 

33.  Non-severability:  If any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for preliminary plat for Columbia Place Subdivision in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.

 

This the 22nd day of February, 1993.

 

 

Mr. Hakan apologized for any confusion he had caused in the matter.

 

   Item 6  Intimate Bookshop Request for Special Use Permit

 

Mr. Horton requested that additional materials be entered into the record of the hearing.  Mayor Broun concurred with the request.  Mr. Horton added that the proposal met ordinance requirements.

 

Council Member Werner requested additional information concerning the applicant's proposal for fire sprinkler systems.  Wallace Kuralt said sprinklers would definitely be provided on the first and second floors and possibly on the third floor and in the basement.  He expressed concern about possible damage to materials from accidental setting off of sprinklers.  Council Member Werner inquired whether Mr. Kuralt would accept a condition of approval requiring sprinklers throughout the building.  Mr. Kuralt said yes.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN, TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2A, AS AMENDED, REQUIRING FIRE SPRINKLERS THROUGHOUT THE PROPOSED BUILDING.

 

Mayor Broun inquired whether the proposed conditions of approval were acceptable.  Mr. Kuralt said yes.

 

RESOLUTION 2A, AS AMENDED, WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE INTIMATE BOOKSHOP (SUP-80A-29) (93-2-22/R-2a)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application, proposed by Mr. Wallace Kuralt, on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 80A, Lot 29, if developed according to the site plan dated December 28, 1992, and the conditions listed below, would:

 

1.   Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;

 

2.   Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, 14 and 18, and with all other applicable regulations, except for the requested modifications to the regulations listed below;

 

3.   Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or be a public necessity; and

 

4.   Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds, in this particular case, that the following modifications satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree:

 

1.   Modification of Subsection of 13.11.3 of the Development Ordinance to exceed the maximum floor area limit, allowing 14,800 total square feet of floor area (one basement level and three levels at ground and above); and

 

2.   Modification of Subsection of 13.11.3 of the Development Ordinance to allow provision of 1,155 square feet of open space.

 

These findings are conditioned on the following:

 

           Stipulations Specific to the Development

 

1.   That construction begin by February 22, 1995 (two years from the date of Council approval) and be completed by February 22, 1996 (three years from the date of Council approval).

 

2.   Required Improvements:  That bike rack(s) be provided near the front of the building and in accordance with the Town's Streetscape Plan.

 

3.   Provision of shower/locker facilities:  That shower/locker facilities be provided in the building for employees' use.

 

4.   Transportation Management Plan (TMP):

 

     a)   That the Transportation Management Plan provided with this application is hereby approved with the following features:

 

          -    for the first year, provision of 16 leased off-site parking spaces

 

          -    for the first year, 6 annual bus passes for employees; and

 

     b)   That this TMP and subsequent annual TMP's include the following:

 

          -    designation of a Transportation Coordinator to administer the programs outlined in the TMP, and monitor their effectiveness; and

 

          -    provision for an annual Transportation Survey and Annual Report to the Town Manager every December which shall form the basis for the changes to transportation management for the site.  Annual revisions to the Plan shall include public transit incentives and traffic reduction goals and objectives.

 

5.   Shared Dumpster Agreement:  That, unless a dumpster can be placed and serviced on this property, a shared dumpster agreement with nearby property owner(s) be approved by the Town Manager and recorded in the Orange County Register of Deeds Office prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

Stipulations Related to State and Federal Government Approvals

 

6.   State or Federal approval(s):  That plans for improvements to state-maintained roads or within NCDOT rights-of-ways be approved by NCDOT prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

          Stipulations Related to Landscape Elements

 

7.   Landscape Protection Plan:  That a Landscape Protection Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

          Stipulation related to Building Elevations

 

8.   Building Elevation Approval:  That detailed building elevations be approved by the Appearance Commission prior to issuance of the Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

                  Miscellaneous Stipulations

 

9.   Utility/Lighting Plan Approval:  That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Duke Power, Public Service Company, Southern Bell, and the Town Manager, before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

10.  Solid Waste Management Plan:  That a detailed solid waste management plan, including a recycling plan and plan for management of construction debris, be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

11.  Detailed Plans:  That final detailed site plan, grading plan, utility/lighting plans, and stormwater management plan be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance all applicable conditions and the design standards of the Development Ordinance and the Design Manual.

 

12.  Erosion Control:  That a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan, if required, be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

13.  Silt Control:  That the applicant take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.

 

14.  Sprinklers:  That the building be equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system for fire suppression.

 

15.  Continued Validity:  That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.

 

16.  Non-severability:  If any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the Special Use Permit for the Intimate Bookshop in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.

 

This the 22nd day of February, 1993.

 

 

           Item 7  Solid Waste Goals and Objectives

 

Mr. Horton said staff had been asked to identify questions and points out areas of clarifications of value concerning proposed solid waste goals and objectives.  Council Member Rimer emphasized the importance of working on solid waste goals and objectives in concert with other Landfill Owners Group members.  He added that Council Members Brown, Chilton and himself would attempt to consolidate comments from all interested parties.  Noting that other local governments had approved the original solid waste goals and objectives, Council Member Andresen emphasized the importance of moving ahead with a work plan.  Council Member Rimer said he agreed with the need to proceed expeditiously.  Council Member Brown said the process could move along fairly rapidly once solid waste goals were in place.  Mayor Broun inquired what action was needed this evening.  Council Member Rimer said review of the goals and objectives was proposed.

 

Council Member Rimer reviewed the proposed goals including goal number ten, noting that the committee thought that the staff had misinterpreted the Council's position on mass burn facilities.  He stated that refuse-derived fuel needed to be examined in an overall solid waste management plan.  Council Member Rimer noted that the Council was concerned about the proposal for a mass burn facility in Chatham County.  He also stated that the committee recommended changing goal number nineteen to refer to "solid waste producers" rather than "the public".  Council Member Werner said he did not know what the word "reasonable" meant in goal number fourteen.  Council Member Brown said this word had been added after the work session.

 

Council Member Werner emphasized the importance of maximizing recovery while minimizing costs.  He also suggested removing the words "existing" and "proposed" from goal number eighteen concerning program funding.  Council Member Capowski inquired about the proposed measurement to determine how well solid waste management goals were being attained.  Council Member Brown emphasized the importance of measuring how well things were proceeding and also what was being done.  Council Member Chilton noted that Council Members Brown, Rimer and himself would prepare a follow-up resolution for Council consideration in the near future.  Council Member Rimer thanked the staff for their useful review of the proposed goals and objectives.

 

                    Item 8  Consent Agenda

 

Council Member Andresen requested removal of item a.  Council Member Brown requested removal of item e.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO ADOPT ITEMS B, C AND D OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCE

(93-2-22/R-4)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following resolutions and ordinances as submitted by the Town Manager in regard to the following:

 

     a.   Minutes of January 25 and February 1, 1993.

     b.   Revisions to Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance (O-1).

     c.   Scheduling joint planning public hearing (R-5).

     d.   Revised 1992-93 public housing budget (R-6.1, 6.2 and 6.3).

     e.   Recommendations of the Citizen's Energy Task Force (R-7).

 

This the 22nd day of February, 1993.

 

 

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL REGULATIONS (93-2-22/O‑1)

 

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town's soil erosion and sedimentation control regulations codified as Chapter 5, Article V, Division 2 of the Chapel Hill Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

 

SECTION 1 - TITLE

 

This ordinance may be cited as the Chapel Hill Soil Erosion and  Sedimentation Control Ordinance.

 

SECTION 2 - PURPOSES

 

This Ordinance is adopted for the purposes of:

 

a.   Regulating the clearing, grading, excavation, filling and manipulation of the earth and the moving and storing of waters in order to: control and prevent accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation, prevent the pollution of water, prevent damage to public and private property, maintain the balance of nature, prevent the obstruction of natural and artificial drainageways, inhibit flooding and reduce the undermining of roads and other transportation facilities.

 

b.   Establishing procedures through which these purposes can be fulfilled.

 

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5 herein, the Council hereby declares its intent that all of the departments and agencies of the Town of Chapel Hill, its contractors and subcontractors shall comply with the regulations set forth in this Ordinance.

 

SECTION 3 - DEFINITIONS

 

As used in this Ordinance, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following definitions apply:

 

Accelerated Erosion - any increase over the rate of natural erosion as a result of land-disturbing activities.

 

Acre - 43,560 square feet.

 

Act - the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 and all rules and orders adopted pursuant to it.

 

Adequate Erosion Control Measure, Structure, or Device - one  which controls the soil material within the land area under responsible control of the person conducting the land-disturbing activity.

 

Agricultural Land - land used primarily for the production of plants and animals and intended for private consumption or sale, including but not limited to forage and sod crops, grain and feed crops, tobacco, cotton and peanuts; dairy animals and dairy products; poultry and poultry products; livestock, including the breeding and grazing of any or all such animals; bees and apiary products; and fur animals.

 

Being Conducted - means a land-disturbing activity has been initiated and permanent stabilization of the site has not been completed.

 

Borrow - means fill material which is required for on-site construction and is obtained from other locations.

 

Buffer Area or Zone - means the strip of land adjacent to a Lake or natural watercourse. The boundaries and purposes of which are as set forth in Section 8(a).

 

Channel - a natural or artificial watercourse with a definite bed and banks to confine and conduct the flow of water.

 

Channel Alterations - a change of the water-carrying capacity or flow characteristics of a natural or artificial channel by clearing, excavation, bank stabilization or other means.

 

Channel Stabilization - erosion prevention and velocity control in a channel using jetties, drops, revetments, vegetation, and other measures.

 

Coastal Counties - means the following North Carolina counties:  Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Craven, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hertford, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Tyrell, and Washington.

 

Commission - the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.

 

Completion of Construction or Development - means that no further land-disturbing activity is required on a phase of a project except that which is necessary for establishing a permanent ground cover.

 

Denuded Area - any area deprived of its protective vegetative cover and left in that exposed condition.

 

Department - the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.

 

Development - any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to construction of buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, or drilling operations.

 

Discharge Point - means that point or points at which runoff leaves a tract of land.

 

District - the Orange or Durham County (as applicable) Soil and Water Conservation District created pursuant to Chapter 139, North Carolina General Statutes.

 

Diversion - a channel or ridge or combination thereof which is constructed across sloping land either on the contour or at a predetermined grade which purpose is to intercept and divert surface runoff before it gains sufficient volume and velocity to cause erosion and convey the surface runoff to a protected area.

 

Energy Dissipator - a structure or a shaped channel section with mechanical armoring placed at the outlet of pipes or conduits to receive and break down the energy from high velocity flow.

 

Erosion - the wearing away of land surface by the action of wind, water, gravity, or any combination thereof.

 

Erosion Control Officer - the person designated under Section 16 of this Ordinance.

 

Ground Cover - any natural vegetative growth or other material which renders the soil surface stable against accelerated erosion.

 

Groundwater Recharge - the infiltration of water into the earth, which may increase the total amount of water stored underground or only replenish supplies depleted through pumping or natural discharge.

 

High Quality Waters - means those classified as such in 15A NCAC 2B.0101(e) (5) - General Procedures, which is incorporated herein by reference to include further amendments pursuant to G.S. 150B-14(c).

 

     Explanatory Note:  The complete official definition of High Quality Waters is contained in 15A NCAC 2B.0101(e) (5) - General Procedures.  In general, High Quality Waters are defined by the Division of Environmental Management as those waters which are: those rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics; native trout waters; primary or functional nursery areas; critical habitat areas; all water supply watersheds which are either classified as

     WS-I or WS-II or those for which a formal petition for reclassification as WS-I or WS-II has been received by the Division of Environmental Management; and all Class SA (shellfish) waters.

 

High Quality Water (HQW) Zones - means areas in Coastal Counties

that are within 575 feet of High Quality Waters and for the remainder of the state areas that are within one mile and drain to HQW's).

 

Impervious Structure - any structure which prevents free seepage of rainwater into the ground, including but not limited to buildings, paved roads, paved parking lots, airport runways, etc.

 

Intermittent Stream - a stream or portion of a stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation. It receives little or no water from springs and no long-continued supply from melting snow or other sources. It is dry for a large part of the year.

 

Lake or Natural Watercourse - any stream, river, brook, swamp, sound, bay, creek, run, branch, canal, waterway, estuary, and any reservoir, lake or pond, natural or impounded, in which sediment may be moved or carried in suspension, and which could be damaged by accumulation of sediment; or any body of water which is or would be denoted by a solid blue line or solid blue shapes on United States Geological Survey topographic maps.

 

Land-disturbing Activity - means any use of the land by any person in residential, industrial, educational, institutional, or commercial development, highway and road construction and maintenance that results in a change in the natural cover or topography and that may cause or contribute to sedimentation.

 

Local Government - any county, incorporated village, town or city, or any combination of counties, incorporated villages, towns, and cities, acting through a joint program pursuant to the provisions of the Act.

 

Natural Erosion - the wearing away of the earth's surface by water, wind, or other natural agents under natural environmental conditions undisturbed by man.

 

Peak Discharge - the maximum instantaneous flow from a given storm condition at a specific location.

 

Person - any individual, partnership, firm, association, joint venture, public or private corporation, trust, estate, commission, board, public or private institution, utility, cooperative, interstate body, or other legal entity.

 

Person Conducting Land-disturbing Activity - any person who may be held responsible for a violation unless expressly provided otherwise by this Ordinance, the Act, or any order adopted pursuant to this Ordinance or the Act.

 

Person Responsible for the Violation - as used in this Ordinance means:

 

a.   the developer or other person who has or holds himself/ herself out as having financial or operational control over the land-disturbing activity; or

 

b.   the landowner or person in possession or control of the land when he/she has directly or indirectly allowed the land-disturbing activity or has benefited from it or he/she has failed to comply with any provision of this Ordinance, the Act, or any order adopted pursuant to this Ordinance or the Act as imposes a duty upon him/her.

 

Phase of Grading - one of two types of grading, rough or fine.

 

Plan - erosion and sediment control plan.

 

Sediment - solid particulate matter, both mineral and organic, that has been or is being transported by water, air, gravity, or ice from its site of origin.

 

Sedimentation - the process by which sediment resulting from accelerated erosion has been or is being transported off the site of the land-disturbing activity or into a lake or natural watercourse.

 

Siltation - sediment resulting from accelerated erosion which is settleable or removable by properly designed, constructed, and maintained control measures; and which has been transported from its point of origin within the site of a land-disturbing activity; and which has been deposited, or is in suspension in water.

 

Storm Drainage Facilities - the system of inlets, conduits, channels, ditches, and appurtenances which serve to collect and convey stormwater through and from a given drainage area.

 

Stormwater Runoff - means the direct runoff of water resulting from precipitation in any form.

 

Stream - a body of water flowing in a natural surface channel.  Flow may be continuous or only during wet periods.

 

Swale - an elongated depression in the land surface that is at least seasonally wet, is usually heavily vegetated, and is normally without flowing water. Swales conduct stormwater into primary drainage channels and provide some groundwater recharge.

 

Ten-Year Storm - means the surface runoff resulting from a rainfall of an intensity expected to be equaled or exceeded, on the average once in 10 years, and of a duration which will produce the maximum peak rate of runoff for the watershed of interest under average antecedent wetness conditions.

 

Tract - means all contiguous land and bodies of water being disturbed or to be disturbed as a unit, regardless of ownership.

 

Twenty-five Year Storm - means the surface runoff resulting from a rainfall of an intensity expected to be equalled or exceeded, on the average, once in 25 years, and of a duration which will produce the maximum peak rate of runoff from the watershed of interest under average antecedent wetness conditions.

 

Uncovered - means the removal of ground cover from, on, or above the soil surface.

 

Undertaken - means the initiating of any activity, or phase of activity, which results or will result in a change in the ground cover or topography of a tract of land.

 

Velocity - means the average velocity of flow through the cross-section of the main channel at the peak flow of the storm of interest. The cross-section of the main channel shall be that area defined by the geometry of the channel plus the area of the flow below the flood height defined by vertical lines at the main channel banks. Overload flows are not being included for the purpose of computing velocity of flow.

 

Waste - means surplus materials resulting from on-site construction and disposed of at other locations.

 

Wetland - areas that are inundated or saturated at a frequency and for a duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life requiring saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction.

 

Working Days - means days exclusive of Saturday and Sunday during which weather conditions or soil conditions permit land-disturbing activity to be undertaken.

 

SECTION 4 - JURISDICTION AND EFFECT

 

a.   Jurisdiction

 

     This ordinance shall apply within the Town of Chapel Hill and its extraterritorial jurisdiction.

 

b.   Effect

 

     It shall be unlawful, within the jurisdiction of this Ordinance, to engage in land-disturbing activity, except as provided herein, without first obtaining a permit as required by this Ordinance and without complying with the conditions of the issuance of said permit.

 

     Conflicts and duplications among portions of this Ordinance shall be resolved in favor of the more stringent regulation.

 

     Whenever conflicts exist between federal, state or local laws, ordinances, or rules, the more restrictive provision shall apply.

 

SECTION 5 - SCOPE AND EXCLUSIONS (COUNTY-WIDE)

 

This Ordinance shall apply to land-disturbing activities undertaken by any person in the Town of Chapel Hill, with the following exclusions:

 

a.   Agricultural Land

 

     Those undertaken on agricultural land for the production of plants and animals useful to man, including but not limited to: forage and sod crops, grains and feed crops, tobacco, cotton, and peanuts; dairy animals and dairy products; poultry and poultry products; livestock, including beef cattle, sheep, swine, horses, ponies, mules or goats, including the breeding and grazing of any or all such animals; bees and apiary products; fur animals.

 

b.   Forest Land

 

     Those undertaken on forest land for the production and harvesting of timber and timber products and which are conducted in accordance with "Forest Practice Guidelines Related to Water Quality" (best management practices) as adopted by the Department.  If land-disturbing activity undertaken on forest land for the production and harvesting of timber and timber products is not conducted in accordance with "Forest Practice Guidelines Related to Water Quality", the provisions of this ordinance shall apply to such activity and any related land-disturbing activity on the tract.

 

c.   Activities undertaken by persons as defined in G.S. 113A‑52(8) who are otherwise regulated by the provisions of G.S. 74‑46 through G.S. 74‑68, the Mining Act of 1971.

 

d.   State Jurisdiction

 

     Those land-disturbing activities over which the State by statute (G.S. 113A-56(a)), has exclusive regulatory jurisdiction, which are activities:

 

     (1)  conducted by the State,

     (2)  conducted by the United States,

     (3)  conducted by persons having the power of eminent domain,

     (4)  conducted by local governments,

     (5)  funded in whole or in part by the State or the United States.

 

SECTION 6 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

 

a.   Protection of Property - person(s) conducting land-disturbing activities shall take all reasonable measures to protect all public and private property from damage by such activities. This requirement shall apply to any areas to be disturbed, regardless of the size of the area to be uncovered.

 

b.   Erosion Control Plan Requirements - prior to the commencement of any land-disturbing activity that will result in the uncovering of more than 20,000 square feet of land, the person(s) conducting the land disturbing activity must prepare and submit an Erosion Control Plan for the proposed site.  The Plan must be approved and a Grading Permit obtained prior to the start of the disturbance.

 

SECTION 7 - BASIC CONTROL OBJECTIVES

 

An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan may be disapproved pursuant to Section 18 of this ordinance if the plan fails to address the following control objectives:

 

a.   Identify Critical Areas - on-site areas which are subject to severe erosion, and off-site areas which are especially vulnerable to damage from erosion and/or sedimentation, are to be identified and receive special attention, and appropriate mitigative measures are to be taken to protect those areas.

 

b.   Plan for Erosion Control - design the development and site plan so that the necessary sediment-trapping devices and erosion control measures can be accommodated and are accessible for maintenance and removal.  Observe the requirements and standards in Orange County's "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Manual".

 

c.   Limit Exposed Areas - all land-disturbing activities are to be planned and conducted to minimize the size of the area to be exposed at any one time.

 

d.   Limit Time of Exposure - all land-disturbing activities are to be planned and conducted to limit exposure to the shortest feasible time.

 

e.   Control Surface Water - surface water runoff originating upgrade of exposed areas should be controlled to reduce erosion and sediment loss during the period of exposure.

 

f.   Control Sedimentation - all land-disturbing activities are to be planned and conducted so as to prevent off-site sedimentation damage.

 

g.   Manage Storm Water Runoff - when the increase in the peak rates and velocity of storm water runoff resulting from a land-disturbing activity is sufficient to cause accelerated erosion of the receiving watercourse, plans are to include  measures to control the velocity and the rate of release at  the point of discharge so as to minimize accelerated erosion of the site and increased sedimentation of the stream.

 

SECTION 8 - MANDATORY DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY

 

No land-disturbing activity subject to the control of this Ordinance shall be undertaken except in accordance with the following mandatory standards:

 

a.   Buffer Zone

 

     1.   Unless otherwise provided, the width of a buffer zone is measured from the edge of the water to the nearest edge of the disturbed area, with the 25 percent of the strip nearer the land disturbing activity containing the natural or artificial means of confining visible siltation.

 

          No land-disturbing activity during periods of construction or improvement to land shall be permitted in proximity to a lake or natural watercourse unless a buffer zone is provided along the margin of the watercourse of sufficient width to confine visible siltation within the twenty-five percent (25%) of the buffer zone nearest the land-disturbing activity.  Waters that have been classified as trout waters by the Environmental Management Commission shall have an undisturbed buffer zone 25 feet wide or of sufficient width to confine visible siltation within the twenty-five percent (25%) of the buffer zone nearest the land-disturbing activity, whichever is greater.  Provided, however, that the Town may approve plans which include land-disturbing activity along trout waters when the duration of said disturbance would be temporary and the extent of said disturbance would be minimal.  This subdivision shall not apply to a land-disturbing activity in connection with the construction of facilities to be located on, over, or under a lake or natural watercourse.

 

     2.   The 25-foot minimum width for an undisturbed buffer zone adjacent to designated trout waters shall be measured horizontally from the top of the bank.

 

     3.   Where a temporary and minimal disturbance is permitted as an exception by Section 8(a)(1) of this ordinance, land-disturbing activities in the buffer zone adjacent to designated trout waters shall be limited to a maximum of 10% of the total length of the buffer zone within the tract to be distributed such that there is not more than 100 linear feet of disturbance in each 1000 linear feet of buffer zone.  Larger areas may be disturbed with the written approval of the Director of the Division of Land Resources of the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.

 

     4.   No land-disturbing activity shall be undertaken within a buffer zone adjacent to designated trout waters that will cause adverse temperature fluctuations, as set forth in 15 NCAC 2B.0211 "Fresh Surface Water Classification and Standards", in these waters.

 

b.   Graded Slopes and Fills

 

     The angle for graded slopes and fills shall be no greater than the angle which can be retained by vegetative cover or other adequate erosion control devices or structures. In any event, slopes left exposed will, within 30 working days of completion of any phase of grading, be planted or otherwise provided with ground cover, devices, or structures sufficient to restrain erosion.

 

c.   Ground Cover

 

     Whenever land-disturbing activity is undertaken on a tract comprising more than 20,000 square feet, if more than 20,000 square feet are uncovered, the person conducting the land-disturbing activity shall install such sedimentation and erosion control devices and practices as are sufficient to retain the sediment generated by the land-disturbing activity within the boundaries of the tract during construction upon and development of said tract, and shall plant or otherwise provide a permanent ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion after completion of construction or development.  Except as provided in Section 8(d)(2)(e) of this ordinance, provisions for a ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion must be accomplished within 30 working days or 120 calendar days, whichever period is shorter, following completion of construction or development.

 

d.   Design and Performance of Control Measures

 

     1.   Except as provided in Section 8(d)(2)(b) of this ordinance and in the standard for sediment ponds in the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Manual, erosion and sedimentation control measures, structures, and devices shall be so planned, designed, and constructed as to provide protection from accelerated erosion and sedimentation from the calculated maximum peak rates of runoff from the ten-year frequency storm.  Runoff rates shall be calculated using the procedures in the USDA Soil Conservation Service's "National Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices", or other calculation procedures acceptable to the Erosion Control Officer.

 

     2.   In High Quality Water (HQW) zones the following design standards shall apply:

 

          (a)  Uncovered areas in HQW zones shall be limited at any time to a maximum total area of 20 acres within the boundaries of the tract.  Only the portion of the land-disturbing activity within the HQW zone shall be governed by this section.  Larger areas may be uncovered within the boundaries of the tract with the written approval of the Director of the Division of Land Resources of the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.

 

          (b)  Erosion and sedimentation control measures, structures, and devices within HQW zones shall be so planned, designed, and constructed to provide protection from the runoff of the 25-year storm which produces the maximum peak rate of runoff.  The peak rate of runoff shall be calculated according to procedures in the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service's "National Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices" or according to procedures adopted by any other agency of this state or the United States or any generally recognized organization or association.

 

          (c)  Sediment ponds (also called "sediment basins") with HQW zones shall be designed and constructed such that the pond will have a settling efficiency of at least 70% for the 40 micron (0.04 mm) size soil particle transported into the basin by the runoff of that 2-year storm which produces the maximum peak rate of runoff.  The peak rate of runoff shall be calculated according to procedures in the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service's "National Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices" or according to procedures adopted by any other agency of this State or the United States or any generally recognized organization or association.

 

          (d)  Newly constructed open channels in HQW zones shall be designed and constructed with side slopes no steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical if a vegetative cover is used for stabilization unless soil conditions permit a steeper slope or where the slopes are stabilized by using mechanical devices, structural devices or other acceptable devices.  In any event, the angle for side slopes shall be sufficient to restrain accelerated erosion.

 

          (e)  Ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion must be provided for any portion of a land-disturbing activity in a HQW zone within 15 working days or 60 calendar days, whichever period is shorter, following completion of construction or development.

 

e.   Prior Plan Approval

 

     No person shall initiate any land-disturbing activity on a tract if more than 20,000 square feet are to be uncovered unless, thirty or more days prior to initiating the activity, an erosion and sedimentation control plan for such activity is filed with, approved by, and a Grading Permit obtained from the County.

 

SECTION 9 - STORMWATER OUTLET PROTECTION

 

a.   Control of Velocity

 

     Persons shall plan and conduct land-disturbing activity so that the post-construction velocity of the 10-year storm runoff in the receiving watercourse to the discharge point does not exceed the greater of:

 

     (1)  the velocity established by the table in paragraph d of this subsection; or

 

     (2)  the velocity of the 10-year storm runoff in the receiving watercourse prior to development.

 

     If conditions (1) or (2) of this paragraph cannot be met, then the receiving watercourse to and including the discharge point shall be designed and constructed to withstand the expected velocity anywhere the velocity exceeds the "prior to development" velocity by 10%.

 

b.   Acceptable Management Measures

 

     Measures applied alone or in combination to satisfy the intent of this subchapter are acceptable if there are no objectionable secondary consequences. Innovative techniques and ideas will be considered and may be used when shown to have the potential to produce successful results. Some alternatives are to:

 

     (1)  avoid increases in surface runoff volume and velocity by including measures to promote infiltration to compensate for increased runoff from area rendered impervious;

 

     (2)  avoid increases in stormwater discharge velocities by using vegetated or roughened swales and waterways in lieu of closed drains and high velocity paved sections;

 

     (3)  provide energy dissipators at outlets of storm drainage facilities to reduce flow velocities to the point of discharge; these may range from simple rip-rapped sections to complex structures;

 

     (4)  protect watercourses subject to accelerated erosion by improving cross-sections and/or providing erosion-resistant lining.

 

c.   Exceptions - this rule shall not apply in areas where it can be demonstrated that stormwater discharge velocities will not create an erosion problem in the receiving watercourse.

 

d.   The following is a table of permissible velocity for stormwater discharges:

 

     MATERIAL                    MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE VELOCITIES

                                      (f.p.s.)        (m.p.s.)

Fine Sand (noncolloidal)                 2.5              .8

Sandy Loam (noncolloidal)                2.5              .8

Silt Loam (noncolloidal)                 3.0              .9

Ordinary Firm Loam                       3.5             1.1

Fine Gravel                              5.0             1.5

Stiff Clay (very colloidal)              5.0             1.5

Graded, Loam to Cobbles (noncolloidal)   5.0             1.5

Graded, Silt to Cobbles (colloidal)      5.5             1.7

Alluvial Silts (noncolloidal)            3.5             1.1

Alluvial Silts (colloidal)               5.0             1.5

Coarse Gravel (noncolloidal)             6.0             1.8

Cobbles and Shingles                     5.5             1.7

Shale and Hard Pans                      6.0             1.8

 

Source:   Adapted from recommendations by Special Committee on Irrigation Research, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1926, for channels with straight alignment. For sinuous channels, multiply allowable velocity by 0.95 for slightly sinuous channels, by 0.9 for moderately sinuous channels, and by 0.8 for highly sinuous channels.

 

SECTION 10 - BORROW AND WASTE AREAS

 

When the person conducting the land-disturbing activity is also the person conducting the borrow and waste disposal activity, areas from which borrow is obtained and which are not regulated by the provisions of the Mining Act of 1971, and waste areas for surplus materials other than landfills regulated by the Department's Division of Solid Waste Management shall be considered as part of the land-disturbing activity where the borrow material is being used or from which the waste material originated. When the person conducting the land-disturbing activity is not the person obtaining the borrow and/or disposing of the waste, these areas shall be considered a separate land-disturbing activity.

 

SECTION 11 - ACCESS AND HAUL ROADS

 

Temporary access and haul roads, other than public roads, constructed or used in connection with any land-disturbing activity shall be considered a part of such activity.

 

SECTION 12 - OPERATIONS IN LAKES OR OTHER NATURAL WATERCOURSES

 

Land-disturbing activity in connection with construction in, on, over or under a lake or natural watercourse shall be planned and conducted in such a manner as to minimize the extent and duration of disturbance of the stream channel. The relocation of a stream, where relocation is an essential part of the proposed activity, shall be planned and executed so as to minimize changes in the stream flow characteristics except when justification for significant alteration to flow characteristics is provided. Every effort shall be made to maintain buffer zones consisting of existing vegetation between the land-disturbing activity and the watercourse.

 

SECTION 13 - RESPONSIBILITY FOR INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE

 

During the development of a site, the person engaged in or conducting the land-disturbing activity shall be responsible for installing and maintaining all temporary and permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures and facilities as required by the approved or revised Erosion Control Plan, any provision of the Ordinance, the Act, or any order adopted pursuant to this Ordinance or the Act. The responsibility for installing and maintaining permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures and facilities after completion of the site development shall lie with the land owner or person in possession or control of the land except facilities and measures installed within road or street rights-of-way or easements accepted for maintenance by a government agency.

 

SECTION 13.1 - OFF-SITE FACILITIES

 

The Erosion Control Officer may allow stormwater runoff that is discharged in volumes or at rates in excess of those otherwise allowed by this Ordinance to be discharged into drainage facilities off the site of development if the off-site facilities and the channels leading to them are designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the standards of this Ordinance. Adequate provision must be made for the sharing of the construction and maintenance expenses of the facilities. A request to use off-site drainage facilities and all information related to the proposed off-site facilities should be made part of the developer's erosion and sedimentation control plan.

 

SECTION 14 - ADDITIONAL MEASURES

 

Whenever the Erosion Control Officer determines that significant sedimentation is occurring as a result of land-disturbing activity, despite application and maintenance of protection practices, the person conducting the land-disturbing activity or the person responsible for maintenance will be required to take additional protective action.

 

SECTION 15 - EXISTING UNCOVERED AREAS

 

a.   All uncovered areas existing on the effective date of this Ordinance which (1) resulted from land-disturbing activities not excluded under Section 5, and (2)) if such areas are outside the University Lake Watershed and exceed 20,000 square feet, and (3) are subject to continued accelerated erosion, and (4) are causing off-site damage from sedimentation, shall be provided with a ground cover or other protective measures, structures, or devices sufficient to restrain accelerated erosion and control off-site sedimentation.

 

b.   Notice of Violation

 

     The Erosion Control Officer will serve upon the landowner or other person in possession or control of the land written notice of violation by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or other means reasonably calculated to give actual notice. The notice will set forth the measures needed to comply and will state the time within which such measures must be completed. In determining the measures required and the time allowed for compliance, the authority serving notice shall take into consideration the economic feasibility, technology, and quantity of work required, and shall set reasonable and attainable time limits for compliance.

 

c.   The Erosion Control Officer reserves the right to require  preparation and approval of an erosion control plan in any instance wherein extensive control measures are required.

 

d.   This rule shall not require ground cover on cleared land  forming the future basin of a planned reservoir unless the disturbance and length of time of the exposure prior to the filling of the reservoir will result in erosion and sedimentation of the downstream channel.

 

SECTION 16 - EROSION CONTROL OFFICER

 

The Orange County Erosion Control Officer will be responsible for carrying out the provisions of this Ordinance, unless the Town appoints, employs or contracts with another qualified person(s) to perform such responsibilities.

 

SECTION 17 - PERMITS

 

a.   No person shall undertake any land-disturbing activity which would require the uncovering of 20,000 square feet or of land without first obtaining the required approvals and permits from the Erosion Control Officer. Permit application forms must be signed by the landowner or his authorized agent. The agent signing must have a signed letter of authorization from the owner.

 

     No permit is required for the following activities:

 

     1.   For the purpose of fighting fires.

 

     2.   For the stockpiling of raw or processed sand, stone, or gravel in material processing plants and storage yards, provided that sediment control measures have been utilized to protect against off-site damage.

 

     3.   For disturbances that do not exceed 20,000 square feet in surface area. In determining the area, lands under one or diverse ownership being developed as a unit will be aggregated.

 

b.   Erosion Control Plan Approvals

 

     An Erosion Control Plan must be submitted to the Erosion Control Officer when the proposed land disturbance is greater than 20,000 square feet.

 

c.   Before starting a land-disturbing activity greater than 20,000 square feet, the owner or his agent shall obtain a Grading Permit from the Erosion Control Officer. Erosion Control Plans must be approved before a Grading Permit will be issued. Grading permits may be obtained when the Plan or Waiver is approved or prior to the start of the land disturbance.

 

d.   Expiration of Permits

 

     Erosion Control Plan Approvals expire one year after the approval date unless the land disturbance is started as defined below.

 

     A Grading Permit must be obtained before beginning the disturbance and may be obtained at any time as long as the Plan Approval is valid.  Grading Permits expire with the expiration of the Plan Approval unless the disturbance is begun.  Once the disturbance begins, a Grading Permit is valid for a period of two years starting with the commencement of the disturbance, as defined below.  The Grading Permit must be renewed if the disturbance continues more than two years.  The renewal fee is one half the original fee and is valid for one year.

 

     For the purpose of determining the expiration date of the plan approval and grading permit, the land-disturbing activity is considered to have started when the preconstruction conference has been held, the necessary erosion control practices have been properly installed, and the site clearing or grading has begun.

 

e.   Orange County may establish such fees as considered necessary to defray costs of administering this ordinance on behalf of the Town.

 

f.   Pursuant to G.S. Section 153A‑357, no building permit shall be issued unless an erosion control plan has been approved, where such approval is required, for the site of the activity or a tract including the site of the activity.

 

g.   Whenever a person conducting a land-disturbing activity is not complying with the provisions of this ordinance, the Grading Permit, the Approved Erosion Control Plan or any amendments to the Plan, the Erosion Control Officer may revoke the Grading Permit for the site.  Notice of Revocation shall be sent by registered or certified mail to the person conducting the land-disturbing activity.  In the event delivery cannot be accomplished by registered or certified mail, it may be accomplished in any manner provided in Rule 4(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.  Upon receipt of the Revocation Notice, the person responsible must immediately order all land-disturbing activities to cease except those which are specifically directed towards bringing the site into compliance.  Once the site has been inspected and remedial work approved by the Erosion Control Officer, the responsible party may reapply for a Grading Permit and pay the appropriate fee.  Resumption of land-disturbing activities other than those necessary to bring the site back into compliance before the reissuance of the Grading Permit will constitute a violation of the ordinance.  The person conducting the land-disturbing activity may appeal the revocation of a Grading Permit following procedures set out in Section 21(f) of this Ordinance.

 

SECTION 18 - EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLANS

 

a.   Plan Requirement

 

     An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared for all land-disturbing activities subject to this Ordinance whenever the proposed activity is to be undertaken on a tract comprising more than 20,000 square feet, if more than 20,000 square feet are to be uncovered.  Three (3) copies of the Plan shall be filed with the Erosion Control Officer, one of which will be forwarded to the Orange or Durham County (as applicable) Soil and Water Conservation District, at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the proposed activity.

 

b.   The Orange or Durham County Soil and Water Conservation District, within 20 days of receipt of any plan, or within such additional time as may be prescribed by the Chapel Hill Town Council, or such other body or officer designated by the Council, shall review such plan and submit its comments and recommendations to the Erosion Control officer. Failure of the District to submit its comments and recommendations to the Erosion Control Officer within the prescribed time will not delay final action on the plan.

 

c.   Review and Response to Plans

 

     The Erosion Control Officer will review each complete plan submitted and within 30 days of receipt thereof will notify the person submitting the plan that it has been approved, approved with modifications, approved with conditions, approved with performance reservations, or disapproved.  Examples of conditions of approval are, but are not limited to: channel stabilization must be successful or another type of lining must be used; delineating certain areas to be graded and stabilized within a specified number of days to reduce the potential for erosion and protect critical areas; providing a performance security to provide permanent ground cover; and requiring the person financially responsible to retain the services of a professional engineer or architect to supervise implementation of the approved erosion control plan.

 

     Failure to approve or disapprove a complete erosion and sedimentation control plan within 30 days of receipt of the complete plan shall be deemed approval. Denial of a plan must specifically state in writing the reasons for denial. The County must approve or deny a revised plan within 15 days of receipt, or it is deemed to be approved. If, following commencement of a land-disturbing activity pursuant to an approved plan, the County determines that the plan is inadequate to meet the requirements of this Ordinance, the County may require such revisions as are necessary to comply with this Ordinance.

 

     When the person or firm submitting the plan fails to respond to comments or correspondence from the Erosion Control Division staff with either revised plans or written correspondence within 90 days, the Division will assume that the application will give warning in writing to the person or firm submitting the plan before terminating the review.  Plan review fees are not refundable when an application is abandoned.

 

     In order to be considered complete, a plan submitted for approval must contain the proposed erosion control plan, the completed application, the statement of financial responsibility and ownership, and the plan review fee. The 30-day review period begins when all of the components of the complete plan are received.

 

d.   The plan required by this section shall contain such architectural and engineering drawings, maps, assumptions, calculations, and narrative statements as are needed to adequately describe the proposed development of the tract and the measures planned to comply with the requirements of this ordinance. The plan shall comply with all applicable State and local regulations for erosion and sediment control. Plan content may vary to meet the needs of specific site requirements.

 

e.   Plan Amendments

 

     Application for amendment of an erosion control plan in written and/or graphic form may be made at any time under the same conditions as the original application. Until such time as said amendment is approved by the Erosion Control Officer, the land-disturbing activities shall not proceed except in accordance with the erosion control plan as originally approved.  After approving the plan, if the Erosion Control Officer, either upon review of such plan or on inspection of the job site, determines that a significant risk of accelerated erosion or off-site sedimentation exists, revisions to the plan will be required. Pending the preparation of the revised plan, work shall cease or shall continue under conditions outlined by the Erosion Control Officer.

 

f.   Statement of Ownership and Financial Responsibility

 

     Erosion Control Plans may be disapproved unless accompanied by an authorized "Statement of Ownership and Financial Responsibility". This statement shall be signed by the person financially responsible for the land-disturbing activity or his/her attorney in fact. The statement shall include the mailing and street addresses of the principal place of business of the person financially responsible and of the owner of the land or their registered agents.  If not a resident of North Carolina, the applicant must designate a North Carolina agent and include that agent's name and address in the statement for the purpose of receiving notice of compliance or noncompliance with the plan, the Act, this Ordinance, or rules or orders adopted or issued pursuant to this Ordinance.

 

g.   Review of Other Environmental Documents

 

     Any plan submitted for a land-disturbing activity for which an environmental document (either an assessment or impact statement) is required by the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1, et seq.) shall be deemed incomplete until a complete environmental document is available for review.  The Town shall promptly notify the person submitted the plan that the 30-day time limit for review of the plan pursuant to Section 18(c) of this ordinance shall not begin until a complete environmental document is available for review.

 

h.   Consideration of Applicants Past Performance

 

     An Erosion Control Plan may be disapproved upon a finding that an applicant, or any parent or subsidiary corporation if the applicant is a corporation:

 

     1.   is conducting or has conducted land-disturbing activity without an approved plan, or has received notice of violation of a plan previously approved by the Commission, or a local government pursuant to the Act and has not complied with the notice within the time specified in the notice;

 

     2.   has failed to pay a civil penalty assessed pursuant to the Act or a local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Act which is due and for which no appeal is pending;

 

     3.   has been convicted of a misdemeanor pursuant to G.S. 113A-64(b) or any criminal provision of a local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Act; or

 

     4.   has failed to substantially comply with State rules or local ordinances and regulations adopted pursuant to the Act.

 

     For purposes of this subsection (h), an applicant's record may be considered for only the two years prior to the application date.

 

i.   Erosion Control Plan Available On Site

 

     A copy of the approved Erosion Control Plan and any amendments and required revisions shall be kept on the job site at all times.

 

SECTION 18.1 - EROSION CONTROL STANDARDS

 

a.   Requirements, standards, and specification for erosion control plans and erosion control techniques, measures, and devices are contained in the "Orange County Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Manual."  Copies of the Manual are available form the Erosion Control Division of the Orange County Planning Department.

 

b.   Corrections, revisions, and amendments to the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Manual shall be made upon recommendation of the Erosion Control Officer and approval by the Orange County Board of Commissioners.

 

c.   Nothing in this Section shall be construed to allow approval of a plan which is inconsistent with the mandatory standards set forth in Section 8 of this Ordinance or any other provision of this Ordinance.

 

SECTION 19 - APPEALS

 

Except as provided in Section 19(b) of this ordinance, the appeal of a disapproval or approval with modifications or conditions of approval of a plan shall be governed by the following provisions:

 

a.   The disapproval of, modification of, or conditions of approval attached to any proposed erosion control plan by the Erosion Control Officer shall entitle the person submitting the plan to an appeal of the decision to the Town Manager.  If the Town Manager upholds the decision, the person shall be entitled to a public hearing if such person submits written demand for a hearing within 15 days after receipt of written notice of disapproval, modification, or conditions of approval.

 

     1.   Hearings held pursuant to this section shall be conducted by the Chapel Hill Planning Board within 30 days after receipt of written demand for such hearing is made by the person submitting the plan.

 

     2.   The Planning Board shall make recommendations to the Council within 30 days after the date of the hearing on such erosion control plan.

 

     3.   The Council will render its final decision on any erosion control plan upon which a hearing is requested within 30 days of receipt of the recommendations from the Planning Board.

 

b.   In the event that the Council upholds the disapproval, modification, or conditions of approval of a proposed erosion control plan following the hearing, the person submitting the erosion control plan shall be entitled to appeal the local government's action to the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission as provided in Section 113A‑61(c) of the General Statutes and Title 15A NCAC 4B.0018(d).

 

c.   Appeal of Erosion Control Plan Disapproval Based on Applicant's Past Performance

 

     In the event that an erosion control plan is disapproved pursuant to Section 18(h) of this ordinance, the Town shall notify the Director of the Division of Land Resources of such disapproval within 10 days.  The Town shall advise the applicant and the Director of the Division of Land Resources in writing as to the specific reasons that the plan was disapproved.  The applicant may appeal the Town's disapproval of the plan pursuant to Section 18(h) of this ordinance directly to the Commission.

 

SECTION 20 - COMPLIANCE WITH PLAN REQUIREMENTS

 

Any person engaged in land-disturbing activities who fails to file a plan in accordance with this Ordinance, or who conducts a land-disturbing activity except in accordance with provisions of an approved plan shall be deemed in violation of this Ordinance.

 

SECTION 21 - INSPECTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS

 

a.   Site Inspections

 

     Agents, officials, or other qualified persons authorized by the Town will periodically inspect the sites of land-disturbing activity to determine:

 

     1.   compliance with the Act, this Ordinance, or rules or orders adopted or issued pursuant to this Ordinance;

 

     2.   whether the activity is being conducted in accordance with an approved plan; and

 

     3.   whether the measures required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sediment resulting from land-disturbing activity.

 

     Notice of the right to inspect shall be included in the notification of plan approval.

 

b.   Notice of Violation

 

     If, through inspection, it is determined that a person engaged in land-disturbing activity has failed to comply with the Act, this Ordinance, or rules or orders adopted or issued pursuant to this ordinance, or has failed to comply with the approved plan, a notice of violation  shall be served upon that person by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or other means reasonably calculated to give actual notice. The notice shall set forth the measures necessary to achieve compliance with the plan, specify a reasonable time period within which such measures must be completed, and warn that failure to correct the violation within the time period will result in the assessment of a civil penalty or other enforcement action. However, no time period for compliance need be given for failure to submit an erosion control plan for approval, or for obstructing, hampering, or interfering with an authorized representative while in the process of carrying out their official duties.  If the person engaged in land-disturbing activity fails to comply within the time specified, enforcement action shall be initiated.

 

     In the event service cannot be accomplished by registered or certified mail, it may be accomplished in any manner provided in rule (4)j of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

c.   The Erosion Control Officer shall have the power to conduct such investigations as he may reasonably deem necessary to carry out his duties as prescribed in this Ordinance, and for this purpose to enter at reasonable times upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of investigating and inspecting the sites of any land-disturbing activities.  No person shall refuse entry or access to any authorized representative or agent of the Town who requests entry for purposes of inspection, and who presents appropriate credentials, nor shall any person obstruct, hamper or interfere with any such representative while in the process of carrying out his official duties.

 

d.   The Erosion Control Officer shall also have the power to require written statements, or the filing of reports under oath, with respect to pertinent questions relating to land-disturbing activities.

 

e.   The Erosion Control Officer shall have the power to revoke grading permits issued by the Erosion Control Division as provided for under Section 17(c) of this Ordinance.

 

f.   Whenever any person is violating this Ordinance or any rule or order adopted or issued pursuant to this Ordinance, or any term, condition, or provisions of any approved erosion control plan, the Erosion Control Officer may, either before or after the institution of any other action or proceeding authorized by this Ordinance, issue a stop work order for the site on which the violation has occurred. Upon issuance of such an order and the posting of same on the site of the violation, all work on the site of the violation shall cease, except those activities necessary to bring the site into compliance with this Ordinance. Notice of the stop work order shall be in writing, directed to the person conducting the land-disturbing activity and shall state the reasons for the issuance of the order, and the conditions under which work may be resumed. Notice shall be given by registered or certified mail.

 

     In the event service cannot be accomplished by registered or certified mail, it may be accomplished in any manner provided in rule 4(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

     The person conducting the land-disturbing activity may appeal a stop work order to the Council within a period of five days after the order is issued. Notice of appeal shall be given in writing to the Council, with a copy to the Erosion Control Officer. The Council shall conduct a hearing at their next scheduled meeting at which the appellant and the Erosion Control Officer or inspector shall be permitted to submit relevant evidence, and shall rule on the appeal as expeditiously as possible. Pending the ruling by the Council on an appeal, no further work shall take place in violation of a stop work order.

 

SECTION 22 - PENALTIES

 

a.   Civil Penalties

 

     1.   Assessment of Penalties

 

          Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Ordinance or rules or orders adopted or issued pursuant to this Ordinance, or who initiates or continues a land-disturbing activity for which an erosion control plan is required except in accordance with the terms, conditions, and provisions of an approved plan, shall be subject to a civil penalty of $500 except that the penalty for failure to submit an erosion control plan shall be as provided in a.3. of this section.  No penalty shall be assessed until the person alleged to be in violation has been notified of the violation by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or other means reasonably calculated to provide actual notice to the offender. The notice shall describe the violation with reasonable particularity, specify a reasonable time period within which the violation must be corrected, and warn that failure to correct the violation within the time period will result in the assessment of a civil penalty or other enforcement action.  If, after the allotted time period has expired, the violator has not completed corrective action, a civil penalty may be assessed from the date of receipt of the Notice of Violation. However, no time period for compliance need be given for failure to submit an Erosion Control Plan for approval or for obstructing, hampering or interfering with an authorized representative while in the process of carrying out his official duties.  Each day of a continuing violation shall constitute a separate violation under Section 22.a.1.

 

     2.   Demand for Payment of Penalty

 

          The Town Manager shall make written demand for payment upon the person responsible for the violation, and shall set forth in detail a description of the violation for which the penalty has been invoked.  Notice of the assessment shall be by registered or certified mail or other means reasonably calculated to give actual notice.  If payment is not received or equitable settlement reached within 30 days after demand for payment is made, the matter shall be referred to the Town or County attorney for institution of a civil action in the name of the Town or County in the appropriate division of the General Courts of Justice for recovery of the penalty. Such civil actions must be filed within three (3) years of the date the final decision was served on the violator.

 

     3.   Any person who fails to submit an erosion control plan for approval pursuant to this Ordinance shall be subject to a single, noncontinuing civil penalty of one thousand dollars ($1000).  Any person who is subject to a civil penalty under this subdivision may be subject to additional civil penalties for any violation of any other provision of this Ordinance or any rule or order adopted or issued pursuant to this Ordinance by the Town of Chapel Hill.

 

     4.   Civil penalties collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be used or disbursed as directed by G.S. 13A‑64(a).

 

b.   Criminal Penalties

 

     Any person who knowingly or willingly violates any provision of this Ordinance or rule or order adopted or issued pursuant to this Ordinance, or who knowingly or willfully initiates or continues a land-disturbing activity for which an erosion control plan is required except in accordance with the terms, conditions, and provisions of an approved plan shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment not to exceed 90 days or by a fine not to exceed $5,000, or by both, at the discretion of the Court.

 

SECTION 23 - INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

a.   Whenever the governing body of the Town or County has reasonable cause to believe that any person is violating or threatening to violate this Ordinance or any rule or order adopted or issued pursuant to this Ordinance, or any term, condition, or provision of an approved erosion control plan, it may, either before or after the institution of any other action or proceeding authorized by this Ordinance, institute a civil action in the name of the Town or County for injunctive relief to restrain the violation or threatened violation. The action shall be brought in the Superior Court of Orange County or Durham County, as applicable.

 

b.   Upon determination by a court that an alleged violation is occurring or is threatened, it shall enter such orders or judgments as are necessary to abate the violation or to prevent the threatened violation. The institution of an action for injunctive relief under this section shall not relieve any party to such proceedings from any civil or criminal penalty prescribed for violations of this Ordinance.

 

SECTION 24 - SEVERABILITY

 

If any one or more sections or portions thereof of this Ordinance are held to be invalid or unenforceable, all other sections and portions thereof shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect.

 

SECTION 25 - EFFECTIVE DATE

 

This Ordinance will become effective upon adoption by the Council of Chapel Hill and the approval of the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.

 

Explanatory Note:  The Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance was originally adopted by the Council on September 22, 1986.

 

SECTION 26 - REVISIONS TO THIS ORDINANCE

 

The Town shall review all the Commission's revisions to the Model Ordinance and, within 90 Days of receipt of the recommended revisions, submit draft amendments to the Commission for its consideration and comments.  Within 150 days after receipt of the Commissions's comments, the Town will formally consider proposed amendments and to the extent deemed necessary by the Town, incorporate the amendments into the Erosion Control Ordinance.

 

This the 22nd day of February, 1993.

 

 

A RESOLUTION SCHEDULING A JOINT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING

(93-2-22/R-5)

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill hereby concurs to scheduling a joint planning public hearing with the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and the Orange County Board of Commissioners at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 15th.

 

This the 22nd day of February, 1993.

 

 

A RESOLUTION APPROVING REVISION NO. 1 TO THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE LOW RENT CONVENTIONAL HOUSING PROGRAM FOR JULY 1, 1993 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1993 FOR PROJECT NO (S) 46-1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9

(93-2-22/R-6.1)

 

WHEREAS, the Manager has submitted a public housing budget for fiscal year ending June 30, 1993; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the proposed expenditures are necessary in the efficient and economical operations of the Housing Authority for the purpose of serving low-income families; and

 

WHEREAS, the budget indicates a source of funding adequate of cover all proposed expenditures; and

 

WHEREAS, all proposed rental charges and expenditures will be consistent with provisions of law and the Annual Contributions Contract; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council hereby certifies that the Town's Authority is in compliance with the provisions of Section 207 (a) of the Authority shall at least once a year re-examine the income of families living in the Projects (a); and

 

WHEREAS, all persons responsible for 75 or more units of public housing are hereby certified by an approved certifying organization's; and

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 307, Part II of the Consolidated Annual Contributions Contracts, the Town's Authority hereby certifies that all administrative salaries are comparable to local practice, based on a comparability study date of January 1989 which is on file for HUD review;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves Revision No. 1 to the operating budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1992.

 

This the 22nd day of February of 1993.

 

 

A RESOLUTION APPROVING REVISION NO. 1 TO THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE LOW RENT LEASED HOUSING PROGRAM FOR JULY 1, 1992 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1993 FOR PROJECT NO (S) 46-3 (93-2-22/R-6.2)

 

WHEREAS, the Manager has submitted a budget for fiscal year ending June 30, 1993; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the proposed expenditures are necessary in the efficient and economical operations of the Housing Authority for the purpose of serving low-income families; and

 

WHEREAS, the budget indicates a source of funding adequate to cover all proposed expenditures; and

 

WHEREAS, all proposed rental charges and expenditures will be consistent with provisions of law and the Annual Contributions Contract; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council hereby certifies that the Town's Authority is in compliance with the provisions of Section 207 (a) of the Consolidated Annual Contributions Contract in that the Town's Authority shall at least once a year re-examine the income of families living in the Project (s); and

 

WHEREAS, all persons responsible for 75 or more units of public housing are hereby certified by an approved certifying organization's; and

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 307, Part II of the Consolidated Annual Contributions Contracts, the Town's Authority hereby certifies that all administrative salaries are comparable to local practice, based on a comparability study date of January 1989 which is on file for HUD review;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the operating budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1993.

 

This the 22nd day of February 1993.

 

 

A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THAT THE PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING MANAGEMENT DUTIES HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY AN APPROVED CERTIFYING AGENCY (93-2-22/R-6.3)

 

WHEREAS, Tina Vaughn, Director of the Department of Housing and Community Development, and Harold Wolfe, Housing Officer, have been certified by the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials as a Public Housing Manager; and

 

WHEREAS, the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials is an approved Certifying Agency; and

 

WHEREAS, this person performs housing management duties;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the person involved in the performance of housing management duties will meet certification requirements as set forth in Federal Register Volume 41, Number 190, Wednesday, September 29, 1976; pp. 43088-43092, and the salary of such person is an eligible operating expenditure.

 

This the 22nd day of February, 1993.

 

 

 

Council Member Andresen suggested two modifications to the minutes of February 1st.

 

 

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 25TH AS PRESENTED AND FEBRUARY 1ST AS MODIFIED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

Council Member Brown said the staff had done a good job in making its recommendations.  She suggested that funding for energy improvements come from the General Fund rather than the Capital Improvements Program.  Mr. Horton said $1,000 to $2,000 items could be paid out of maintenance accounts in the General Fund.  Council Member Brown said she did not have problems funding projects in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) if they could move ahead quickly with implementation.  Mr. Horton noted that the CIP had been cut back in an effort to be financially prudent.

 

Council Member Werner inquired about the estimated annual expenditures and the estimated payback period.  Council Member Brown inquired whether staff could investigate State energy-related program proposals.  Mr. Horton said yes.

 

Council Member Brown proposed that Resolution 7 be amended to include solar energy and other alternative energy sources.  Council Member Andresen said although she favored solar energy, this would add quite a bit to the scope of the program.  Council Member Brown said the Citizens Energy Task Force rather than the staff would handle the proposed program.  Mr. Horton said the task force might be able to make broad reviews of proposals.  Council Member Werner suggested that the task force membership might need to expanded if the task force's charge was expanded.  Council Member Brown said more members could be added if necessary.  She noted that energy audits of Town buildings had been performed.

 

RESOLUTION 7 WAS ADOPTED AS AMENDED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

 

A RESOLUTION RESPONDING TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITIZENS' ENERGY TASK FORCE AND RENEWING THE CHARGE OF THE CITIZENS' ENERGY TASK FORCE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR (93-2-22/R-7)

 

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, on February 24, 1992, established a Citizens' Energy Task Force charged to 1) review the EPA's Green Lights Program, 2) prepare an implementation plan, 3) make a recommendation regarding joining the EPA's Green Lights program, and 4) make recommendations regarding other energy efficiency measures; and

 

WHEREAS, the Citizens' Energy Task Force, on November 23, 1992, reported their findings to the Council, recommending 1) that the Town not enroll in the EPA's Green Lights Program, 2) that the Town conduct lighting surveys and establish it's own lighting efficiency program, and 3) that the charge of the Citizens' Energy Task Force be expanded and renewed;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council accepts and approves the basic recommendations of the Citizens' Energy Task Force and commends the Task Force for their work during the past year; and

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby extends and renews the charge of the Citizens' Energy Task Force for a period of one year ending on February 28,1994; and

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council charges the Task Force to:

 

1.   Make specific recommendations for changes to codes and ordinances that would encourage energy efficiency and use of renewable energy resources with particular emphasis on solar energy within the municipal government and within the Chapel Hill community at large,

 

2.   Continue to explore the available literature with a view toward identifying new technologies and new opportunities for the Town of Chapel Hill to reduce our energy bills, and

 

3.   Provide the Town Council with progress reports after six, months and after one year, identifying their activities, including any significant findings and specific recommendations.

 

This the 22nd day of February, 1993.

 

 

                  Item 9  Information Reports

 

Eugene Falik expressed concern that his two and a half year old daughter and other children could easily slip into storm drains.  He suggested that storm drainage catch basins could be retrofitted with covers.  He expressed hope that the Council would take steps to remedy the situation.  Mr. Falik said he understood from State officials that the Town was going to repaint curb caution lines on Stroud Hill on East Franklin Street changing them from yellow to white.  He requested that action be taken on this matter as soon as possible.

 

Mayor Broun suggested that there be follow-up discussions with the University to evaluate the possible implementation of conservation areas.  Council Member Werner said this was a good idea, with the eventual goal of the Town eventually having some zoning control on University properties other than the central campus area.  Council Member Brown said the central campus area also needed to be examined since it also had transportation, environment and neighborhood impacts.  Council Member Herzenberg said he feared that conservation districts had little substance to them.  Council Member Andresen said the City of Raleigh had used conservation districts successfully.  She also requested that staff prepare a follow-up resolution concerning septic systems.  Mr. Horton said staff would follow-up on this matter.

 

Mayor Broun noted that no report would follow this evening's executive session.

 

The meeting concluded at 10:20 p.m.