SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
Monday, April 8, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Pat Evans, Ed Harrison, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Police Chief Gregg Jarvies, Inspections Director Lance Norris, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Transportation Planner David Bonk, Urban Forester Curtis Brooks, Engineering Director George Small, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Community Development Planner Loryn Barnes, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Item 2 – Public Hearings
2a. Public Hearing on Potential Legislative Requests.
Town Manager Cal Horton explained the purpose of the Public Hearing:
· Council met with Legislative Delegation to discuss the State’s budget shortfall and its impact on the Town.
· The General Assembly convenes for its “short session” on May 28. The deadline for submittal of local bills to Legislative Bill Drafting is 4:00 p.m. on June 5 for the House and 4:00 p.m. June 12 for the Senate. Legislative rules require that during this “short session,” the principal sponsor of any local bill certify that no public hearing in the Legislature will be required or requested on the bill; that the bill is non-controversial; and that the bill is approved for introduction by each member of the local delegation.
· The Council is scheduled to meet with the Legislative Delegation at 7:30 a.m. on May 2 at the Sheraton Hotel to review potential legislative requests.
· The Council will consider adopting a legislative program on May 13.
Roland Giduz asked for consideration of imposing a luxury tax in the Town of Chapel Hill and urged the Council to support this, and for more widespread legislation throughout the State for a luxury tax, a surtax on big-ticket entertainment throughout the State. He proposed a floor of $25-$30 per ticket above which there would be a tax, with the exemption of certain cultural events. Mr. Giduz said the modest amount of the surtax would not affect attendance at the college events, as the University claimed.
2b. Public Forum on Proposed Agreement to Extend University Public Safety Jurisdiction.
Police Chief Gregg Jarvies stated that the purpose of the public forum was to discuss the following:
· To seek comment on a request by the University Board of Trustees to extend, on a limited basis, the law enforcement jurisdiction of the University Department of Public Safety.
· The extended jurisdiction would allow University police officers jurisdiction within the Town limits only when investigating crimes that had occurred on campus property or when serving judicial processes at the magistrate's office located at the Chapel Hill Police Headquarters building.
Chief Derek Poarch of the UNC Department of Public Safety said the proposed draft policy would address the proposals:
· Orientation Training for new officers
· Annual In-Service Training
· Prohibits:
· Traffic enforcement
· Random vehicle stops for suspects
· Failing to notify Chapel Hill Police Department
· Responding to or intervening in in-progress calls
· Provides for a detailed process for utilizing extra territorial jurisdiction
· Provides quarterly reporting to the Chapel Hill Chief of Police
Chief Poarch cited several events which the UNC Police officers worked closely with the Chapel Hill Police officers. He addressed accreditation and stated that the UNC department was accredited by many organizations, and met over 400 standards, and was the only campus law enforcement department in the State of North Carolina to be accredited. He said the department policed over 40,000 persons daily and millions of visitors, and there have been only 3 complaints against the officers in the department in the last 40 months.
Joe Herzenberg said he had considerable reservations about the proposal, due to a few incidents he had personally experienced with the University police. He said the University police force was not accountable to the people of Chapel Hill, but was a State Police force.
Rick Fahrer, resident of Colony Woods and a former Chapel Hill police officer, said he was in support of the proposal, and did not consider the campus police as foreign police officers, but who worked when needed with the Chapel Hill police. He said this was an opportunity to maximize the police force.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he did have some concerns and one was the inability of the campus police officers to serve warrants at the magistrate’s office. He asked if this could be done without extension of jurisdiction. Chief Jarvies said it would require an extension of jurisdiction.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked how often the campus police officers had to be accompanied by Chapel Hill police officers to the magistrate’s office. Chief Jarvies said it did not happen very often because the campus police officers made the effort to serve the warrants on campus.
Council Member Bateman asked which jurisdiction had initiated the proposal. Chief Jarvies said it had been discussed by both, prior to his becoming the Chief. Council Member Bateman asked how much extra time this would give the Town police. Chief Jarvies estimated it would be between 10 to 12 hours per week.
Council Member Ward asked what kind of follow-up the Council could expect on a yearly basis in the future, to see how this proposal was working. Chief Jarvies said he hoped to be able to give the Council a monthly report in order to establish a database.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked what the difference in the means would be for addressing complaints concerning the campus police on campus, versus addressing complaints for Chapel Hill citizens. Chief Poarch said that the proposal gave the Council the oversight of the process, and they had the authority as a civilian board. He said the campus police were required to look into even anonymous complaints. Chief Poarch said the process for complaints involved several steps up the authority level with the top level being the Town Council.
Mayor Foy said paragraph 5 of the agreement made it clear that the agreement could be terminated by either party at any time.
Council Member Harrison said the way he read the agreement was that a citizen could complain to the Council. Chief Jarvies said the forum would be, for any citizen to address a grievance, agreement has been made that immediate action would be taken. Mr. Horton said the staff would report to the Council if they found the agreement was not working satisfactorily.
Council Member Strom said he would like a follow-up on the question of what the benefits would be of just extending jurisdiction for the campus police to serve warrants in the magistrate’s office. He said he would like an option for that part to be brought to the Council.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER BOTH PUBLIC FORUM COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a. Petitions by citizens on items not on the agenda.
3a(1). Richard Goldberg, fare free transit.
Mr. Goldberg, a professor at UNC and a daily biker, congratulated the Council on the fare-free transit which seemed to being working well, and encouraged fewer cars, parking, and more bicycle riding. He said Chapel Hill should have more bike paths and bike lanes, since the only full-time bike lanes were on Pittsboro Street, with part-time bike lanes on Cameron Street. Mr. Goldberg suggested that the limited bike lanes on Cameron should get priority, where cars were parking illegally. He said the limited time was not working well and not being enforced. Mr. Goldberg suggested bike lanes on South Columbia Street, and the Council should ask the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission for other options for bicycles throughout the Town.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(2). Eric Ose, Town Ordinance, Section 16.3, Signs on Utility Poles.
Mr. Ose petitioned the Council to rescind the ordinance prohibiting signs on utility poles, saying he was detained, cited, and threatened with arrest by a Chapel Hill police officer for posting a sign on the utility pole in front of the Franklin Street Post Office. He said the Council should repeal this Ordinance because it prevented small businesses from posting signs on the utility poles, especially since they could not afford expensive advertising, and it was an expense to the taxpayers to have the Public Works Department removing the signs as soon as they were posted.
Andrew Pearson, UNC student, who belonged to a group holding a banquet for world peace, whose poster Mr. Ose had been cited for posting, said he was concerned about the way the Town handled grass-roots advertising. He said they did not have a budget for advertising except for posting flyers and asked for repeal of the Ordinance.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3b. Petitions by citizens on items on the agenda: none.
3c. Announcements by Council Members.
Council Member Bateman announced that the Town is receiving applications for representation of the Town on the OWASA Board, and any interested citizens should contact the Town Clerk’s office at 968-2743.
Council Member Kleinschmidt announced that this Sunday, from 5:00-7:00 p.m. there will be an exhibit by Gay and Lesbian artists, called Out and Elected Officials, at the Carrboro Century Center sponsored by the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission in partnership with Carrboro. He said one of the featured artists would be former Chapel Hill elected official Joe Herzenberg.
Council Member Harrison announced that April 9th there would be the Annual Transportation Forum at the Town Hall starting at 7:30 p.m. during the Transportation Board’s regular meeting.
Council Member Ward announced that the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill would be hosting a number of Earth Day Events on campus on April 22, 23, and 25, and everyone was invited. He said there would be seminars on Smart Growth and Sustainability, Sustainable Transit options, Sustainable dorms and offices, and other concerns.
Item 4 – Consent Agenda
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2002-04-08/R-1)
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. |
Nominations to Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, Greenways Commission, and Horace Williams Planning Advisory Committee (R-2). |
|
b. |
Recommended Amendment to Personnel Ordinance Increasing Time for Paying Salary Differential to Employees who are Called to Active Duty in a State or National Emergency (O-1). |
|
c. |
Report on Potential Rezoning of Colonial Heights and Pinebrook Estates Neighborhoods (R-3). |
|
d. |
Request for Expedited Processing: Rusch Road Habitat for Humanity Subdivision (R-4). |
|
e. |
Report on Council Goals (R-5). |
|
|
|
This the 8th day of April, 2002.
A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (2002-04-08/R-2)
WHEREAS, the applications for service on an advisory board or commission or other committees listed below have been received; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have been determined by the Town Clerk to be eligible to serve;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following names are placed in nomination to serve on an advisory board or commission:
Heidi Perry
Jim Earnhardt
Demetra Stamm
Barry Starrfield
Robert Verboon
Horace Williams Planning Advisory Committee
Cam Hill
Charles Murphy, Jr.
Ruby Sinreich
Brynda Smith
This the 8th day of April, 2002.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO EXTEND THE TIME PERIOD FOR PAYING SALARY DIFFERENTIAL WHEN AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS IN THE NATIONAL GUARD OR A MILITARY RESERVIST IS CALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY IN A STATE OR NATIONAL EMERGENCY (2002-04-08/0-1)
BE IT ORDANIED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1: Section 14-86 of the Town Code is hereby revised to read as follows:
“Sec. 14-86 Military Leave.
An employee who is a member of an Armed Forces Reserve organization or the National Guard shall be granted two (2) calendar weeks per year of leave with pay for military training. While on military leave, benefits will accrue as though present for duty. This leave shall not be charged as annual leave; however, any salary payment which the employee receives from the military shall be deducted from the sum paid by the town.
In a state or
national emergency in which national guard members or military reservists are
called to active duty, if a reservist or guard member is called to active duty,
and if the salary from military pay is less than the salary from the town, the
town shall pay an amount equal the difference in pay for a period of six (6)
months. one year.
This ordinance shall be effective retroactive to March 24, 2002.
This the 8th day of April, 2002.
A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REZONING THE COLONIAL HEIGHTS AND PINEBROOK ESTATES NEIGHBORHOODS (2002-04-08/R-3)
WHEREAS, residents of the Colonial Heights and Pinebrook Estates neighborhoods have petitioned the Town Council to consider rezoning their neighborhoods from Residential-2 to Residential-1; and
WHEREAS, Section 20.2 of the Development Ordinance allows the initiation of an amendment to the Zoning Atlas by the Council on its own motion;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council calls a public hearing on Wednesday, October 16, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, 306 North Columbia Street, to consider a Zoning Atlas Amendment for the rezoning of an area as shown on Map 4 of the memorandum to Town Council of April 8, 2002 from Residential-2 to Residential-1.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council may also consider applying the Residential-2A zoning district to the area in this process of rezoning.
This the 8th day of April, 2002.
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING EXPEDITED PROCESSING IN THE REVIEW OF A MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR RUSCH ROAD SUBDIVISION (2002-04-08/R-4)
WHEREAS, the Town Council has received a petition from Ms. Susan Levy, for expedited processing of a Major Subdivision application seeking approval of the Rusch Road Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that there is a significant public interest associated with development of the major subdivision;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is directed to expedite processing of the Major Subdivision application for the Rusch Road Subdivision in a manner that will speed review without sacrificing breadth or depth of analysis.
This the 8th day of April, 2002.
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING GOALS FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE COUNCIL AND TOWN STAFF (2002-04-08/R-5)
WHEREAS, the Town Council conducted planning sessions on January 18 and 28, 2002 to develop goals to guide the Council and the Town staff in the coming year; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed the attached report of the Town Manager suggesting specific goal statements and reporting the status of goals; and,
WHEREAS, the Town Manager will report to the Council each quarter on the status of work in pursuit of the Council’s goals;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the above attached report on Council Goals, with such modifications as it directed at its meeting of April 8, 2002.
This the 8th day of April, 2002.
Item 5 – Information Items
The reports were received with no discussion.
Item 6 – Consideration of Petition and Resolution regarding
South Columbia Street Submitted to the Mayor and Council
(Motion carried over due to tie vote at meeting of March 25, 2002).
Town Attorney Karpinos said the motion was on the floor and the Council could proceed with the vote.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 6. THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 5, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS HARRISON, KLEINSCHMIDT, STROM AND VERKERK VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR FOY, MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, WARD AND WIGGINS VOTING NAY.
Item 7 – Consideration of Request for Expedited Processing: Village Plaza Theater
(Motion carried over due to tie vote at meeting of March 25, 2002)
Council Member Harrison said the letters received since the last vote had convinced him to change his vote.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 7. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 7-2, WITH MAYOR FOY, MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, COUNCIL MEMBERS HARRISON, STROM, VERKERK, WARD AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN AND KLEINSCHMIDT VOTING NAY.
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING EXPEDITED PROCESSING IN THE REVIEW OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR VILLAGE PLAZA (2002-04-8/R-7)
WHEREAS, the Town Council has received a petition from Mr. Bill Wilson of Eastern Federal Theaters, for expedited processing of a Special Use Permit application seeking approval of the Village Plaza; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that there is a significant public interest associated with development of the theater;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is directed to expedite processing of the Special Use Permit application for the Village Plaza in a manner that will speed review without sacrificing breadth or depth of analysis.
This the 8th day of April, 2002.
Mr. Horton said the key points were that:
· The staff has worked with the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission to incorporate a small commissioned public art piece in this year’s project, and
· To help complete the street lighting possibilities in that area by getting the additional conduit in.
Council Member Verkerk said the Town should make sure that a raised planter be located near water access. Urban Forester Curtis Brooks said currently the planters and raised beds are watered by means of a water truck, adding that additional meters would come to an additional cost, and there would be a monthly charge.
Council Member Ward suggested that the Town should consider plantings that did not need additional irrigation, and he would discourage using metered water.
Council Member Verkerk said she had hoped to get plantings that were native and would survive in the climate.
Council Member Kleinschmidt congratulated the Department of Public Works for working with the Arts Commission and using artists for the art work.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked if the conduit was already under the small portion done in front of Julian’s, and would this project connect with Porthole Alley. Mr. Brooks said they were and they would.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 8 WITH OPTION 1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0)
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO PREPARE WORKING DRAWINGS FOR IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE 100 BLOCK OF EAST FRANKLIN STREET FROM THE GAP TO PORTHOLE ALLEY; Discuss construction plans with affected property owners and merchants; UTILIZE UP TO $100,000 OF AVAILABLE STREETSCAPE BOND FUNDS; and Schedule construction to begin in May of 2002 (2002-04-08/R-8)
WHEREAS, the Council adopted the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan as part of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, $100,000 currently exists in bond funding to implement a portion of the Streetscape Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Council has received a report from the Town Manager describing four alternative plans for possible construction by Town labor forces in 2002; and
WHEREAS, Town resources permit construction of only one of the four options within a summer construction period;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to prepare finished working drawings for improvements located on the South side of the 100 block of East Franklin Street from The Gap to Porthole Alley, discuss these improvements with affected property owners and merchants, and proceed with construction in May of 2002.
This the 8th day of April, 2002.
Item 9 – Consideration of Budget Ordinance Authorizing High School Summer Internships
(Deferred from meeting of March 25, 2002)
Council Member Bateman asked:
· How the proposal dovetailed with the Council’s wishes to provide summer internships for at-risk adolescents,
· How much has the staff followed through on those wishes, to provide opportunities for at-risk adolescents, and
· If this proposal could specifically give priority to that particular population of at-risk youth
Mr. Horton said the staff would bring a detailed report back to the Council, and could request that the high school referrals be persons considered to be in the greatest need.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2001 (2002-04-08/O-2)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Budget Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Concerning Appropriations and the Raising of Revenue for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2001” as duly adopted on June 25, 2001 and the same is hereby amended as follows:
ARTICLE I
Current Revised
APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget
GENERAL FUND
Planning 1,136,237 1,200 1,137,437
Non-Departmental
Contingency 7,565 1,200 6,365
This the 8th day of April, 2002.
Item 10 – Review of Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
2005 Transportation Plan Alternatives
Transportation Planner David Bonk presented the options for the Council’s consideration. In March, he said, the Council had asked that the 14 transportation alternatives under consideration be pared down, and the staff had developed three final alternatives for evaluation. He discussed the process, which must have a plan approved by February 2003 to comply with federal regulations, which he described:
· April 10, 2002 – Approve alternatives for analysis
· May 8 – Review analysis of 3 and select preferred alternative
· June 12 – Review analysis of preferred alternative, 60-day public comment period on final preferred alternative
· June 17 - Potential Council public forum
· August 14 through January 2003 - Select final preferred alternative – Federal and State analysis
· February 2003 – Final 2025 Plan approved
Mr. Bonk said he did not have the detailing the Council had asked for because there had been staffing problems in the Durham office. He outlined the recommended alternates from the staff for the Council to recommend to the Transportation Advisory Committee:
· Recommend that Alternative #6, Moderate Highway, +1, +2, HOV be included in the next phase of evaluation. Highway Moderate includes several roadway improvements. The staff suggested that intensive transit rather than moderate transit be included in this Alternative.
· Recommend that Alternative #12, Moderate Highway, Intense Transit, US 15-501 and NC 54 Fixed Guideway, be carried forward for further evaluation. This alternative is focused on public transit improvements and included investments in fixed guideway corridors. The analysis of Alternative #12 has produced improvements in transit ridership and reductions in roadway congestion comparable to those alternatives that include more extensive roadway improvements.
· The third recommended alternative should evaluate the impact of including high occupancy vehicle lanes in Alternative #12. The new alternative should also include an evaluation of the additional fixed guideway corridors previously recommended by the Council. These include a connection between the Gateway Station and the Horace Williams property and fixed guideway service along US 15-501/Franklin Street from I-40 to Carrboro and along NC86/US 15-501 South from I-40 to the Southern Village.
Council Member Harrison suggested that to address the neighbors in Westwood and Westside, that on page 35, #6 could be removed.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED RESOLUTION 9 WITHOUT INTENSE TRANSIT OPTION 6, AND ALTERNATIVE 6 AND ALTERNATIVE 12 AND A NEW ALTERNATIVE.
Council Member Strom pointed out that the transit corridor went directly through the rural buffer and is in opposition to the land-use planning element of having an urban service boundary
Mr. Bonk said there were two levels of intense transit levels (1) an intense local bus system, and (2) the intense regional fixed guideway level is not part of the recommendation being made this evening.
Council Member Strom asked, on page 34 under Intensive Fixed Guideway, specifically what numbers were being recommended in Alternatives 6, 12, and 3. Mr. Bonk said in Alternative 6 there were no fixed guideways, #12 includes only 2a and 4a, and a third Alternative includes #12 with 2a 4a and a variation of #6, from Horace Williams to the main campus.
Mayor Foy explained the variations of north/south and east/west.
Council Member Ward asked what kind of connection did #12 and an amended #12 offer to the airport. Mr. Bonk said they assumed a connection from the South Park TTA station to the airport. He explained how the transits would connect at the various points.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO AMEND RESOLUTION 9 TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE AFTER SOUTHERN VILLAGE, “AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT IN ANY FUTURE ALTERNATIVES EXAMINED BY OUR MPO, OPTION 6 UNDER INTENSE FIXED GUIDEWAY NOT BE INCLUDED.”
Council Member Harrison asked if this removed a busway from Horace Williams south on the railroad right-of-way. Council Member Strom said that was an alternative in #3.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked if this would eliminate any connection with Hillsborough. Mr. Bonk said the Resolution as amended would remove that from any MPO consideration.
Mayor pro tem Evans said this was a long-term plan and she believed that Hillsborough would be growing steadily with several developments already built and planned. She added it would not hurt to leave the plans for connecting to Hillsborough in the plan, while determining if there will be a demand for transit. Mayor pro tem Evans said it would be short-sighted not to leave Hillsborough in the plan. She asked Mr. Bonk if he felt it was important to leave a Hillsborough component in the plan. Mr. Bonk said from the analysis there did not seem to be a demand for connecting to Hillsborough, and the MPO recommendation planned to exclude that connection. Mr. Horton added that the staff was trying to work in the knowledge that there was limited funding, and limited staff time.
Council Member Harrison noted that this was a fiscally restrained plan since there was not a lot of money and there is a tight budget in the State and towns.
Mayor Foy asked where the corridor discussion was as it affected Manning Drive. Mr. Bonk said the 15-501 Major Investment Study (MIS) left open the two corridors which were evaluated as part of that study—a rail corridor and a busline and railway.
Council Member Ward said he was curious why #10 wasn’t chosen, with three times the transit use predicted and more rail use, and cost $900 million less, and he saw ameliorating the traffic problem the use of mass transit rather than road improvements. Mr. Bonk said, in essence, #10 is the same as option #12, except that #12 added 15-501. He said by analysis there would be more ridership in #12, than in #10, if #12 could be afforded.
Council Member Strom asked if Manning Drive was included in the fixed guideway corridor under #12. Mr. Bonk said the definition of a corridor is broad.
THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 9, AS AMENDED, WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE ALTERNATIVES TO BE EVALUATED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO 2025 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2002-04-08/R-9)
WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee is preparing a 2025 Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, as part of the development of the 2025 Plan the Transportation Advisory Committee is analyzing alternative transportation scenarios; and
WHEREAS, 14 alternative transportation scenarios have been identified and analyzed; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed the analysis of the 14 alternatives;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council recommends the following alternatives to the Transportation Advisory Committee for further evaluation.
1. Alternative #6, with the addition of the Intense Transit network.
2. Alternative #12.
3. A new alternative, to include the same elements as existing Alternative #12 and adding the following:
- high occupancy vehicle lanes along I-40 from I-85 to the Johnston County line in Wake County.
- a fixed guideway corridor between the Gateway Station and the Horace Williams property.
- fixed guideway corridors along US 15-501/Franklin Street, from I-40 to Carrboro and along NC86/US 15-501 between I-40 and the Southern Village.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any future alternative examined by our Metropolitan Planning Organization that Option 6 of the Intensive Fixed Guideway Alternatives not be included.
This the 8th day of April, 2002.
Council Member Verkerk asked that the petition be addressed, saying she would like to see the Manning Drive corridor carry more weight as an entrance to the University. Mr. Bonk said this was a detail that was much more specific, and there would have to be more planning. Mr. Horton said the staff was “painting with a very wide brush,” and when the other study comes back, the Council will look at it in greater detail.
After the process was outlined by Mr. Horton, Mayor Foy suggested that, after the discussion this evening, the Council would authorize him to meet with the DOT, with the option that the Council passed in January 2001—a three-lane option. He said he would like to reopen the conversation, so there would be more options to discuss at the April 22nd Hearing, where there will be citizen comments.
Council Member Wiggins said she felt there should have been more discussion before authorizing Mayor Foy to talk with the DOT.
Mayor Foy said they were trying to be responsive to the request of the DOT, and this could expedite the issue, whether the DOT would be responsive to this option, and to report back their response at the time of the Public Forum.
Council Member Wiggins said her concern was that the Council had varied from what the public had expected, which was for the Council to take action on an item, not on the agenda for action. She said it seemed like an attempt to deny public comment on this issue before action was taken, and it was hard for citizens and her, herself, to keep up with what the Council was doing.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said this would be an exploration of the feasibility of returning to the three-lane model. He said this would not be a decision at this time, but the Council could provide more information to the public.
Council Member Wiggins said this authorization had not been part of the scheduled process and she felt it was a denial of public input, and a vote had been unanticipated this evening to give the Mayor authorization to meet with the DOT.
Mayor Foy said he was suggesting this as an alternative to bucking heads with the DOT.
Council Member Verkerk said there was a lot of confusion among the citizenry and some people thought there were only two options—no build or a four-lane highway. She said it would be more productive to have all the options out on the table for the citizens to know what the options might be.
Mayor pro tem Evans felt that information from the staff might help the Council to discover what other options might be available.
Mayor Foy said the purpose of this evening’s meeting was for the Council to come to some kind of agreement about what the Council might want, and to the degree of fixed positions the DOT was taking on the options, and whether there would be room for negotiations.
Council Member Wiggins said she supported Mayor Foy meeting with the DOT to find out their feelings about the options, and an update on their opinions and how much they will be able to work with the Town on various options.
Council Member Ward pointed out that Mayor Foy had specifically asked for authorization to discuss only three lanes, and he felt the Mayor should discuss all the options, which would be needed for updating the citizens at the Public Hearing.
Engineering Director George Small presented a review of the issue. He said the project originated as a five-lane project funded by the TIP process. Mr. Small said the initial meeting for citizen’s information was for a five-lane highway or a four-lane highway, both with or without bike lanes. He added that some Council Members had presented other options for consideration.
Mr. Small said the DOT studied those options and came to the conclusion that the best option would be a four-lane, divided highway, due to several considerations. He added that the Council subsequently came to the conclusion that their choice was a three-lane, non-median section, and sent a resolution stating this preference to the State. Mr. Small continued that the State sent a response back stating that it would remain with the four-lane, median divided highway initially recommended, and the Council responded by sending a delegation to explain the reasons to the staff of the DOT. He said the State remained mute on what would happen if the Town didn’t want to build that project. Mr. Small added that the Council then re-voted and sent a resolution that they had agreed to the cross section—four-lanes divided with curb, gutter and sidewalks.
Mr. Small said information requested by the Council was included in the packet before the Council tonight—environmental assessment studies, traffic accidents and volumes, and other studies requested.
Council Member Wiggins asked if the DOT representative would comment on two-lanes, divided, with turn lanes. N.C. Department of Transportation (DOT) representative Derrick Weaver said the reason two lanes wouldn’t work on Weaver Dairy Road was because of the capacity, but with three-lanes with center turn lanes there was a capacity for turn-lanes. He said with a median it would be difficult to turn around, such as, a school bus could not make a U-turn.
Council Member Wiggins asked if the capacity problem wasn’t until 2025. Mr. Weaver said the DOT built roads for the future, and if there were problems within 10 years, the roads would have to have work done.
Council Member Ward asked how much width would be needed for a school bus to make the U-turn. Mr. Weaver said 50-60 feet.
Council Member Bateman said regardless of width U-turns were harrowing, and she hoped whatever was put on the road would not encourage U-turns, and what would the objection be to forbidding U-turns. Mr. Weaver said that would cut off access to properties along the way, because the median limits access.
Council Member Bateman asked why DOT said a center turn lane was not accessible. Mr. Weaver said the DOT said it wasn’t safe, and it was safer to have a median.
Council Member Bateman said what had turned her to vote for three lanes was that the capacity projection of increase was only 7,000 cars. She asked what the typical ratio was, what was the formula. Mr. Weaver said the traffic volume and the type of facility were measured. He said there would be traffic signals with either alternative at certain places.
Mayor Foy asked whether the people could make U-turns at other points, such as at the school or Timberlyne. Since it was a relatively short distance, Mayor Foy asked if the larger vehicles might have difficulty turning even with four lanes with a median. Mr. Weaver said that generally a road with two lanes and a median was usually a road with control of access.
Council Member Harrison commented on page 17 in the environmental access and page 74 which shows in 2025 Weaver Dairy stands out as a level B, which is a good road. He commented on the 15-501 traffic and capacity and suggested putting the money into the intersections rather than the travel lanes, in order to save on funds. Council Member Harrison said he was concerned that Weaver Dairy Road in 2025 would be preferable to I-40. In reference to page 74, he wondered about the capacity and if it was worth spending funds on.
Council Member Strom asked if Council Member Harrison was saying that this was a recipe for significant induced traffic, potentially. He asked Mr. Weaver to talk about the safety features of a three-lane configuration, and the fact that travel speed contributed to safety. He asked for the differences in safety between a three-lane and four-lane road. Mr. Weaver said he did not have those answers.
Mayor Foy added that the environmental assessment was a design speed of 50 miles per hour, posted at 35 mph. He asked what the design speed would be for a two-lane with a median. Mr. Weaver said it would be easy to make a design speed of 50 mph, because of the undulation of the road.
Council Member Verkerk asked how close a four-lane option would come to people’s doorsteps. Mr. Weaver said, as it was proposed with a four-lane road, there would be a retaining wall in an area of Country Road. Mr. Small said it would be about half of Country Road, as a driveway access. Mr. Weaver said the vegetation would be that used on the wall to shield properties.
Council MemberVerkerk asked what this would do to property values, and would it make the homes unsaleable. Mr. Weaver said that generally when a road is improved it increases property values, and the houses were so far off the roads it should not have any affect.
Council Member Verkerk said she was concerned about fumes from exhausts and had any studies been made of any increase in this highway. Mr. Weaver said a noise and air analysis was done for this project, and normally when cars flow better there is not so much emission.
Council Member Verkerk as about “context design” and what was the definition. Mr. Weaver said it was what was being done at Carol Woods Retirement Community, by widening the road away from the property to maintain the existing oak trees, and considering environmental influences, and construction of a median in the area at the high school.
Mayor pro tem Evans said the reason for the varying widths on Weaver Dairy Road were as a result of policies made by the Town and by the State, and she was concerned for anyone driving the road, as it will still be confusing with three lanes. She asked what design could be worked to make it clear to motorists the varying widths. Mr. Weaver said the best way to make a two- or three-lane highway easier, would be to put in a wide median in the areas that are wider. He said that was one of the reasons for proposing a four-lane, median-divided road to try to make the road consistent.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked what portion of Weaver Dairy Road was presently only two lanes. Mr. Small said about 25%. Mr. Weaver said that the entire road would need changes for a wider road.
Mayor Foy said this was a design issue, which could be overcome.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked if Weaver Dairy Road was left as it was, would the DOT be willing to build the Silver Creek to Sage Road connection. Mr. Weaver said that was one section and the DOT might be willing to do that, but he could not answer for the DOT. He said it was something to be asked.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked if DOT would be willing to narrow the lanes in that section from what was being proposed to help reduce the speed of traffic. Mr. Weaver said those were already narrow lanes, and the 14-foot lane is the minimum the DOT builds to accommodate through traffic and bike lanes.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked if DOT would be willing to listen to the idea of narrowing the outside travel lane, and incorporating bike lanes and sidewalks offsite. Mr. Weaver said that was something that could be considered, if the DOT costs could be a shared cost with the Town.
Mayor pro tem Evans said she believed that there were lots of other options to put before the DOT to respond to, which would work for the community as well as the DOT, in order to provide facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked for clarification of the different colors on the map and what they meant. He said the finished sections still functioned as a two-lane road, and the changes would not have to pull out the turn lanes. Mr. Weaver said that citizens had complained that the turn lanes were being used as passing lanes to drive faster. He said he failed to see why making five lanes for continuity’s sake was needed.
Council Member Bateman said traffic accident reports did not reveal accidents happening along the widened area. She said she believed that Mayor Foy should meet with officials of the DOT so that he could express concerns and get answers to questions. Mr. Weaver added that the schedule which the DOT set is pretty firm, and because of the budget concerns it would be best to keep the project moving along on track.
Council Member Ward asked about a traffic-calming measure he had seen work, which was synchronized traffic signals. Mr. Weaver said that was studied by the DOT and they are going to be placed at Sunrise and Carol Woods Retirement Center, and at VilCom. Mr. Small said after the project was completed it would be looked at all the way from each end, and they would try to coordinate the traffic signals.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, THAT THE COUNCIL AUTHORIZE MAYOR FOY TO MEET WITH DOT TO DISCUSS THE WEAVER DAIRY ROAD THREE-LANE OPTIONS OF 4 AND 4A, AS WELL AS, OTHER LESS INTRUSIVE OPTIONS SUCH AS A TWO-LANE DIVIDED WITH MEDIAN.
Mayor pro tem Evans said she hoped that the Mayor would also talk about any four-lane options, because there might be an opportunity for compromise and to look for the other alternatives that she had proposed. She suggested that a few members of the Council would have the opportunity to join with Mayor Foy when he met with the DOT.
Council Member Harrison offered to give some materials for other options to the Mayor, adding he was inclined to a two-lane highway.
Council Member Ward said he would like a discussion to include traffic calming methods.
Council Member Harrison said the words the DOT used was “traffic control.”
Mayor pro tem Evans asked if the four-lane options would be included in the motion. Council Member Strom said he did not consider this a “friendly amendment”, but the traffic control additional language was a “friendly” amendment.
Council Member Wiggins said the Council knew that the DOT wanted the four-lanes, and they were already on the table, so the other options would be discussed for future consideration.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADD AS A “FRIENDLY” AMENDMENT THE LANGUAGE “AND A FULL ARRAY OF TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES.”
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED ON A VOTE OF 8-1, WITH MAYOR FOY, COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, HARRISON, KLEINSCHMIDT, STROM, VERKERK, WARD, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS VOTING NAY.
Mayor pro tem Evans said her reason for voting Nay was that she felt that there were options for the four lanes which would not be explored because of this vote
Item 12 – Consideration of Rental Licensing Program Ordinance
Assistant Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal said she was going to try to encapsulate four years of work by Loryn Barnes, Community Development Planner, and a year of work by Lance Norris, Director of Inspections, and eleven months by Maggie Bowers, Enforcement Officer. She said the establishment of a rental licensing program began in 1998 with concerns regarding the effects on neighborhoods close to campus of the conversion or owner-occupied residence to rental properties and the impact on the quality of life for residents. She said noise, front-yard parking, and overcrowding were often cited. Ms. Loewenthal added that the Comprehensive Plan envisioned establishing a rental licensing program as an integral component of a broader approach to coordinate Town actions affecting the quality of life in existing neighborhoods, and to meet housing standards. She said a multi-faceted strategy was recommended in the Comprehensive Plan to address these issues, including:
· Enforce existing regulations;
· Inform property owners and renters regarding these regulations;
· Implement a rental licensing and inspection program to help maintain units in compliance with code requirements, to provide a mechanism for periodic inspection and enforcement of related regulations;
· Initiate communications with student residents;
· Develop design guidelines; and
· Establish a “First Option Fund.”
Ms. Loewenthal said that the rental licensing program presented to the Council this evening would apply to all owners of rental units, with two exceptions:
· If an owner were temporarily living out of Town and renting his/her unit with the intent of returning within twelve months.
· For rental properties that are accessory apartments within owner occupied houses.
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR A RENTAL LICENSING PROGRAM (2002-04-08/R-10)
WHEREAS, the Town’s Comprehensive Plan adopted on May 8, 2000, recommends that the Council implement a rental licensing program as a tool that, “could help to protect the character and the stability of the Town’s residential neighborhoods, while assuring renters that licensed rental units meet minimum housing standards”; and
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2000, the Council charged the Rental Licensing Task Force to provide the Council with recommendations about whether to enact a system of licensing the rental of dwelling units in Chapel Hill, and what form such a system would take; and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2001, the Rental Licensing Task Force presented recommendations for the Council’s consideration; and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2002, the Council held a public hearing to receive citizen comments on a proposed rental licensing program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following guidelines are established for a rental licensing program:
1. The operator and/or owner/operator of every dwelling, dwelling unit, or rooming unit leased for consideration shall be required to obtain a rental license.
a. Each rental license must be renewed annually.
b. Each rental license fee must be paid annually.
c. Exception: If an owner was temporarily living out of Town and renting his/her unit with the intention of returning within twelve months.
2. The Town Code will be amended to include a rental licensing ordinance.
3. An Application Form must be completed by all owners of rental properties.
4. The Town will make available a Rental Duties Information Sheet to owners of rental property.
5. A database will be created to include all of the information obtained from the applications that would track complaints.
6. For the period of January 1, 2003 through June 30, 2003, the fee for a rental license will be $10 per rental unit; except that the fee for rental dwellings and units owned by the Town of Chapel Hill shall be $0 per rental unit.
7. In two years, the Council will appoint a committee to evaluate the effectiveness of the program.
This the 8th day of April, 2002.
AN ORDINANCE REVISING CHAPTER 9 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL TO ESTABLISH A PROGRAM FOR THE LICENSING OF RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTIES (2002-04-08/O-3)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Findings and Purposes.
The Town Council does hereby find that:
1) A systematic method of collecting information on leased property would assist the Town, residents of rental properties, owners of rental properties, and owners/residents of non-rental properties in the exchange of information pertaining to the requirements of the Chapel Hill Housing Code, other regulations of the Town and the State affecting rental properties, and the names of owners or managers of rental properties where there appear to be infractions of code standards.
2) It would be consistent with the public health, safety and welfare and would be a benefit to all Town citizens to require the licensing of persons who lease any dwelling, dwelling unit, and/or rooming house that is subject to regulation under the Chapel Hill Housing Code.
3) A licensing program for rental residential properties would facilitate the enforcement, on a complaint basis, of the minimum standards of fitness for housing by requiring the dissemination of information on the Minimum Housing Code to residents.
4) The maintenance and offering for rent of residential properties is a business activity which is subject to regulation by the Town in order to promote the public health, safety and welfare, in particular, the health, safety and welfare of residents of the rental residential properties and of residents of other properties surrounding rental residential properties.
5) An enhanced program of enforcement of the minimum housing code through implementation of a rental licensing program would promote the public health, safety and welfare. .
Section 2. Chapter 9, Articles I and II, of the Town of Chapel Hill Code of Ordinances are revised by making the following amendments:
1. Section 9-1 Finding; purpose. is hereby revised by adding a third paragraph to read as follows:
“In order to establish and facilitate the enforcement of minimum standards of fitness for the initial and continued occupancy of all rental housing, this chapter establishes a system of rental licensing for all dwellings, dwelling units, and/or rooming houses leased for consideration.”
2. Section 9-15. Duties of building inspector. is hereby revised by deleting the current paragraph (c) which reads as follows:
“(c) To keep a record of the results of inspections made under this chapter and an inventory of those dwellings that do not meet the minimum standards of fitness herein prescribed; and”
and replacing it with the following language:
“ (c) To keep an electronic and hard copy record accessible via the Internet and by the public upon demand of the results of inspections made under this Chapter and an inventory of those dwellings that do not meet the minimum standards of fitness prescribed herein; and”
3. Section 9-15. Duties of building inspector. is hereby revised by adding the following additional paragraphs:
“(d)To keep an electronic copy (not available via the internet), and a hard copy record of the registration of all licensed operators and operator/owners of all dwellings, dwelling units, and rooming units that are leased for consideration that will contain the following information:
(1) The identification of the dwelling unit by location;
(2) The name, address, fax and telephone numbers of the owner and operator (if applicable) who has charge, care or control of a building or part thereof in which the dwelling units are leased for consideration;
(3) An acknowledgement by the licensee that he has complied with Sec. 9-3 of the Chapel Hill Housing Code;
(4) An acknowledgment by the licensee that he has provided each occupant of a dwelling unit with a Rental Duties Information Sheet provided by the Town of Chapel Hill;
(5) An acknowledgement that the dwelling unit is in compliance with the limits in the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance on the number of unrelated individuals.
(e) To provide each licensee with two (2) copies of a Rental Duties Information Sheet containing the following information:
(1) A recital of the duties imposed upon landlords and tenants pursuant to the North Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act;
(2) Information regarding Town of Chapel Hill policies and ordinances relevant to trash collection, noise control and parking;
(3) Information regarding the option of resolving any dispute prior to filing a complaint with the Town of Chapel Hill through mediation conducted by the Chapel Hill Dispute Settlement Center.”
(f) To provide each licensee with a copy of the Chapel Hill Minimum Housing Code.
4. Section 9-15, current subparagraph (d) is renumbered as paragraph (g).
“Sec. 9-18. License required for Leased Residential Properties.
(a) The operator of every dwelling, dwelling unit, or rooming unit leased for consideration shall pay an application fee in accordance with the schedule of fees adopted by the Chapel Hill Town Council for each fiscal year, based on the criteria established in that schedule, to obtain a license to comply with the duties imposed pursuant to Sec. 9-3 of the Chapel Hill Housing Code and each person so licensed shall provide the following information to the building inspector:
(1) The identification of the dwelling unit by location;
(2) The name, address, telephone and fax number of the operator and/or owner/operator who has charge, care or control of a building or part thereof in which the dwelling units are leased for consideration;
(3) An acknowledgement by the licensee that he has complied with Sec. 9-3 of the Chapel Hill Housing Code;
(4) An acknowledgment by the licensee that he has provided each occupant of a dwelling unit with a Rental Duties Information Sheet provided by the Town of Chapel Hill.
(5) An acknowledgement that the dwelling unit is in compliance with the limits in the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance on the number of unrelated individuals.
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph 9-18 (a), a license shall not be required for the rental of property under the following condition:
1. The temporary rental of an owner’s principal dwelling for a period of one year or less while the owner is temporarily living out of Town. (The purpose of this exemption is to accommodate, for example, faculty of the University who have left Town on sabbatical with the intent of returning to their home within a year.)
6. Section 9-37 is hereby revised as follows:
A. By adding (a) at the beginning of the first paragraph.
B. By inserting a new second paragraph to read as follows:
“(b) It shall be unlawful for an operator and/or owner/operator of any dwelling unit, dwelling, or rooming unit leased for consideration to fail to obtain a license as provided by Sec. 9-18 of this Chapter.”
C. By adding (c) at the beginning of the next (now third) paragraph.
D. By changing the period at the end of the third paragraph to a semi-colon and adding the following language:
“provided, however, that for the first year after the effective date of the “Ordinance to Establish a Program for the Licensing of Residential Rental Properties,”(Ordinance No. 2002-4-8/O-3) , an owner/operator of any unlicensed rental property or properties who, within 30 days of notice of violation of 9-37(b), obtains the required license(s) and pays a fee equivalent to twice the otherwise applicable fee for the license(s) under Sec. 9-18 shall not be subject to additional penalties for failure to obtain the required license(s).” However, if the required license(s) is/are not obtained before the expiration of this 30 day time period, an owner/operator shall be subject to other penalties and fines as provided by this Chapter.”
a. By adding a new fourth paragraph to read as follows:
“(d) The violation of any provision of this Chapter shall also subject the offender to a civil penalty of fifty dollars ($50.00). Each day that any violation continues shall constitute a separate violation and a separate offense for the purposes of imposition of penalties. In addition to the penalties and other remedies provided, the Town Manager may institute any appropriate action or proceedings to prevent, restrain, correct or abate a violation of this Chapter.”
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be effective January 1, 2003 and shall expire June 30, 2005.
This the 8th day of April, 2002.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO ESTABLISH AN ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE (2002-04-08/R-11a)
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council has been working with the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education to develop a Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a committee has been established, called the Schools and Land Use Council, with representatives from each of these elected boards; and
WHEREAS, the Schools and Land Use Council has developed a draft Memorandum of Understanding, dated February 8, 2002, that would establish roles and responsibilities in implementing an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has considered this proposal at a Public Hearing on February 18, 2002;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council approves the Memorandum of Understanding as proposed.
This the 8th day of April, 2002.