SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, MAY 15, 2006 AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Laurin Easthom, Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Bill Thorpe, and Jim Ward.
Staff members present were Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Planning Director J. B. Culpepper, Housing and Neighborhood Services Coordinator Loryn Clark, Development Planning Coordinator Gene Poveromo, and Assistant Town Clerk Amy Harvey.
Planning Director J. B. Culpepper introduced Roger Waldon, the consultant hired by the Town to help the Town go through the process of evaluating four potential neighborhood conservation districts (NCD). She said their recommendation was that the Council hear from the consultant, and then accept comments for each of the four proposed neighborhoods.
Roger Waldon, with Clarion Associates, provided an overview of the four neighborhoods, the process, issues and recommendations for each of the four, and comments on the Manager’s report. He stated that after much consideration by Clarion, they had put forth a set of proposals for review, and after that review by staff and the Planning Board, the Manager had made a series of recommendations.
Mr. Waldon said there were some differences between Clarion’s recommendations and the Manager’s recommendations, noting that the Manager’s recommendations had blended proposals by Clarion and recommendations by the Planning Board to develop the preliminary recommendations in tonight’s report. He said they supported those recommendations, which went a long way towards making the ideas implemental.
Mr. Waldon said the process had included the following:
Mr. Waldon said the key issues were the general consensus on dimensions, varying opinions on boundaries, varying opinions on tree protection, varying opinions on notification, and Coker Hills. He said they had found the most consensus on dimensional issues such as minimum lot size, setbacks, controlling heights, and ratios for front-yard parking. Mr. Waldon said they never came to complete agreement on the issue of boundaries that would encompass the neighborhoods. He said they also had varied opinions about tree protection, as well as the extent to which adjoining property owners had to provide notification to neighbors when something was happening to the property.
Mr. Waldon said, about midway through the process, issues began to arise regarding Coker Hills, with the least amount of consensus from that neighborhood. He noted that a Protest Petition had been received from residents of Coker Hills, which would be discussed later this evening. Mr. Waldon displayed a chart which indicated where consensus was reached by the four neighborhoods in different areas:
| Do this at all? | Boundary | Dimensions | Accessory Apts. | Notify | Trees | Fences | Duplexes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greenwood | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | n/a |
| Pine Knolls | Yes | No | Yes | n/a | No | n/a | n/a | Yes |
| Morgan Creek/ Kings Mill | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | n/a |
| Coker Hills | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | n/a |
Mr. Waldon commented that to him consensus meant that unanimous agreement may not have been reached, but was generally accepted. He highlighted the consensus for each neighborhood as follows:
Greenwood Neighborhood:
Pine Knolls Neighborhood:
Morgan Creek/Kings Mill Neighborhood:
Coker Hills Neighborhood:
Mr. Waldon said the Council was faced with attempting to strike a balance between the preservation of neighborhood character and minimizing restrictions placed on private property owners.
Item 1 – Public Hearing: Proposed Neighborhood Conservation District
Guidelines for the Greenwood Neighborhood
Housing and Neighborhood Services Coordinator Loryn Clark stated that each of the four memoranda contained a summary chart that identified the Planning Board’s recommendation, the Manager’s preliminary recommendation, and Clarion’s recommendation, as well as a summary of citizen comments. She stated that for the Greenwood memorandum, that chart began on page 11.
Ms. Clark stated that the fourth recommendation, noted on page four of the memo, contained an error, and that the words “are doubled” should be stricken from the last line of the recommendation. She also noted that the eighth recommendation regarding fences did not contain a reference to the higher fences that were recommended for Christopher Road.
Ms. Ruby Sinreich, Chair of the Planning Board, said the Board’s recommendations mirrored those of the Town staff.
Parker Sniffen, President of the Greenwood Neighborhood Association that consisted of 69 households, thanked Clarion for its leadership in taking the neighborhood’s concerns and ideas and formulating them into concrete recommendations.
Mr. Sniffen said to ensure that the residents were in support of or had been informed about the NCD, they had conducted a door-to-door and email campaign and polled them for their opinions. He provided the Council with the results, noting that of the 91 respondents 82 had participated and/or felt informed and supported the NCD as drafted. Mr. Sniffen said six residents were not in support of the NCD and three were uncertain or felt uninformed in general. He said in light of those results, they had felt an overwhelming positive response.
Mr. Sniffen said they did request some clarification on the language regarding accessory dwellings, noting past confusion. He said they were supporting the intent of Clarion’s initial recommendation, which was that accessory dwellings be granted to all properties without the one-acre land requirement.
Thomas Clegg, a resident of Greenwood Road Extension, said he was speaking not only for himself but for Jeanne Gabrielle “Didi” Dunphey, who had lived in the neighborhood longer that any other resident. He said his main message was to support the recommendation by the Planning Board that the large piece of property at the north end of Greenwood be included in the NCD.
Mr. Clegg read a statement written by Ms. Dunphey that explained how neighborhood founders Paul and Mary Green had wanted the entire Greenwood neighborhood to be congenial and had done everything in their power to achieve that goal. He read that the pond and the property surrounding it was at that time and had always been a part of the neighborhood, and the Greens had wanted it that way. Mr. Clegg read that the Greens would have considered all of their lands, including the large tract around the pond which provided the northeastern boundary to the proposed NCD, to be included as part of the Greenwood neighborhood.
Bob McMahan, a resident of Sandy Creek Trail, said the process to determine the characteristics of the overlay district had encouraged the addition of requirements and restrictions on the properties that did not necessarily relate to the original intent of an overlay district. He noted that the broad- based concern of the neighborhood was to preserve the character, and to preserve that quality would require simple adjustments to an overlay conservation zone, such as minimum lot sizes to prevent high-density development from occurring and some provisions against clear-cutting of the treescapes within the properties.
Mr. McMahan said, unfortunately, as part of this process, a number of additional restrictions were proposed to be placed on the properties, such as enhanced setbacks both interior and street-side and a maximum percentage of front-yard parking. He strongly urged the Council to recognize that these provisions did not take into account the wide range of sizes of lots within the neighborhood and the disproportionate impacts that fixed setbacks of that type have on the smaller lots. Mr. McMahan said that 67 of the 163 lots within the neighborhood would become nonconforming under the current proposals, and many more would have nonconforming features.
Mr. McMahan asked that the Manager and the Council report a set of guidelines for the overlay district that minimally impacted the residences of the district yet captured the primary purpose of an NCD.
Council Member Greene said her comments were global to all four of the NCD applications. She called the Council’s and the public’s attention to a portion of the Comprehensive Plan that had helped her in thinking about what was happening here.
Council Member Greene stated Mr. Waldon had mentioned balancing the private interests against the public interests, adding that the Council constantly balanced such issues. She said one of those balancing acts was between neighborhood preservation and the larger goals of preserving the Urban Services boundary and being denser in parts of the Town that were appropriate for higher density.
Council Member Greene said the Comprehensive Plan addressed that, noting it said that certain neighborhoods were designated residential conservation areas. As a matter of policy the Town believed that these neighborhoods that were close to the University and under constant threat from development were worth preserving. Council Member Greene said when issues such as NCDs came along these neighborhoods should be looked upon favorably.
Council Member Greene stated that the next section of the Comprehensive Plan discussed opportunity sites which were designated areas within Town where density was appropriate and to be encouraged. She said she offered that to remind everyone that what we were doing here was not inconsistent with the Town’s larger goals.
Mayor Foy reminded the Council that no decisions would be made this evening, but that public comment would be taken and decisions deferred until June 12 at the earliest.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked about how the comparisons were made between the NCD and the current zoning. He said they had not long ago rezoned Greenwood to Residential-Low Denity-1 (R-LD-1), and it seemed as if all four of the NCD proposals referenced how they compared to R-LD-1 as opposed to what the zoning was before. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he had thought that the R-LD-1 zone was a preservation zone that would hold until the Council decided to make changes, but would not necessarily be the basis for comparison with the proposed NCD. He said he would like to see how it compared to the old zone, which he believed was Residential-1.
Mayor Foy asked that a map of the zoning districts be displayed to assist the Council during this discussion.
Council Member Ward said one of the speakers had noted that one of the outcomes of approving the Manager’s recommendations would be a number of nonconforming lots. He said he had participated in the Kings Mill discussion, and one of the issues that had come up was that it was not nonconforming. Council Member Ward asked for an explanation, noting that the bottom line was that people wanted to be confident that not nonconforming was something that was good enough for them to buy or sell the property and would not identify it in some negative way. Mr. Horton offered to provide a follow-up report to answer all of the questions.
Mayor pro tem Strom said he had attended the Greenwood meetings as a member of the neighborhood, and it was an excellent process. He said that the brevity of the remarks reflected the consensus in the neighborhood in favor of the NCD. Mayor pro tem Strom said that the Town staff and Clarion had done a “terrific” job, and he appreciated the process.
Council Member Greene, regarding the fences in Greenwood, said she wanted to make sure the Council understood that what was being proposed was a regulation of fences in the front setback, and if you have a corner lot it would regulate the side as well. She stated that some neighbors with such lots were concerned about that.
Mayor Foy said he was not clear how it would work on Christopher Road as opposed to the rest of the neighborhood. Ms. Culpepper said the proposal was that a higher fence height be allowed for lots with frontage on Christopher Road than those that were internal to the neighborhood. She said the proposal was that fences located in front yards and taller than two and a half feet would be no more than 50 percent opaque, and all fences located in front yards with street frontage have a maximum height of four feet, with the exception of lots on Christopher Road where standards Town regulations would apply. Ms. Culpepper stated those standards were a six-foot height limit unless you met the setback requirement that allowed a higher fence.
Mayor pro tem Strom said that Council Member Greene’s question was valid. He said when the Manager’s follow-up report came back he wanted to have some discussion about corner lots.
Council Member Greene said she had one suggestion regarding the language. She said they had talked about fences over two and a half feet tall being no more than 50 percent opaque, and it had been proposed to her than a glass block may not be opaque. Council Member Greene suggested changing the language to no more than 50 percent solid material.
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JUNE 12. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, TO REFER ALL COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Guidelines for the Pine Knolls Neighborhood
Ms. Sinreich said the Planning Board agreed with the Manager’s recommendation, with the exception of some wording of the exceptions. She said there was some question about excluding Lincoln Center, the Manley Estates, and the future to-be-developed Mainsale properties. Ms. Sinreich said the Planning Board strongly supported including these properties in the NCD, noting they did not believe the regulations would have a large impact on those properties.
Ms. Sinreich said the staff’s wording of the exception was “except for single-family dwellings and single-family with accessory.” She said the Planning Board preferred their wording, which was “except for certain types of uses,” because they would want it to apply to things such as a small apartment building. Ms. Sinreich said there was also a desire by the Board to keep these regulations parallel with Northside, since it was a similar neighborhood with similar pressures.
Lisa Stuckey, Chair of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board, said the Board had considered this issue and had voted unanimously to request that the Council not include Lincoln Center in the NCD. She said there were two fundamental reasons for their concern. Ms. Stuckey said the first was their ability to use the land and the second was any potential diminution in the value of the land given that it was owned by the taxpayers.
Ms. Stuckey said their long-range plan included expansion and renovation of the Lincoln Center, and restoration of its use as an educational facility. She stated that these plans were not yet well-developed, nor did they have a specific vision, but their goal was to return it to an educational facility. Ms. Stuckey said their concern was that they wanted to be able to use that land with maximum flexibility, and expansion of the facility would not conform to NCD regulations. She noted that both the Planning Board’s and the Manager’s recommendations sought to give them some flexibility, and asked that if the Council did decide to include Lincoln Center in the NCD that the flexibility remain.
Ms. Stuckey said regarding the second issue, they had been advised by their attorney, John McCormick, that if the land were ever sold, which they had no plans to do, that being part of the NCD would most likely reduce the value of the land. She said that land was owned by the taxpayers and they were concerned about that potential effect.
Mayor Foy asked how the Lincoln Center was zoned. Ms. Stuckey said she believed it was zoned Residential-3. Mayor Foy said the Manager’s preliminary recommendation was that the proposed standards apply only to single-family dwellings, and that property not developed in that manner would not be subject to the standards of the overlay district. Ms. Stuckey asked if that meant that if any other use were made of the property that the overlay standards would not apply. Mayor Foy said he believed the key thing was that under the current zoning of R-3, if the land was sold and someone wanted to build apartments on it or a shopping center, it would need to be rezoned. He said he did not see how that would diminish the value of the property since a rezoning would be required in any case, and since the overlay applied only to residential uses.
Mr. Horton said what the recommendation was saying was that if this property were to be used for single-family or single-family with accessory apartment, then it ought to have to follow the same rules as any other single-family property in that neighborhood. He said if it were going to be used for something other than that, the owners would have to come before the Council for either rezoning or a Special Use Permit. Mr. Horton said he did not believe this would have any adverse affect on the value.
Mayor Foy agreed that would have no effect on the value, nor would it place any limitation on what the School Board could do with the property. He said he believed that struck the right balance in addressing the School Board’s concerns. Ms. Stuckey said if the Board’s concerns in terms of flexibility of use and maintaining the public investment were met, then she believed they would be happy to move forward with inclusion in the NCD.
Eric Chupp, representing the owners of the Mainsale properties, three properties south of Merritt Mill Road and east of Manley Estates, asked not to be included in the NCD. He said their concerns echoed those of the School Board, regarding the negative impact of diminished property value. Mr. Chupp said they also had an overriding concern that the property was not really part of the Pine Knolls neighborhood, noting it was geographically separated, architecturally separated, and was not laid out with the street structure that the Pine Knolls neighborhood was.
Mr. Chupp said the ordinance contained language that said if a property were going to be part of an overlay district then it must possess one of five different qualities that bound pieces of property together, such as scale, size, types of construction, distinctive building materials, lot layout, setbacks and street layouts. He said there were no binding identities of this piece of property, noting it was between the off-ramp of Highway 54 and Merritt Mill Road, separated from the Pine Knolls neighborhood by the Lincoln Center and Manley Estates.
Mr. Chupp said they were concerned that the Town was reaching beyond the boundaries of the Pine Knolls neighborhood, and that could have a detrimental effect on the value of their property. He said they had discussed this during neighborhood meetings, and during one of those meetings the Board of the Pine Knolls Community Center had unanimously voted that they did not consider the Mainsale property to be part of the Pine Knolls neighborhood.
Mr. Chupp said they understood the concerns of the neighborhood about out-of-scale residential development being placed in existing neighborhoods, but they did not believe that this property being as detached as it is was a part of that problem or part of the solution. He asked that the property be excluded from the boundary of the overlay district. Mr. Chupp said they did believe that the language proposed in the Manager’s preliminary recommendation provided flexibility if the overlay district was extended to this property, but they were concerned that these detached properties being considered tonight, if developed 10 years down the road, would be considered by a Council that may not have the clarity of vision that the present Council had.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said it was less than a year ago that placing the homeless shelter across from this property was being considered. He said it was the Pine Knolls community that had rallied to prevent that, and he believed there was some evidence that not only was the Mainsale property but the property across the street was considered part of the Pine Knolls neighborhood by the residents. Mr. Chupp said he could not speak to that because he had not participated in that. He reiterated that the Board of the Pine Knolls Community Center had unanimously voted that they did not consider the Mainsale property to be part of the Pine Knolls neighborhood.
Ted Parrish, speaking for the Pines Community Center, said they were interested in maintaining the historic character of the community. He said, regarding the issue of excluding the Manley Estates, they had no problem with doing that. Mr. Parrish said they had no problem with excluding the Mainsale property as well, because there was a possibility that physicians’ officers would be placed there which would be a significant benefit to the community.
Mr. Parrish noted that he did not believe the Board had said that area was not part of their concern, noting they believed the entire area was a part of the neighborhood. He said they had no problem with excluding the Lincoln Center property was well. Mr. Parrish said they did have a concern if anyone suggested that the NCD process would devalue property. He said they wanted new residences, but not ones that were far and above what anyone in the neighborhood could afford. Mr. Parrish said they wanted to maintain the character and have flexibility. He thanked Clarion for its good work.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM STROM, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JUNE 12. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM STROM, TO REFER ALL COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Kleinschmidt said recommendation number five regarding the bedroom/bathroom ratio worked well, but the language stated, “persons related by blood, adoption, marriage or domestic partnership, with not more than two unrelated persons.” He said he was concerned that the language was not as inclusive as it could be, noting that if there were a same-sex couple who chose not to become domestic partners, and had a foster child, they would not be allowed to live there. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed the language should contain a provision that would allow them to live there. Mr. Horton said they would address that in the follow-up report.
Council Member Greene said she was not totally clear on overlay versus underlay, and believed what they had seen with Pine Knolls was that you could have an overlay that was a residential conservation district, and it could be on top of a higher density zone than the predominant zone in that neighborhood. Ms. Culpepper said that was correct. Council Member Greene asked once you had that overlay district could you also rezone the base zone underneath the overlay district on any given property. Ms. Culpepper said yes, noting the Council had done that at Northside.
Mayor Foy said the point was that if you were in the NCD for Pine Knolls and were in the overlay, property could still be rezoned to a commercial use. Council Member Greene said yes, the overlay zone placed stricter restrictions on top of whatever the underlying zone was.
Mayor Foy said the way the Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation was worded, a property would be exempt from the NCD once it was rezoned to commercial. Mr. Horton said the Council would authorize a permit that would allow them to do the things that were determined to be okay to do, which might require a modification of the ordinance.
Ms. Clark said there was general consensus on most issues, but there were three on which there was no consensus. They were tree protection, tree removal ordinances, and the exclusion or inclusion of the Winter Drive subdivision, she said.
Ms. Sinreich said the staff and Planning Board concurred in their recommendations with the exception of the two tree issues. She said on the boundary issue the Planning Board had actually split 3-3 on whether to include the Winter Drive subdivision.
Mayor Foy asked why the Board had split on the Winter Drive inclusion. Ms. Sinreich said there were good arguments on both sides, noting it could be argued that it should not be included since it did not share any streets and was not in the Town limits, but it could also be argued that it shared the meadow and access through properties to the meadow, and the development right next to this neighborhood could have an impact.
Council Member Greene said she had attended that meeting, and there were three members who had voted for inclusion and three who had said they did not know.
George Entenman, a resident of Bartram Drive, made general comments regarding the recommendations that he was in favor of. He said he was concerned about a large tract of land that was part of the neighborhood, adding that if a larger home placed on that land would prevent it from being subdivided, then he would be in favor of that. Mr. Entenman said regarding the floor area ratios, he believed that .17 was too big, and he asked for something smaller, such as 1.5 or less.
Mr. Entenman said that tree protection was a priority for him, and asked that the Council provide that protection. He noted that the notification requirements were clearly unpopular in his neighborhood. Mr. Entenman remarked that he believed the fence height of four feet was too short, particularly for people with dogs. He said regarding the Winter Drive subdivision, he was not aware until this came up that it was not a part of the neighborhood. Mr. Entenman said he believed it should be included, partly because he would like to see that area protected and remain similar to the remainder of the neighborhood.
Betty Maultsby said she did not believe there was a consensus by her neighborhood regarding fences. She said she did not believe regulations regarding fences should be included. She said she had driven around neighborhoods in an attempt to find homes that violated the conditions that were being proposed, and she was unable to find more than one in each neighborhood. Ms. Maultsby said she had found two fences in her neighborhood that met all of the regulations. She concluded that she did not believe they would be getting what they were asking for. Ms. Maultsby said they did not need to require people not to do what they were not doing in any case
Mark Tenney, a resident of the corner lot on Winter Drive and representing the majority of properties bordering the meadow, asked that they be included in the NCD in order to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. He said they had always considered themselves a part of the Morgan Creek neighborhood, noting their homes had been built to the same standards and that they would like to have the same protections.
Loren Hintz, a resident of Kings Mill Road, said he believed the proposal did meet what the majority of the neighborhood wanted. He said he was concerned that the summary of citizens’ comments did not do justice to the comments regarding the need to be more protective. Mr. Hintz said he agreed that the .17 ratio was still too big and that they were in favor of more conservation than the summary of comments showed.
Mr. Hintz stated that one issue with fences was whether four feet was high enough. He said some homes had swimming pools towards the front of their property, and people felt more comfortable if their pools were protected by a higher fence. Mr. Hintz said that had not been included in any of the comments.
Mr. Hintz commented that, regarding tree notification, there had been a suggestion that neighbors would have to purchase the addresses of adjacent property owners. He stated that figuring out who your neighbors were would not be hard, so purchasing addresses was not an issue. Mr. Hintz said there was some talk that the Town would be amending the Tree Protection Ordinance, and he believed this was an opportunity for the Town to place some protections to see if they worked. He said he would like to see something placed in their NCD since trees were such an issue.
Mr. Hintz said parking was another issue, noting that when you look at many of the front yards of lots that 25 percent dedicated parking was too much for most properties. He suggested that 20 percent of less made more sense.
Barbara Nowell, a resident of Meadow Lane, stated her desire that Winter Drive be included in the NCD. She spoke to the issues regarding why they were being considered for exclusion, beginning with vehicular access. Ms. Nowell said there was no road connecting them with the neighborhood, but their properties abutted properties being considered for an NCD. She said whatever development occurred in one area would have significant impact on the other.
Ms. Nowell said the second issue was that the lots were developed separately and were not part of the Morgan Creek restrictive covenants. However, she stated, they were developed at the same time and had a binding identity. Ms. Nowell invited the Council to visit the neighborhood and see how it interacted with the green space that was the meadow. She said it had been commented that Winter Drive was outside the Town’s limits, but she did not understand why that was an issue. Ms. Nowell said that she had been unable to find anything in the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) that would exclude a County property from participating in an NCD.
Laura Moore, a resident of Morgan Creek Road, addressed the Council on behalf of the Morgan Creek/Kings Mill Neighborhood Association Board. She shared the Board’s comments on the proposal and their vote on each. Ms. Moore said, regarding the first three proposals on minimum lot size, minimum street setback, and minimum interior setbacks, that all Board members unanimously supported the proposal. Regarding the maximum building heights, she stated they unanimously supported removing any height limitation and would rely on the current R-1 zoning limitation. Ms. Moore said they believed the height limit was more accurate than the number of stories.
Mayor Foy asked Ms. Moore for clarification, noting that the Manager’s recommendation was 29 feet, not stories. Ms. Moore responded that if 29 feet was the current R-1 height, then that was what they were proposing.
Ms. Moore said regarding floor area ratios, she believed the maximum floor area ratio in their neighborhood thus far was .153, and there was general consensus that .17 was too high. Regarding the 25 percent front-yard impervious surface, she said that eight members supported that, with one member wanting a lower restriction and one wanting no restriction. Ms. Moore said regarding tree protection, four members supported no tree permits, and eight members supported requiring a tree permit if more than 20 percent of the wooded vegetation was to be removed.
Ms. Moore said regarding notification of tree removal, nine members supported requiring neighborhood notification through the Town for trees adjacent to the setback and for the 10 day waiting period before cutting trees with more than a 10-inch diameter within the interior setbacks. Regarding notification of the Zoning Compliance Permit, Ms. Moore said the Board had agreed unanimously.
Ms. Moore said regarding fences, one member abstained, three members supported no fence regulations, and six members supported Clarion’s recommendations with two modifications. She said those were to change the four foot limit to five feet, and exclude fences around swimming pools. Ms. Moore provided the Council with a copy of those recommendations.
Council Member Easthom said there were several references to tree protection, and the Town was working on the Tree Protection ordinance. She asked when that would take place, and if it could be incorporated into this process. Ms. Culpepper replied that they expected to have a report to the Council in June that laid out a process for consideration regarding banning of clear-cutting and application of the Tree Ordinance to single-family and two-family lots. She said that discussion could begin as early as this fall.
Mayor Foy said that Mr. Hintz had noted some suggestions and comments at the neighborhood discussions regarding how tree protections could be included in this ordinance. He asked if those suggestions were being captured so that when the Council began those discussions they could be a part of it. Ms. Culpepper said Mr. Hintz was referring to discussions that were beyond the Clarion recommendations.
Mayor Foy said Mr. Hintz had noted those comments were not included with the materials, so he wanted to make sure that the Council received that. Mr. Hintz noted that their suggestions were contained in the information that Laura Moore had just distributed to the Council.
Mayor pro tem Strom said Clarion made the recommendation to include the Winter Drive lots in the NCD. He said today he had looked at the NCD designation criteria, specifically at Section 3.6.5 in the LUMO, and it seemed like the Winter Drive lots do fit the designation criteria under Item 4a – e. Mayor pro tem Strom asked Mr. Waldon to explain Clarion’s thinking regarding that. Mr. Waldon agreed that Winter Drive met those criteria in the LUMO, adding that there had been differences of opinion on this from the beginning. He stated that Clarion had made that recommendation because of the common identity that this neighborhood had with Morgan Creek/Kings Mill, which was brought about to a large extent by the presence a common element, Merritt’s Pasture. He said then, in every way, the entire area was separated from the rest of Chapel Hill by Fordham Boulevard on the north and the creek on the south. Mr. Waldon said no vehicular connection was most likely the main reason not to include it, but Clarion had found that on balance there were more reasons to include it than to exclude it.
Council Member Ward said he had participated in the Morgan Creek/Kings Mill conservation district discussions representing a property owner, not as a Council member. He said as a curator for the NC Botanical Garden, the Botanical Garden Foundation was an owner of property, and he had attended in that capacity.
Council Member Greene said she had participated as a neighbor, and commented that regarding fences the Planning Board had recommended an exception for swimming pools. She wanted to make sure that was carried forward.
Council Member Thorpe said a speaker had commented that the fences were not included in the recommendations until the end of the process, and asked why. Mr. Waldon responded that they were discussed at the beginning and the end, but not during the middle of the process. He said at the beginning it was brought up and comments were that maybe fences should not be addressed. Then, Mr. Waldon said, when they prepared their second version, some asked what had happened to the fences. He stated at that point and after more discussion, fences were included in the recommendations.
Mayor pro tem Strom said, as a point of clarification, the fences that the Council would be regulating were only fences within the setback. So, he said, if there was a 50-foot setback, someone could erect a ten-foot fence at 51 feet. Ms. Culpepper said today’s regulations apply a six-foot height limit if you were not meeting the zoning district’s setback. If you were requesting approval of a fence that met the setback, then the height limits apply, she said, adding that primary height limit was 29 feet. Mayor pro tem Strom said it would be helpful if that were made clearer when the follow-up report came back to the Council.
Council Member Greene said regarding accessory apartments, she wanted to make sure that the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek ordinance draft would do essentially the same thing as the Greenwood ordinance draft in preserving accessory apartments. She said she was not able to find that language in the draft for Kings Mill/Morgan Creek. Council Member Greene said she did not believe the intent was that it be left out of this NCD ordinance.
Mayor pro tem Strom agreed with Council Member Greene’s statement.
COUNCIL MEMBER THORPE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JUNE 12. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER THORPE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO REFER ALL COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 4 – Public Hearing: Proposed Neighborhood Conservation District
Guidelines for the Coker Hills Neighborhood
Mayor Foy asked Ms. Clark to elaborate on exactly what that meant. Ms. Clark said it meant that in order for a rezoning to be approved a vote of three-fourths of the Council would be required.
Ms. Sinreich said this NCD had required a fourth neighborhood meeting, with strong opinions on both sides of the issue. She reminded the Council and the public that the purpose of an NCD was preservation of a neighborhood which benefited the entire community, not just the neighborhood for its own internal benefit. Ms. Sinreich said there was a lot of contention during the meetings, and asked Tom Jensen to elaborate.
Tom Jensen, a member of the Planning Board, stated that the feeling was not that Coker Hills should never have an NCD, rather, that having a staff recommendation with only a minimum lot size was so watered down that there was no point to that NCD. He said they were uncomfortable moving forward with an NCD that was comparable to the ones for Greenwood and Morgan Creek/Kingsmill, because the neighborhood was so divided.
Mr. Jensen said they would like to see everyone take a step back. He stated that Council Member Greene had suggested that they look at the role of Coker Hills and the Comprehensive Plan, and move forward from there, and that was where they were.
Council Member Greene said her recommendation to the Planning Board which they adopted was that Coker Hills was not designated as a residential conservation area in the Comprehensive Plan. She said it was not that we could not proceed with an NCD without that designation, but she wondered if going through that type of process with the neighborhood and the Town and deciding whether or not that neighborhood should be designated as a matter of policy as a neighborhood that we would want to protect would be a first step as an exercise.
Council Member Greene said it seemed to her that was the missing link. She said what she was hearing from the neighbors was that they liked their neighborhood and its character, but they did not understand what the enemy was, or what they were trying to protect against. Council Member Greene stated that was a legitimate question, and maybe there should be some consensus that there was something that should be protected there before talking about an ordinance that would protect those characters.
Mayor Foy reminded citizens that this had been going on with the neighborhood for a year, but not with the Council, who received its packet of materials a few days ago. He said this was their first impression, and none of the Council had yet drawn conclusions about what should be done. Mayor Foy said they wanted to hear from citizens regarding their concerns and why they were important, so that they could sift through the information and come to a decision.
Mayor Foy stated it would be helpful for citizens to the extent possible to not be repetitive. He said if something had already been said, agree with it but don’t elaborate on it. Mayor Foy said that was to ensure that the Council heard everything but not many things for no particular purpose.
Sylvia Clements, a resident of Curtis Road, said the ill feeling created by this controversy was unfortunate. She noted that for those residents who felt that the original covenants were sacred, she wanted to remind them that they were not written for the 21st century. Ms. Clements said for example, one of the covenants stated that a home must cost at least $15,000. She said what bothered her was that Chapel Hill was becoming bulkinized, that it was being divided into individual principalities that would have their own building regulations. Ms. Clements said she did not believe that was what the Town really wanted.
Ms. Clements said, if they add more and more restrictions to neighborhoods, why would someone what to come and live there when they could move a few thousand feet in either direction and live without those restrictions. She said if there was something wrong with the current residential zoning, then perhaps the Town should address the universal problem rather than addressing the principalities’ problems. Ms. Clements said she believed having to keep up with what was legal in one part of Town as opposed to another would be a nightmare for the Town.
Jaye Kreller, a resident of Curtis Road, said she had originally supported the NCD for Coker Hills, but had since grown concerned. She said the process seemed subjective, and the opposition was very apparent. Ms. Kreller said she did not believe Coker Hills wanted an NCD, and that neighborhood support had not been established.
Ms. Kreller said additional meetings had been called, and the majority of attendees were against an NCD. She stated that at one meeting called by the Neighborhood Association, they had asked that the original NCD proposal be brought back to the neighborhood for approval to see if that was what they wanted, and with a vote of 19 to 4 it was decided to do that. But, Ms. Kreller said, that never happened. She said they were told that even though the meeting was called by their President and the President had presided over the meeting, and that a vote was requested and taken, that it was not considered an official meeting. She said that resulted in nothing being done and no documentation of the support was recorded. Ms. Kreller said there was obviously a problem here. She said there was a petition and a proposal, but they did not resemble each other.
Ms. Kreller said she had voiced her concerns to their Association President, who had responded that she was “not passionate about my neighborhood.” She said she took offense at that, because she was passionate about Coker Hills. Ms. Kreller said she could not stand by while falsehoods and misinformation were being disseminated as official dogma. As an example, she said, they were told that the proposed NCD overlay was an extension of their covenants, but if you looked carefully at the proposed overlay and their covenants there was only one indisputable consistency, and that was lot size. Ms. Kreller said that was not what was in their covenants, but an interpretation and expansion of their covenants, and she had problems with that.
Ms. Kreller said keeping developers out of Coker Hills was a priority for her, but they were not under any immediate threat so she could not understand why the least threatened of all the neighborhoods tonight had the most restrictions in the proposed NCD. For example, she said they had the same setbacks as Greenwood but Greenwood had a one-acre lot-size minimum and Coker Hills had a .6-acre lot-size minimum. Ms. Kreller said setbacks could have dire consequences, noting that if they could not make small improvements, such as adding a bathroom, then they may be devaluing their property. She said that was what would attract developers. If that property would be devalued, developers would buy them cheap, tear down the homes, and start over, she said. Ms. Kreller said she would prefer that that not happen.
Ms. Kreller said that Coker Hills was not broken, and she would prefer that it not be fixed. She said if the Council had to absolutely do something, she would prefer that they do as little as possible.
Jill Blackburn, President of the Coker Hills Neighborhood Association, provided a PowerPoint presentation containing background on Coker Hills and the NCD process. She said that the Association represented more than 200 homeowners, with officers elected annually. Ms. Blackburn said they promoted communication, preserved and improved quality of life, and encouraged social interaction. She said the Association also provided oversight of the Coker Hills covenants.
Ms. Blackburn provided some brief information regarding past accomplishments of the Association, including preserving residential quality, limited density, and traffic calming on Elliott Road. She described the reasons that the Association had petitioned the Town for an NCD:
Ms. Blackburn said the restrictive and enforceable covenants were the minimum lot size of .6 acres, and setbacks of 50 feet to any road and 25 feet side and rear. Consistent with Clarion and the original Planning Board recommendations, these covenants were to be included in the NCD.
Ms. Blackburn said the Coker Hills NCD process had been deliberate, open, and democratic. She said they had begun looking at the possibility in 2003, when they had invited Town officials to speak to the Association. She said in 2004, Association members had voted to pursue an NCD. Ms. Blackburn said in 2005, a petition for an NCD had received signatures of 65 percent of the homeowners. During 2005 and 2006, she said, there was extensive neighborhood involvement throughout the entire process.
Ms. Blackburn read the wording on the petition, which stated the intent of the Association to pursue an NCD and spelled out that setbacks were 50 feet to road and 25 feet to sidelines, that there be one dwelling per lot, and that the minimum lot size be .6 acre. She said the residents of Coker Hills had been given ample opportunity to participate in the process, through the following:
Ms. Blackburn stated that the majority of the residents favored an NCD, citing that 65 percent of residents had signed the petition to start the NCD process, and that the majority of residents had participated in meetings and/or stayed involved through mailings and web sites. She emphasized that the majority of residents expressing a preference in the dissidents’ own survey had favored the NCD.
Ms. Blackburn noted that multiple homes had already been renovated within the covenants and proposed NCD restrictions. She displayed photos of three such homes, commenting on the renovations.
Ms. Blackburn said in summary that the Association, as the elected representatives of the residents of Coker Hills, pursued the NCD through a process defined by the Town Council and open to participation by all neighbors. She stated that the Clarion NCD and original Planning Department recommendations replicated the key areas of the current binding legal requirements of their existing neighborhood covenants. Ms. Blackburn remarked that an NCD without the covenant minimum lot size with setbacks would force continued reliance on the covenant to preserve and protect Coker Hills. She stated that the Association requested that the Council approve the NCD with their restrictive covenants as an overlay to their existing R-1 zoning.
Cat Moleski, a resident of Curtis Road, encouraged the Council to vote no on the NCD because it had divided her neighborhood. She said she did not feel that Clarion had really listened to dissenting opinions and neither did her Homeowners Association. Ms. Moleski said many of the homes in Coker Hills had already violated their restrictive covenants, and the NCD would grandfather them in.
Ms. Moleski said those who had not been able to find the time or funds to make improvements to their lots would not be able to in the future, and that was arbitrary and unfair.
Linda Sanders, a resident of Clayton Road, stated she was puzzled that those who were against the NCD for Coker Hills had been labeled with negative terms. She said comments made by their Association President indicated a desire to legislate rather than collaborate. Ms. Sanders said such comments serviced no purpose and denigrated others.
Ms. Sanders said the primary issue for her neighborhood was having developers come in and buy up homes, tear them down, and build larger homes. She said she agreed with the .6-acre minimum lot size for Coker Hills, but did not support the creation of an NCD. Ms. Sanders said there was no impending threat from developers, noting that in the past two years only three homes had sold on her street and none were sold to developers. She said one of the properties was over two acres.
Ms. Sanders said she wanted her property value to appreciate, and was concerned that an NCD would counter that. She said if the NCD were approved, she would support the Manager’s preliminary recommendation. Ms. Sanders said she felt that an NCD was restrictive for those who had houses built in the 1960s and 1970s, and whose owners had not yet had the opportunity to make improvements.
Ms. Sanders requested that the Council direct the Planning Board to define and enable a fair and reasonable appeals process, whereby neighbors who wanted to make additions that would require a variance could do so without the constraint of requiring a hardship. She stated that Rudy Juliano, a past Board president, had proposed an appeals process in April and had suggested that the Council consider it.
Bryan Sanders, a resident of Clayton Road, said he was opposed to an NCD. He said a new element to this debate was that some neighbors were turning this into a personal issue. Ms. Sanders said those neighbors who were being attacked and called self-centered were the same ones who were out in heavy snow cutting trees and clearing driveways for elderly residents. He said they were the same neighbors who had opened their homes to elderly neighbors when the power was out for several days. Mr. Sanders said those same neighbors had worked in freezing weather to cover tree-damaged roofs on someone else’s home. He said if that was being self-centered, then they needed more of it.
Mr. Sanders said he and his wife were now under attacked because they had expressed concern over an NCD and that they wanted to construct a carport. He said they were being maligned in emails, called liars, and other ugly names. Mr. Sanders said if expressing your opinion gets you attacked, he understood why others would not participate in the process on either side.
Mr. Sanders said if all of the negative energy were focused for even a moment on finding a compromise, he believed they would be successful. He encouraged the speakers this evening to hold that thought.
Marc LaBranche, Secretary of the Coker Hills Neighborhood Association, said he believed the issue of setbacks was the most critical and divisive one for his neighborhood. He described the differences between the setbacks in Coker Hills and what was required by the Town’s R-1 zoning. Mr. LaBranche stated that the setback requirements for Coker Hills provided more buildable lot than conventional R-1 setbacks. Mr. LaBranche said the reason for the wide setbacks was to provide for more open space, not to discourage development.
Mr. LaBranche said if the NCD was approved, homeowners would still have the opportunity under the Town’s processes to request a variance. He said if a homeowner were to go through the process and receive a variance to build within the setback, it would lend validity to building within the setback since there was no process to do that now. Mr. LaBranche said some of his neighbors felt that the process was too restrictive and they would not be successful should they request a variance. He said many felt that any improvement they wanted to make in the setback was reasonable, so that was where the divide was between the two sides.
Patty Krebs, a resident of North Elliott Road, said she wanted to correct an erroneous comment in yesterday’s newspaper, noting that NCD supporters do not want a conservation district that increases setbacks. She said they wanted a setback requirement that honors the setback already in place under their neighborhood covenants. Ms. Krebs said it was NCD opponents who were setting a major change in her neighborhood.
Ms. Krebs said these opponents had criticized Clarion for a supposed flawed process and lack of notice regarding the NCD despite many mailings and emails to the contrary. She continued to highlight other areas of criticism that to her were unjustified and unwarranted. Ms. Krebs said in asking to reduce the covenant setbacks, these opponents were seeking their own satisfaction and gain at the expense of their immediate neighbors and the neighborhood at large.
Ms. Krebs said the present covenants had been in effect since 1960, and were clearly meant to prevent the crowding that would occur should carports be placed 14 feet from property lines and garages placed on the streets. She said she had appeared before the Council many times in the past to seek protection of her neighborhood, and it had always been forthcoming. Ms. Krebs said she hoped that tradition would continue, through endorsement of an NCD with covenant setbacks and minimum lot sizes.
Kristen Zuco provided background on her neighborhood’s NCD survey committee’s formation and purpose. She said it was their task to analyze the wants and desires of the neighborhood. Ms. Zuco stated they had taken their task seriously, with their first meeting lasting three hours. She stated that the day after that meeting, their Association president, who was a member of the survey committee, met with members of the Planning Board without the committee’s knowledge or input. Ms. Zuco said, nonetheless, the result of that meeting was that the Planning Board indicated they liked the format the president had submitted and the neighborhood should use it.
Ms. Zuco said her committee continued its work, but ultimately received an email from the Association president requesting that the Homeowner’s Association name be removed from all of their documents and mailings. She said her committee continued to meet, send out and collect survey forms. Ms. Zuco said they analyzed the results, provided that data to the Planning Department staff and to the neighborhood, and presented it to the Planning Board.
Ms. Zuco stated that, in her opinion, her neighborhood was taking sides rather than working towards a compromise, noting that personalities were getting in the way of progress. She noted that the surveys were a success, citing they had a 63 percent response as compared the 16 percent participation experienced by the Neighborhood Association. Ms. Zuco said their survey had provided valuable information that would contribute to the decision the Council would make.
Ms. Zuco asked that the Council provide her neighborhood with the tools to make an NCD that they could live with and that the Council could support in a positive manner. She also requested that her neighborhood go through the process to determine if they qualified as a Residential Conservation Area, and then see if an NCD would allow the neighborhood to grow with the times while the style and feel of the neighborhood remained.
Tony Zuco read a statement by Clay Whybark, a resident of 409 Clayton Road, which explained his understanding of what had taken place thus far regarding the NCD proposed for Coker Hills. Mr. Whybark’s statement explained that as more questions were asked, he had received conflicting explanations regarding such things as the measurement point for house heights and accessory apartment restrictions.
Mr. Whybark’s statement went on to say he had been called anti-NCD, and that this was not true. His statement said he was interested only in preserving the character of his neighborhood, but he could not support an NCD that was not clear, may be less enforceable than their present covenants, and did not meet the needs of many of the residents. Mr. Whybark’s statement asked that the Council allow the neighborhood the opportunity to develop a proposal that would protect their valuable investments.
Mr. Zuco said it was important that the Council consider Coker Hills for designation as a Residential Conservation Area. He said he supported the creation of an NCD, but did not believe enough analysis had been performed, adding that the best results were gained from differing viewpoints. He said the idea of an NCD had grown out of a small group of neighbors who had “steamrolled” over those with different viewpoints.
Fritzi Ross, a resident of Elliott Road, said her family supported the amended NCD as recommended by the Manager and the Planning staff. She said she did not support the Planning Board’s recommendation because she believed it would continue an increasingly “ugly” process. Ms. Ross said a home that came within 45 feet of the street rather than 60 feet would not harm the neighborhood. She said her home was slightly out of compliance with the covenants now, and the addition of an NCD would put them further out of compliance.
Ms. Ross said she was doubtful that the people who supported a more restrictive NCD were actually acting against their own interests, noting those homes were most likely on larger lots and the residents wanted their homes to remain as is and wanted their neighbors’ homes to remain as is. She said she thought a blended NCD would allow for preservation of the character of the neighborhood without imposing undue restrictions on the homeowners.
Charles Smith stated that Elizabeth Gibson, vice president of the Coker Hills Neighborhood Association, had asked him to read a letter on her behalf. In summary the letter stated as follows: she was in support of an NCD similar to that proposed by Clarion and initially recommended by the Planning staff in March; that the provisions of that recommendation largely conformed to the restrictive covenants and would make them enforceable by the Town; it would be a mistake for the Council to refrain from taking action that would be in the best interests of the neighborhood and the Town because of the opposition; some opponents of the NCD object to any restrictions on the use of their property, noting the survey conducted showed that 11 percent of the respondents did not want any restrictions on trailers or shacks, 11 percent did not want restrictions on Class A trailers, and another 10 percent did not want restrictions on duplexes or apartment buildings.
Ms. Gibson’s letter stated that these results reflected a position that was inconsistent with the covenants, with R-1 zoning, and the NCD concept that the Town had endorsed. Her letter stated that the views expressed by the remaining opponents could be grouped into two categories: that there was no need for an NCD because there was no current threat; and, that the setbacks were too restrictive. Ms. Gibson’s letter asked if the neighborhood had to wait until there was a real threat before taking action to safeguard against it, and stated that neighbors should not complain if the NCD imposed the same setbacks as the current covenants.
Ms. Gibson’s letter said she understood that there may be some inconsistency between the covenants and the NCD proposal regarding where the measuring point began. In order to be consistent and eliminate this opposition, Ms. Gibson proposed that the NCD be clarified to provide that the 50-foot setback be measured from the road rather than from the property line. She urged the Council not to base its decision on an NCD for Coker Hills on the loudness of the voices. Ms. Gibson’s letter stated that the proposals put forth by Clarion were the result of the process the Town created and reflected the restrictions that each property owner was bound by when they purchased property in Coker Hills. She urged the Council to approve a meaningful NCD for her neighborhood.
Fred Lampe, a resident of Michaux Road, provided some additional history regarding the NCD survey, noting that only about 10 percent of the neighborhood was participating in the NCD process up until the March 8 meeting. He said the meeting was held in the evening on a different day of the week, and those attending expressed concern about the small participation in the process to date. Mr. Lampe said a small committee was formed to conduct a survey to meet the Association’s goal of presenting results at the March 21 Planning Board meeting. He said as time went on it became clear that the deadline could not be met and that the questions were becoming more complex, at which point the Association representatives withdrew from the process.
Mr. Lampe said once the surveys were sent certified mail, 120 surveys were initially returned, representing 76 property owners, and after efforts to contact the remaining property owners the total tally was 132 surveys received representing 84 property owners. He said that of the 14 items covered in the survey, there was agreement on only four items: that Coker Hill should have only single-family homes, a minimum lot size of .6 acres, no trailers or shacks used for living, and no apartment buildings or duplexes.
Teresa Wilson, a resident of Clayton Road, provided some information regarding her study of the proposed setbacks. She said she and her husband had investigated any non-conformances due to the setbacks proposed by Clarion, using GIS information from the County’s website. Ms. Wilson said they had used their own home to compare the data to determine its accuracy, noting that both satellite imagery and footprint data was used. She said they had considered a lot to be potentially non-conforming only if both sets of data indicated that. Ms. Wilson said their findings were:
Ms. Wilson said these findings called into question the claim that the covenants were widely enforced and shaped the neighborhood. She said that many houses were simply built in “potential” violation of the covenants in the 1960s and 1970s. Ms. Wilson noted there was evidence of remodeling activity done in “potential” violation of the covenants as well as evidence that some supporters of the covenants were “potentially” violating them.
Jason Wilson, a resident of Clayton Road, exhibited GIS photos as examples of some of the potential issues he and his wife had found during their study to clarify their data. He pointed out potential non-conformities regarding setbacks, citing detached garages, varying buffers, and other issues.
Mr. Wilson recommended that a professional survey be conducted of his neighborhood, adding he believed it would benefit the process and clear up any confusion.
Joe Davis, a resident of Elliott Road, said that a community was a group of people with some shared element, and community must have mutual trust, mutual confidence, mutual obligation and mutual loyalty. He said irregardless of whether an NCD was a good thing or a bad thing, at this point any NCD would not enhance community at Coker Hills.
Ed LaCombe, a resident of Elliott Road, said he was in favor of an NCD, and favored the more strict regulations suggested by the Planning staff. He said there appeared to be general agreement regarding the minimum .6 acre. Regarding the setbacks, Mr. LaCombe said perhaps they did need a conservation district so that the guidelines would be clear to all. He said the survey results indicated that 70 percent of the respondents preferred a 50-foot setback, and 69 percent favored the 25-foot side and back setback. Mr. LaCombe said he believed those results were significant, and asked the Council to vote in favor of an NCD for Coker Hills that included those two setbacks. He said those setbacks would prevent any “mansions” from being built.
Peter Gordon said he had originally believed that an NCD was a good thing, noting the idea of having the Town regulate the setbacks rather than the neighbors was favorable. He said if it was left to the neighbors and the Neighborhood Associations, it would be arbitrary. Mr. Gordon said a process whereby there was a presentation made to a formal Town body when the NCD regulations were thought to be violated was far better than neighbors suing neighbors.
Amy Herring, a resident of Elliott Road, said she understood how difficult it was to design a reliable survey, and believed financing a professional survey would be a good idea. She said she and her husband purchased their property three years ago with full knowledge of the restrictive covenants. Ms. Herring voiced her support for the creation of an NCD for Coker Hills.
Celia LaBranche, a resident of Michaux Road, said tonight’s discussion should not be about the differences between neighbors, but about the asset that Coker Hills was to the Town as currently designed. She stated that the larger lots, setbacks and buffers, and modest-sized homes provided for desirable and existing green space. Ms. LaBranche said the fiber of Coker Hills as a neighborhood was in jeopardy because their covenants were now at risk. She said it was important that the Town recognize the value of Coker Hills and create an NCD that would reinforce their restrictive covenants.
Lisa Tust, a resident of Elliott Road, expressed support for an NCD for Coker Hills. She said that continued development was inevitable, and they should not wait until that threat was imminent to do something to protect the neighborhood. Ms. Tust said she hoped they would be preserving a Town with older green areas as well as denser areas to pass on to our children.
Ms. Tust said she was disappointed in the contention and personal attacks made by some neighbors, noting that disagreement was a matter of degree. She said it was unfortunate some felt uninformed, but she felt that Clarion and the Neighborhood Association had made themselves very available for questions and comments. Ms. Trust said she hoped the Council would consider the long-term future of the neighborhood and approve an NCD.
Abby Krichman, a resident of Clayton Road, stated that the opposition to Clarion’s original proposal for an NCD for Coker Hills was a minority of the neighbors. She noted that only 33.7 percent of the neighbors had signed the Protest Petition submitted to the Council, but she did not want to minimize this vocal minority. She said she was not opposed to the creation of an NCD, but she was opposed to restricting homeowners from making modest adjustments to their homes to allow them to live in the 21st century.
Ms. Krichman said she found it peculiar that some wanted to cut down trees to place garages in their backyards rather than placing them on the parking pads already present. She said that was not conservation, but was destruction when talking in terms of an NCD. Ms. Krichman encouraged the Council to think carefully about all of the issues.
Ms. Krichman noted that even though their Neighborhood Association had voiced over and over their willingness to compromise, the Council had heard the Association President state this evening that they were not willing to compromise. She said there was a divide in the neighborhood, and she was looking to the Council for guidance. Ms. Krichman suggested that a trained facilitator be brought in to restore the neighborhood’s feeling of community.
Miguel Nunez-Wolff, a resident of Elliott Road, stated that the issues surrounding an NCD for Coker Hills were not just Clayton Road issues. He said he had attended an Association meeting where some neighbors had come forward with facts and figures to support their comments, and the “other side” had made it clear that they were not interested in consensus building and compromise. Mr. Nunez-Wolff said that had made him begin to ask questions, all of which had gone unanswered or were ignored.
Mr. Nunez-Wolff said he was in favor of an NCD as proposed by the Manager, and was in favor of building consensus. But, he said, when you have emails, which the Council received, that called people names who simply wanted to be better informed, that was unsetting to him. Mr. Nunez-Wolff said he was one of those who wanted to be better informed so that he could make an educated decision.
Mr. Nunez-Wolff said one question that had never been addressed by anyone was what an NCD in Coker Hills would do to the property values of homes. He said he wanted someone to provide an answer to that question. Mr. Nunez-Wolff said he was in favor of building consensus, but neighbors needed to stop calling names.
Ceci Conway, a resident of the neighborhood, said she believed the survey was helpful in a number of ways, particularly because it widened the scope of those who began to participate in the process. She said some of the covenants were outdated, but noted those covenants had an expiration date and had to be renewed by a vote of the neighborhood, so perhaps the NCD was a part of that process.
Ms. Conway said she supported the Town Manager’s recommendation, since it took into consideration as many people as possible. But she had wondered if a description of what was in non-compliance should be considered the minimum standards in terms of lot sizes, setbacks, or others.
Mayor Foy noted that he did not believe the neighborhood nor the Town was ready to move forward with an NCD for Coker Hills at this time. He stated he believed the Council should agree not to make a decision on June 12 regarding the rezoning, and instead ask the Manager to bring back on that date some suggestions on how to move forward.
Mayor Foy stated that one of the speakers said that disagreement was a matter of degree, and he believed that disagreement among the neighbors was a matter of degree. He said he believed he spoke for the entire Council when he said this whole process had been painful for the Council to observe. Mayor Foy said everyone had seen this evening how the first three NCD neighborhoods had been handled, noting the vision for how an NCD would unfold was that neighborhoods would be self-directing and an NCD would be beneficial to them and to the Town. He said to see this process unfold in such a divisive way was not serving anyone well.
Mayor Foy said he believed the Council needed to get some suggestions about how they could move forward with greater consensus. He said there was tension that needed to be addressed in this neighborhood before they moved on, and he believed that June 12 was too soon to make a decision, but they could consider a process and then decide what was best.
Council Member Greene said she believed that was exactly the right approach to take, noting there was no consensus now. She said, as the Planning Board had told the neighbors, this was not what the Council or the Town had intended the process to look like. Council Member Greene said the Council and the Town wanted to help, but they needed some time to discover how to do that.
Council Member Hill agreed with postponing any decision. He said it appeared the Council was being asked to enshrine the existing covenants, and he did not know if there was a precedent for that. Council Member Hill said it appeared to be coming down to whether neighbors would sue neighbors or ask for a variance from the Board of Adjustment. He said what really needed to be dealt with was what to do for the neighborhood.
Mayor Foy said Council Member Hill was correct. He said one of the benefits of having a zone rather than covenants was that you could not receive a building permit if you violated the zone.
Council Member Ward supported the Mayor’s recommendation. He said he assumed that the covenants would be placed within the rezoning and the creation of the NCD. But, Council Member Ward said, the more he heard it seemed that there was not a consensus on where the 28-foot and 50-foot buffer lines had come from. He asked if they were measured from the right-of-way line.
Council Member Ward said he believed that most people would measure from the edge of the pavement. He said, as had been shown in some of the materials, there may be 20 to 40 feet of green space prior to reaching the property line. Council Member Ward said for the survey to ask if you were in favor of 28 feet or 50 feet, you would have to know where you were measuring from. He said he believed that were where a lot of confusion was coming from, and if they could clarify that maybe they could reach some consensus in the neighborhood.
Council Member Ward said on the surface it appeared that the Council was being asked to reinforce the covenants, which people who had purchased property in the neighborhood were well aware of, and help the neighborhood enforce them. But, he said, they were not at that point yet, because they did not know how the setbacks were measured. Council Member Ward said just stating setback distances was not enough, because one could not assume where the measurement would begin. He said the next time the Town undertook such a process that steps needed to be clarified in order to eliminate some of the ambiguity.
Council Member Ward said it may also be fruitful to explore the issue of the setback distances. He said if they were measuring from the same place as the covenants say, then distances should not be that big an issue. But, he said, evidently people were measuring from two different places, and that needed to be clarified
Mayor Foy said he was suggesting that they get answers to many of the questions that had been raised, but he was not suggesting abandoning the process. He said he believed the Council was as unclear as the neighbors were, but they also needed to do whatever they could to diffuse the tension that was being created.
Council Member Kleinschmidt agreed, noting he did not believe the Council could make a decision on June 12 but also did not think it should linger for very long. He stated it appeared that neighbors on both sides of the issue would benefit from moving things along quickly. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he hoped that on June 12 whatever process was decided on would identify places where people could come together relatively quickly, and not have a long, drawn-out process. He suggested that they have a decision made by the fall. Council Member Kleinschmidt said if it could not be done in that way, then he was not sure it could be done at all.
Council Member Harrison said he, too, wanted clarification on how setbacks were measured. He noted that the Land Use Management Ordinance says that setbacks were measured from the street lot line, which was a zoning administrator’s term and may not be understood by a lay person. Council Member Harrison said the Council needed information on exactly how setbacks were determined.
Council Member Harrison stated he had attended a Planning Board meeting where the Coker Hills NCD was discussed, and knew about the acrimony. He said it would take months to sift through all of the information, questions, comments, phone calls and emails that had been received regarding this, so, obviously, June 12 was far too soon. Council Member Harrison said he agreed that they should not take a long time to come to a decision, but he agreed that they needed to slow down and come up with a process.
Mayor pro tem Strom said he appreciated all the comments, noting it was helpful to the Council. He said it was important not to let this linger but to come to some resolution quickly.
Mayor pro tem Strom stated that at the Greenwood meetings they had talked a lot about conformity and non-conformity. He said one of the exercises they had done with Clarion’s help was to look at the existing lots and come up with a proposed lot size that would create the smallest number of non-conforming lots. Mayor pro tem Strom said after that exercise Mr. Waldon had been quick to point out that smaller lots and fewer non-conformities would create the most opportunities for split lots, tear downs, and additional subdivision.
Mayor pro tem Strom said he believed it would be helpful when the staff report came back on June 12 to have a brief summary of that Greenwood exercise so that people could understand what they had gone through in coming to the one-acre lot minimum size. He said he believed the Mayor’s suggestion was a good one and that was how the Council should proceed.
Council Member Greene said the rationale for doing four NCDs in one year was that all of the four neighborhoods had existing covenants that had either expired or were at risk, and the neighborhoods wanted the Town to enforce the covenants. She said one Planning Board member had asked if it was the Town’s job to enforce every restrictive covenant in Town, and the answer to that question was no.
Council Member Greene said it was not that the covenants were not relevant or did not matter. She said the Comprehensive Plan stated that it was in the Town’s interest to preserve neighborhoods that the Town collectively thought were worth preserving or had characteristics that were worth preserving. Council Member Greene said it was the existence of covenants that had almost always created those characteristics, but she was not comfortable saying that the Town was taking on the role simply to adopt neighborhood covenants and enforce them.
Council Member Greene said the Town’s processes were different, and it would allow for conversation regarding such things as height restrictions and floor area ratios and other things that the people who wrote the covenants fifty years ago never even thought about. She said she believed they needed to think carefully from a planning point of view about that.
Council Member Thorpe thanked those who spoke for their courtesy to one another, noting there was obvious tension between those for and against the NCD. He also commended the Town Manager and staff for their handling of the issue.
Council Member Easthom also thanked everyone who had commented, including those who had called and emailed the Town. She said she would like to get a broader perspective of the issue and what they were attempting to do for this particular neighborhood. Council Member Easthom suggested that they use the Residential Conservation District section of the Comprehensive Plan to help decide how to take the next steps.
Mayor Foy reiterated his assurance to the neighborhood that the Council would not make any decision regarding rezoning at its June 12 meeting.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JUNE 12, WITH THE MANAGER TO BRING BACK A REPORT AT THAT TIME. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 5 – Consideration of a Resolution Delaying the Public Hearing
on the Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment
Regarding Changeable and Moveable Signs
Ms. Culpepper said the staff was recommending that the Council delay the public hearing on the Land Use Management Ordinance text amendment regarding changeable and moveable signs outside of the Town Center zoning district. She said the recommendation was to delay the hearing until June 19.
Elizabeth Lindquist stated that they were requesting that they be able to use sandwich boards, noting that nothing would be placed on the roadway or sidewalk or between the sidewalk or the street, but rather would be placed on the business side of the sidewalk so that it would not impede pedestrians or bicyclists. She said the Planning Board had been concerned about visual clutter, which she believed could be resolved by regulations.
Ms. Lindquist said the other two issues the Planning Board had brought forward were that the signs would be a distraction for drivers, and not appropriate to traffic safety. She said when they had thought about what that meant, they had measured other signs already placed along their street, and the sandwich boards were not nearly as large as those existing signs. She said if that was the logic, then street name signs and speed limit signs should be removed.
Ms. Lindquist said it had been suggested that places such as Meadowmont and Southern Village should be allowed to have such signs, so it was discriminatory to not allow them elsewhere. She said perhaps the discrimination was in the regulations.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).