SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.

 

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

 

Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins. 

 

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Housing Director Tina Vaughn, and Acting Town Clerk Sandy Cook.

 

Item 1 - Ceremony: Proclamation regarding Red Cross Month

 

Mayor Foy read the following from the proclamation: The Orange County chapter of the American Red Cross has been working since 1917 to provide compassionate, humanitarian care in disasters and other crises that threaten to overwhelm and destroy the people in our community.  The volunteers of the Orange County chapter provide disaster services free, giving a gift of their time generously to the people of Orange County.  The Orange County chapter responds to more than 209 disasters each year and helps more than 70 people who have lost their homes. 

 

Mayor Foy continued to read from the proclamation: The Orange County chapter is committed to assuring a safe and adequate blood supply to Orange County and to the American public.  In order to do this, Orange County must collect blood from 20 volunteer donors each day to assure that blood is available when it is needed.  The Orange County chapter keeps members of the armed services in touch with their families when our men and women in uniform are called to duty as they are now.  Also, the residents of Orange County get the information they need in order to maintain safe and healthy lives though the Red Cross in life saving skills, such as first aid, CPR, water safety and much more.    

 

Mayor Foy noted that March had been observed as Red Cross Month since 1943.  He proclaimed March 2004 to be American Red Cross Month in Chapel Hill, and introduced Barbara Palmer, chair of the Orange County Red Cross Board of Directors.  Ms. Palmer explained that the Orange County chapter had opened shelters and housed about 500 people for a week during the ice storm of 2002. They respond with emergency assistance to every single fire in Orange County, if needed, she explained. 

 

Ms. Palmer said that the Red Cross was busy with emergency communications because of the deployed troops.  They have a busy health and safety program, which includes the University, local businesses and day care centers, she said.  Ms. Palmer explained that the Red Cross collects about 6,000 units of blood each year.  Many blood drives are sponsored by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), she said. Ms. Palmer thanked the Mayor and Town Council for supporting the Orange County Red Cross and invited them to University Mall on March 22, 2004, for the Second Annual Red Cross and Friends Day.  She also introduced Director and Chapter Manager Diane Ellis and Volunteer Disaster Chair Scott Madry.      

 

Item 2 - Public Forums

 

Mayor Foy explained the Council's preference for having each of tonight's two topics considered separately.  Citizens who wish to speak on both may come to the podium more than once, he said.   

 

2a.    Principles, Goals, and Strategies for Development of the Horace Williams Property (Carolina North).

 

Horace Williams Citizens Committee Chair Randy Kabrick noted that several Committee members were present.  He touched on the history of the document's development from its original presentation to Council on October 8, 2003, to tonight's public forum.

 

Michael Collins, representing Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth (NRG), expressed concern about the increase in traffic that will result from Carolina North as well as the impact on air/water quality.  He mentioned the existing toxic waste dump and wondered whether or not the infrastructure could handle a development so large.  Mr. Collins referred to the potential burden on water, sewer and power systems, and asked the following questions:  Will the project create a need for new public schools, he asked, and, if so, who will pay for them?  And where will they be sited?  Why can't the Town permanently protect the rest of the tract?  How much will this all cost and who's going to pay for it?  Is it really needed, and why?  Mr. Collins stressed that these questions "absolutely must" be answered before anyone could make an informed decision about the appropriateness of UNC's proposal.  He urged the Council to resist pressure to rush, pointing out that the Town will get only one chance to do it right.

 

Carmen Elliott, who described herself as a native North Carolinian, expressed "very deep concerns" about the proposed development of the Horace Williams property. Referring to a recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report stating that precipitation in North Carolina is estimated to increase by 15% over the next century, she predicted that the number of hot days in the summer would increase because of the general warming trend.  The EPA report mentioned an increase in heat-related deaths and illnesses, said that mosquito populations could increase, and cautioned that demand could surpass water supply, she said.  Ms. Elliott asked the Town Council to use all of their regulatory power to slow the process down so that each component of UNC's proposal could be weighed in terms of its value or destructiveness.

 

Dave Cook, speaking on behalf of Friends of Bolin Creek, stated that the project offered an opportunity for Chapel Hill, Carrboro and the University to work in partnership.  He made several recommendations, including building upward to decrease impervious surface, removing the area that is planned to cross Sewell School Road, and not building a proposed road across Bolin Creek.  Mr. Cook encouraged Council members to keep in mind the concept of a park and preserve for Bolin Creek.

 

Aaron Nelson, Executive Director of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, commented on the opportunity for all to work together to set the standard for sustainable development.  He pointed out that the Committee's report had clearly stated that Carolina North should not harm existing neighborhoods, damage the natural environment, or be a fiscal burden on taxpayers. But it is less clear, Mr. Nelson said, what citizens would like to see happen at Carolina North.  The Chamber believes that sustainability is the culmination of economic sustainability, social opportunity, and environmental sustainability, he said, adding that all three components are essential to the community's success.  Mr. Nelson stated that Carolina North would be a wonderful opportunity to provide work prospects.  He proposed that UNC partner with the private sector to make that happen.

 

Al Burk, a Horace Williams Citizens Committee member, spoke about areas where the University's plan did not reflect the Committee's recommended principles, noting these included General Principle 1 and Neighborhood Interface Principles 1 and 2.  As a North Haven resident, he said, he was concerned about the Carolina North plan moving southward and putting pressure on his neighborhood. 

 

Mr. Burk stated that the current plan places the development only 94 feet behind some homes and would reduce the quality of life in his neighborhood.  Mr. Burk recommended protecting the neighborhoods, recentering the development, providing buffers around environmental areas and neighborhoods, and remediating hazardous waste sites.  He urged Council members to maintain their zoning authority and to work with UNC and Chapel Hill Transit to provide a mass transit solution from Interstate 40 to the campus.

 

Laurin Easthom expressed concern about the road that runs through the Horace Williams tract and connects to Weaver Dairy Road Extension at Homestead Road.  That road denigrates the watershed of Crow Branch by paving over a creek, she said.  Ms. Easthom stated that this watershed flows by the dam at Lake Ellen and the toxic waste sites that UNC needs to clean up.  The plan would point tens of thousands of auto commuters each day toward Weaver Dairy Road at Airport Road, Ms. Easthom said, adding that this would undermine Weaver Dairy Road as a two-lane road.  She stated that the plan also directs commuters to an intensely developed area with many children.  Ms. Easthom asked that there be affordable housing for those who work at Carolina North.

 

Andrea Rohrbacher requested that something about recycling be added to the principles and goals.  She suggested the following wording:  "Solid waste management should encompass recycling to the maximum extent possible in the residential, commercial and educational sections of Carolina North.  The recycling collection area should be designed with optimal functionality and aesthetics."  Ms. Rohrbacher expressed concern that a recreation amenity might be counted as satisfying the requirements for more than one component.  She asked that each component fully meet the requirements so there will not be a shortage of recreational facilities.

 

James Coley, Chair of the Transportation and Land Use Subcommittee, stressed that goal 1A calls for Carolina North to be a bicycle, pedestrian and transit-oriented development from the outset.  If it begins as a typical automobile-oriented development it will continue that way until it is too late to undo the damage, he said.  Mr. Coley said that the Committee wanted further study of options for a fixed guideway transit corridor.  But, contrary to recent reports in the news media, he said, the Committee was neutral about the best choice for the corridor.

 

Mr. Coley noted that the Committee's report called for Carolina North to limit parking and establish a smaller ratio than one space for every 1,000 square feet on the main campus.  But, according to the draft plan, Carolina North at build-out would be about two parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet, he said.  Mr. Coley characterized the resulting 19,000 parking spaces as an act of violence against the community. He pointed out that Goal 1B was that Carolina North become a mixed-use development.  That means a real village that includes affordable housing and in which people can walk to work and shop, he said.  Mr. Coley stated that it was not clear that anything short of a new mixed-use zone would enable the Council to mandate this kind of plan.

 

Diana Steele, who described herself as the last remaining resident homeowner on the north side of Mason Farm Road, urged Council members to adopt the Horace Williams Committee's recommendations in some enforceable form.  She displayed slides of Mason Farm Road, and indicated where trees had been destroyed and inadequate attempts made to protect others.

 

Westwood Drive resident Elaine Barney expressed full support for the Committee's report and highlighted three of its recommendations.  She agreed with the rezoning to OI-2 and "firmly and enthusiastically supported the recommendation" that the project should comply with the Town's Comprehensive Plan.  Ms. Barney expressed support for having the undeveloped 75% of the Horace Williams tract preserved into perpetuity.  But she did not think that UNC has made a case for developing a project of this magnitude, she said, adding that it would have long-term consequences for the Town and neighborhoods and could result in increased costs for generations of taxpayers.

 

Ironwoods Drive resident James Kaiser commented on UNC's traffic plan and asked the Council to think very carefully about any reorientation of Estes Drive Extension.  He asked Council members to ensure proper road construction in this new development.  

 

Larkspur resident Lea Watson said that traffic would be a major problem and that she did not think the number of cars that will travel down Weaver Dairy Road Extension had been well thought through.  Many children live there and to make it a major thoroughfare would be "outlandish," she said.  Ms. Watson asked Council members to address the traffic issue, particularly at the northern end of the proposed development.

 

Carmen Lewis expressed concern about increased traffic at the north end of Town, particularly around Weaver Dairy Road Extension.

 

Colonial Heights resident Katherine Freeman, a UNC faculty member, recommended making Carolina North "truly car free."  There were examples in the country of other universities that were car free, she said.  Ms. Freeman urged the Council to help UNC come to that realization and vision.

 

Westwood resident Joe Capowski, a Horace Williams Citizens Committee member, referred to Ms. Steele's photos of new UNC construction along Mason Farm Road.  This had been done at the edge of campus in an area that abuts a residential neighborhood, he pointed out.  Mr. Capowski added that the clearing of trees had been done under the aegis of the UNC Development Plan and was regulated by the Town's OI-4 zoning.  He suggested that Council members travel down Mason Farm Road during daylight hours and decide for themselves if the results were satisfactory and if the neighborhood had been sufficiently protected.

 

Mr. Capowski proposed that the people who live in the Mason Farm neighborhood must be in tears.  He asked Council members to learn from that experience and not apply the OI-4 zone in its current form to the Horace Williams tract.  One can see from this first cut that it does not adequately protect the surrounding neighborhoods, Mr. Capowski said.  He added that he fully agreed with Council Member Greene that 90 days was not enough time to evaluate any change in UNC's Development Plan.

 

Committee Vice Chair Ruby Sinreich, speaking as a private citizen, mentioned a 1997 JJR report, which had been developed collaboratively by Town and UNC representatives.  She said that the process had been fairly collaborative and that UNC's representative Linda Convissor had been involved at every level.  In her role as one of the Town's representatives on UNC's Carolina North Committee, Ms. Sinreich said, she had been privy to only a handful of meetings held by those who were not part of the decision-making body.  She'd had no access to decision-makers and did not feel that she'd had any influence on them, Ms. Sinreich said.

 

Ms. Sinreich stressed the importance of how the site is zoned, noting that rezoning the area to OI-2 does not in anyway preclude creating a new zone.  But that would be a good starting point compared to how the site is now, she said.  Ms. Sinreich stated that if UNC wanted more control, then the Town could negotiate with them.  And, this time, get something in return, she said.  Ms. Sinreich emphasized the importance of zoning the site properly so that everything else can happen.

 

Patrick McDonough, a transportation planner for TTA and a Carrboro resident, praised strategies A, B, F & G in support of the development of transit corridors to the University.  He said that transit investment was the only way to make Carolina North more like UNC's main campus in its personal qualities, rather than like the Research Triangle Park.  Mr. McDonough stated that without a new, regional, funding source for a fixed guideway transit corridor there would not be funding available from the current source until 2023.  And, construction harnessing that funding source probably would not begin until 2027-2029, he remarked. 

 

Mr. McDonough noted that the environmental impact study on Highway 15-501 and NC 54 was valid for only three years.  And, if it were done tomorrow, it would expire before funding was available and would have to be done again, he said.  Mr. McDonough suggested that the Council join forces with the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and the Orange County Board of Commissioners to initiate a regional discussion on how to fund transit, fixed-guideway investment to the Chapel Hill/Carrboro area and Carolina North immediately.  And try to build a regional consensus for further development for transit alternatives, he said.  Mr. McDonough pointed out that the Town's partnership with UNC and Carrboro was a model that could be extended to the region.

 

Mayor Foy stated that UNC officials had told him earlier in the day that they did not intend to comment at tonight's hearing.  But they wanted everyone to know that they had participated in the Horace Williams Citizens Committee hearings, he said.  Mayor Foy reported that he had met with UNC's Chancellor Moeser and had told him about this meeting.  The Chancellor had explained that the plan was being revised and that the University intended to bring it to their Board of Trustees within the next several weeks, he explained.

 

Council Member Strom suggested moving quickly to adopt the report and to get it into the hands of UNC administrators and planners.

 

Mayor Foy outlined the plan to hear comments tonight and have the staff bring the item back for more Council discussion before finalizing it and sending it forward. Mr. Horton offered to bring it back to the Council at its March 22, 2004 meeting.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins stressed the need for affordable housing at Carolina North.  She said that Orange Community Housing and Land Trust wanted to ensure that UNC had a mechanism, such as the Land Trust, for keeping housing affordable over time.

 

Council Member Hill read General Principle 3 aloud.  Carolina North was the largest thing that had ever been proposed in this Town in his lifetime, he said.  Council Member Hill said that Principle 3 meant really discussing what it will do to the Town and what changes the Town was willing to make to accommodate it. 

 

Council Member Verkerk expressed interest in the idea of a car-free campus, and offered to find out about campuses that were car free.

 

Mayor Foy told the Manager that tonight's Council comments needed to be incorporated into whatever he brought back on March 22, 2004.  The Council will then take up those comments, modify the report, and hopefully ratify it and send it along, said Mayor Foy.

 

Council Member Ward expressed interest in the idea of a car-free Carolina North.  He also said that he'd been intrigued by Mr. McDonough's assessment of how the Town needs to look more closely at transit options and the difficulty of finding funds to make the rail corridor a reality. Council Member Ward asked the staff to help him and others understand the status of moving that ahead with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC).  He asked for information about what else the Town might do, such as working collaboratively with its transit partners and the County in a different type of collaborative arrangement.

 

2b.    Consideration of OI-4 Zoning District Regulations.

 

Mr. Horton noted that the OI-4 zone had been the result of year long negotiations between the Council and the University. It was in response to a major development program that UNC was undertaking that was principally funded with bonds approved by North Carolina citizens, he said.  Mr. Horton noted that the zoning had taken into account what the University considered to be its mission as well as an urgent need for the education of North Carolina citizens.  The experience under OI-4 has raised questions about whether or not the consideration/approval process had allowed reasonable time, he explained.  Mr. Horton proposed that this was what had prompted the call for reconsideration.

 

Gene Pease, president of the Gimghoul Historic Association, read from a news article quoting UNC Vice Chancellor Nancy Suttenfield.  According to the article, Ms. Suttenfield stated that other changes would likely be made to the Development Plan because the University was discovering new problems and situations that had not been part of the research process two years ago, Mr. Pease said.  Based on that comment, he remarked, a situation similar to that which the Town went through last summer regarding the Cobb and Jackson Circle Decks probably will occur again in the future.

 

Mr. Pease observed that the University's perception of a "minor" review was different from how those who reside next to those minor revisions perceive it.  The current process pits the University against the neighborhoods and sometimes against the Town Council, he remarked.  Mr. Pease stated that the timeframes for decision-making were too short for revisions of the magnitude that had been proposed last summer. The Gimghoul Association believes that a more collaborative process, which includes the neighbors, should be designed prior to coming before the Council for a decision, he said.

 

Mr. Pease observed that projects such as the Cobb and Jackson Circle Decks should not be linked to another project.  The linkage to South Columbia Street "smelled of backroom politics," he said, and should be avoided.  Mr. Pease stated that the process had been extremely wasteful and expensive.  There has to be a more efficient process that does not take that much time or cost that much money, he said.  Mr. Pease told Council members that he and his neighbors love Chapel Hill and the University.  The process was stressful because they were at times pitted against an institution that they love, he said.

 

Diana Steele stated that UNC construction had not protected perimeter neighborhoods, adding that she was making a couple thousand dollars less per month due to lost rentals and lost students at her preschool.  Even if that is temporary, it is huge, she said.  Ms. Steele stated that the protection for trees that had been written into OI-4 was not being upheld.  She displayed photos to demonstrate areas where trees had been removed.  Ms. Steele also displayed photos of four of her preschool students walking up to her school past the construction.  She asked Council members to not let this happen and to save some trees in the Horace Williams area.

 

Elaine Barney expressed concern that the current OI-4 zoning did not protect adjacent or nearby neighborhoods and would mean the planned destruction of the Mason Farm neighborhood.  She described OI-4 as an "unmitigated failure," and asked the Council to consider the following changes:

 

·        The finding that any plan or modification to the Development Plan must comply with the Town's Comprehensive Plan is NOT in the current OI-4 ordinance.  Omitting this from OI-4 basically sealed the fate of the Mason Farm area and gutted the intention of the Comprehensive Plan to provide protection for adjacent or nearby neighborhoods.  This finding must comply with the Comprehensive Plan and needs to be part of the current OI-4 zoning, Section 16.7.3.

 

·        To prevent other such neighborhood disasters, there needs to be a section added to OI-4 zoning for neighborhood protection what would establish public/Town reviews of projects to see if the developers are adhering to the Comprehensive Plan's standards to protect adjacent and nearby neighborhoods.

 

·        The number of days for review of changes or modifications to the current University development plan has to be lengthened as suggested in Council Member Greene's petition to the Council.

 

Ms. Barney said that she fully supported Council Member Greene's petition and asked Council members to approve it as suggested.  

 

Ruby Sinreich said that OI-4 had never made a sense to her.  But, in the interest of being fair, it does not seem right to change the game on the University once they already have their plans in place, she said.  Ms. Sinreich agreed that a collaborative relationship was necessary, but the relationship of trust had been eroded further and further.  She stated that OI-4 provided very little control over the exterior of UNC's campus.  The first paragraph in the discussion section of tonight's staff memo allows the University to "rape and pillage the Town as long as they let us know in advance and tell us how much they plan to steal," she said.  Ms. Sinreich stated that OI-4 had enabled the University to tell the Town how much they were going to do with the Town having no control over it. 

 

Ms. Sinreich noted that another part of the staff memo compared OI-4 with a Special Use Permit (SUP) and makes it sound less restrictive than a SUP.  She questioned that analysis, noting that the SUP process goes on for "months and months and months."   Ms. Sinreich argued that information pertaining to OI-4 was easily ten times the amount that the Council receives for a SUP.  It is "completely irresponsible" for the Town to analyze anything in this way, she said, adding that she agreed with Ms. Barney that the plan should conform to the Town's Comprehensive Plan. What justification could the Town possibly have for approving something that does not conform to its Comprehensive Plan, Ms. Sinreich asked.  

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that Council Member Greene had brought this petition to the Council on June 23, 2003, before she was a Town Council member.  He expressed concern about the University bringing another application in without the Council having set up a process.  Council Member Kleinschmidt requested that the University pause and allow the Council to come up with a process that meets the Town's needs.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt expressed particular concern about the interface between the campus and the neighborhoods, and asked the University to help avoid the kinds of crises that occurred last summer.  "What kind of circus was that?" asked Council Member Kleinschmidt.  He recalled that one Council member had been was absent, so the vote had been 4-4.  The Town had to go through a "crazy made-up process" to save the day and finally come up with six aye votes, he said. Council Member Kleinschmidt proposed that the only way to avoid repeating that was to develop a process before another application came through.  "Please pause, UNC," Council Member Kleinschmidt said.

 

Mayor Foy, noting that he did not disagree with Council Member Kleinschmidt's sentiment, commented that the vote had been 4-4 with regard to the Development Plan approval.  But the Council had agreed to vote on whether to approve only a portion of the Development Plan that evening and there was no approval of the parking decks on the table, he said.  Mayor Foy stressed that it was important for people to understand that there had not been Council support for the entire plan. 

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt thanked Mayor Foy for clarifying that.  But his point was that a moment of crisis had required the creation of a new process that the Council had never contemplated, he said.  And they had to make it up as they went along, Council Member Kleinschmidt pointed out, adding that doing so cannot be the best way to solve problems.  He expressed gratitude to the Council members and the UNC Board members who had come together and hammered out a solution.  "But that can’t be the model we use each time a change in the Development Plan is proposed," he said.

 

Council Member Harrison thanked citizens for their important perceptions on this.  His experience with the process last summer had been miserable, he said, adding that he did not like a process that made him feel like his toenails were being pulled out.  Nor did he like a process that sets someone with his life history as being against the University and against neighborhoods, Council Member Harrison stressed. 

 

Council Member Harrison read a sentence from a letter that the Council had received that day from Vice Chancellor Suttenfield:  "Tinkering with the OI-4 regulations…represents a broken commitment. Any length in review time has the potential to impair our ability to meet our obligations to the State of North Carolina."  Council Member Harrison noted he was somewhat alarmed by that statement, and noted that the Council had obligations to the Town of Chapel Hill.

 

Council Member Ward pointed out that the 90-day timeframe did not reflect the actual, much shorter time that the Council had to review the information.  He agreed with Ms. Suttenfield that this had been part of a package agreement between the Town and UNC.  In good faith, the Town needs to collaborate with UNC, he said.  Council Member Ward pointed out that the time-consuming and costly process last summer had not been in the University's best interest either.  He suggested initiating a conversation with UNC as soon as possible and recommended that the Mayor send a letter or have a conversation with the Chancellor regarding the next steps. Council Member Ward also suggested that the Town begin discussions with the University about perimeter neighborhoods not being protected in the way that the Town wants.

 

Council Member Hill stated that UNC views the Cobb and Jackson Circle Decks as mistakes being averted and the Mason Farm project as a plan going as it should.  This makes him nervous, he said.  Council Member Hill remarked that the beauty of UNC's campus had been an aberration before everyone learned how to build faster and uglier. 

 

With regard to Ms. Suttenfield's statement about a broken commitment, Council Member Hill suggested that UNC remain mindful of its commitment to the community and campus.  He noted that one interpretation of OI-4 regulations might have allowed the Manager alone to approve the entire chiller deck project.   Not that the Manager is not worthy, Council Member Hill said, but that is too much responsibility to place on one person. Council Member Hill stated that this aspect of the regulations also needed to be looked at, and sooner rather than later.

 

Mayor Foy mentioned the Town's concept plan process and proposed that the chiller plant might have come to the Council months before if it had come in as a concept.  The Council would have been able to note the problems at that point, he pointed out.  Mayor Foy argued that adding more time for consideration would put the Council in the same position it had been in with SUPs before the Town instituted the concept plan review process. He had already communicated that idea to UNC, he said, so he was disappointed to hear that the Council was about to receive another development plan without having seen a concept plan.

 

Council Member Greene suggested addressing when the 90 days would start once a development plan comes to the Town.  She had brought the petition in as a Planning Board member, she explained, because the time had been too short for the Planning Board to make a recommendation. Council Member Greene stated that the staff had rightly told the Planning Board that OI-4 calls for them to only review.  So the Planning Board is almost cut out of the process, she said, suggesting that the Town discuss the appropriateness of that with the University.

 

Council Member Verkerk expressed support for Mayor Foy's concept plan idea.  It would embolden the Council to ask for more things than they would if they felt constrained by the knowledge that they were wasting someone's millions of dollars, she pointed out.

 

Council Member Strom expressed support for a concept plan as well, adding he was disappointed that an application for a large modification was coming in. Council Member Strom noted that the Council could say at the concept plan stage that something is a major modification.  Ninety days is not enough time to carefully analyze and arrive at a collaborative answer regarding changes in the development plan, he said.

 

Council Member Strom noted that the Council had approved 4.5 million square feet of development on campus.  If the project were going along as approved there would not be this potential conflict, he said.  Council Member Strom pointed out that the changes that UNC wanted to make were what had kicked the Town into this process. He proposed including language in "E," under Procedures for Approval of Development Plans, saying that a major modification is not considered a complete application and goes into a different review process.  Council Member Strom said that this might be a fairly simple change for the Council to make. 

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins pointed out that there seemed to be no disagreement among Council members about the need to revisit the process. She inquired about how to modify the process and asked what interim agreements the Council might make with the University to address the plan that might be coming in.

 

Mayor Foy verified with the Town Attorney that the Council could unilaterally modify the OI-4 zone if it went through its typical zoning public procedure.  He asked Council members if they wanted to change it unilaterally or work with the University to do so. 

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that the Development Plan had been a collaborative process, and that the solution last summer had been collaborative.  We have to work with our partner, he said.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins agreed, but pointed out that the Town did not know how long that process would take.  If they got another application for modification before completing that process, they would have to make a decision about what to do with that application, she said. 

 

Council Member Ward restated his position that the Council needed to initiate a conversation with UNC as soon as possible.  He was optimistic that the situation would be rectified because it is in UNC's interest to do so, he remarked.

 

Mayor Foy recommended asking the staff to list the evening's comments and to communicate the Council's concerns and their suggestion that the Town and UNC begin discussing a change to the zone.

 

Council Member Strom expressed support for that suggestion, adding that he was in favor of asking UNC to hold off on making an application until after this conversation. He commented that OI-4 had been created quickly for zoning ordinance work.  The Council is discussing a very narrow component of OI-4, which is the process on a major modification, Council Member Strom said.  He proposed that this issue could be worked out in a few meetings and some additional public comment.  

 

COUNCIL MEMBERS AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO HAVE MAYOR FOY WRITE A LETTER TO CHANCELLOR MOESER, INCLUDING A REQUEST TO HOLD OFF ON SUBMITTING A NEW APPLICATION.

 

Item 3 - Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members

 

Petitions by citizens on items not on the agenda.

 

There were no petitions presented at tonight’s meeting by citizens.

 

Announcements by Council Members

 

Council Member Strom, the Council's representative to the Orange County Animal Shelter Task Force, announced a public listening session on March 17, 2004, at the Southern Human Services Center on Homestead Road.  The Task Force would be soliciting public comment on animal control and animal sheltering in Orange County, he said.  He encouraged citizens to come and comment.

 

Item 4 - Consent Agenda

 

MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER [?], TO ADOPT R-1.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

 

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2004-03-01/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.

Setting Public Forum Date for Report on Market Demand Study about Development of Parking Lots 2 and 5 (R-2).

b.

Budget Amendment for Restoration of the Town’s Three Oldest Minute Books (O-1).

c.

Request for Extension of Completion Time Limit – Presque Isle Residential Planned Development Special Use Permit (R-12a).

d.

Deleted.

e.

Proposed Schedule for Additional Duplex Discussions (R-9).

 

This the 1st day of March, 2004.

 

 

A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC FORUM ON MARKET DEMAND STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PARKING LOTS 2 AND 5 (2004-03-01/R-2)

 

WHEREAS,  the Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Small Area Plan identify Town Parking Lots 2 and 5 as key redevelopment sites; and

 

WHEREAS, the Town Council has established principles and priorities for development of Town Parking Lots 2 and 5; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council on October 27, 2003 authorized a contract with Stainback Public/Private Real Estate to provide economic development consulting services, the first phase of which is to conduct a Market Demand Study;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council sets a Public Forum date to consider a draft Market Demand Study on Monday, March 22, 2004, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, 306 North Columbia Street.

 

This the 1st day of March, 2004.

 

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2003” (2004-03-01/O-1)

 

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, 2003” as duly adopted on June 9, 2003 and the same is hereby amended as follows:

 

This the 1st day of March, 2004.

 

 

A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE COMPLETION DATE FOR PRESQUE ISLE (2004-03-01/R-12a)

 

WHEREAS, the ARD Group, Inc. has requested an extension of the completion time limit for Presque Isle; and

 

WHEREAS, Article 4.5.5 of the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance requires Council to make the determination that a) the permit holder submits the request within 60 days of the completion time limit; b) the permit holder has proceeded with due diligence and good faith; and c) conditions have not changed so substantially as to warrant Council reconsideration of the approved development; and

 

WHEREAS, a) the permit holder submitted the request within 60 days of the completion date; b) the permit holder has proceeded with due diligence and good faith; and c) conditions have not changed so substantially as to warrant Council reconsideration of the approved development;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council approves the request of ARD Group, Inc. for the extension of the completion date of the Presque Isle to June 23, 2004, to allow construction of the Residential Planned Development in accordance with the December 20, 1999 Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

This the 1st day of March, 2004.

 

 

A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION OF CHANGES TO DUPLEX REGULATIONS (2004-03-01/R-9)

 

WHEREAS, the Town Council, on February 23, 2004, amended the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance to adjust regulations related to construction of duplex dwelling units;  and

 

WHEREAS, during discussion on February 23, the Council indicated interest in future consideration of possible additional adjustment to these regulations;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill requests that the Town Manager prepare a discussion paper on this topic, to be delivered to the Council for consideration during May, 2004.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council will decide, based on consideration of that discussion paper, whether or not to initiate further adjustment of duplex regulations (such proposed adjustment becoming part of a Public Hearing in fall 2004, on proposed further amendments to the Land Use Management Ordinance).

 

This the 1st day of March, 2004.

 

 

Item 5 – Information Items

 

a.       Response to Council Petition regarding Recent Changes to the EZ Rider Transit Service.

 

Council Member Strom commented that citizens had expressed appreciation to the Council for accepting this report but had been unable to attend tonight's meeting.  He pointed out that citizens might be making comments on this issue over the next few Council meetings. 

 

All Information Items were accepted by consensus of the Council.

 

Item 6 - OWASA Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plan Expansion –

Application for Special Use Permit Modification

 

Planning Director Roger Waldon said that this item had come back following a public hearing of February 16, 2004.  He explained that the application was for modification of an SUP that would authorize OWASA to upgrade and expand the Mason Farm wastewater treatment plant.  Odor reduction and/or elimination had been a key point of discussion at the February public hearing, Mr. Waldon said.  He noted that the Council had asked OWASA to give those comments serious thought and to come back with a plan for remediation. 

 

Mr. Waldon noted that the Council had before them actions that OWASA had offered to take.  The Council's packet included R-A, which is the Manager's recommendation, with a Condition #5 that addresses odor elimination.  But, if the Council were to adopt that, the SUP would "not be the end of the story," he said.  Mr. Waldon explained that the SUP would authorize an ongoing process with a public forum to assess how the goal of odor elimination had been met.

  

OWASA Board Chair Mark Marcopolos stated that Resolution A represented OWASA's "clearest refinement of the commitment that they intend to make on the odor issue." OWASA was committed to solving the problem and would implement additional odor control improvements if the consultant's evaluation and/or community feedback indicated that the goal had not reasonably been met by the proposed $5 million odor control project, he said.

 

Mr. Marcopolos stated that there was no assurance that spending millions of dollars more would be worth the investment and/or fair to ratepayers.  So OWASA was proposing spending $5 million on digesters and assessing the impact in 18 months, he said.  Mr. Marcopolos stated that the Board was committed to setting up a community process that would be amenable to the community.  He added that OWASA's plan included sight and noise modifications that should also help to make the plant a better neighbor.

 

Mac Clarke, an OWASA Board appointee, stated that Board members and staff were strongly committed to solving this odor problem in a mutually acceptable manner.  He expressed the belief that the $5 million initial investment would substantially eliminate the odor.  Even though no one can be sure at this time that it would be totally solved, it would be premature to ask OWASA to commit an extra $2 million at this point, Mr. Clarke said.  He noted that all of the money that OWASA spends comes from its customers' pockets.  To make a speculative extra expenditure of $2 million would be premature and perhaps unnecessary, Mr. Clarke said.   

 

Judy Weseman, an OWASA Board member, pointed out that OWASA had a history of taking care of such issues without direction or requirement from elected governmental or State regulatory officials.  Ms. Weseman noted that the Rogerson Drive pump station had been a two-step effort, such as the one proposed tonight.  The second step was implemented when the first one was found to be inadequate by itself, she said.  Ms. Weseman explained that she was chair of the Natural Resources Technical Systems Committee (NRTS), which tracks some of the technical issues facing the OWASA Board. OWASA had recently instituted gravity flow instead of a pump station in the Piney Mountain area to deal with neighborhood problems, she said.  The OWASA Board had worked with NRTS to institute a plan to have citizens involved at each stage of the process, Ms. Weseman explained. 

 

Highland Woods resident Gary Richman expressed appreciation for the resolution, and for stipulation #5 in particular.  He asked, however, that the date be changes to "fall of 2005" rather than March 2007, since most of the upgrades would be completed in 18 months.  Mr. Richman remarked that odor elimination does not mean reducing it to zero, but eliminating most of it.  He asked that the plan include some real numerical measures of the current state and the target state.  Mr. Richman acknowledged that numbers are not the only way to measure odor, but asked that some measurable data be incorporated into the approval.

 

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Richman if he had received the Manager's revised recommendation for stipulation #5.  Mr. Richman replied that he had the March 1, 2004 memo.  Mayor Foy said that he wanted to make sure that all neighbors had copies of that revision, because the language had changed from the earlier version. Mr. Horton said that Assistant Town Manager Florentine Miller was making copies and would distribute them to anyone who wanted a copy.

 

Peg Parker, referring to stipulations #5 and #6 on page 16, said that April 2007 was too far beyond the completion of the first stage in October 2005.  She requested that the resolution state, "in 18 months," with an actual month, rather than "no later than." With regard to stipulation 6, Ms. Parker suggested putting in a specific date that the annual report would be provided.

 

Highland Woods resident Rex Bartles testified about the many phone calls and written comments that he had addressed to OWASA since 2002.  He had become "worn down by the process," he said.  Mr. Bartles stated that OWASA had told him on several occasions that the foul odor was coming from manhole covers' water and vents that run down an easement even though it was obvious when the wind blew that it was coming from the plant.  He read a letter to the Council from his wife, who asked that OWASA devise a system of metrics for measuring odor. Mr. Bartles noted that there was a large population of UNC students who use the nearby playing field who had not yet spoken up and complained.            

 

Mayor Foy asked OWASA representatives to respond to citizens' comments about finding a quantifiable way to assess current and target conditions.  Mr. Marcopolos mentioned the difficulty of measuring something as nebulous as odor.  It will involve a good process of communication and a combination of technical and experiential data, he said. Mr. Marcopolos stated that he considered neighborhood experience to be the more important element.

 

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Marcopolos for his reaction to the suggestion to change the date for the public forum to the fall of 2005 rather than April 2007.  Mr. Marcopolos replied that the date for the forum should be whenever work on the digester is complete.  But the process with the community should be started almost immediately, he said, and OWASA should also measure the odor throughout the 18 months.  Mayor Foy verified that Mr. Marcopolos had no objection to setting a specific date for the annual report.

 

Council Member Ward suggested that this date coordinate with OWASA's budget process in case a problem required expenditure.  Mr. Marcopolos replied that January would be the best time.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins, noting that OWASA was setting a goal of eliminating off-site objectionable odor, asked Mr. Marcopolos what that meant.  Mr. Marcopolos replied that reasonable people could determine what is a problem. If one person a month says that s/he caught a whiff in the last six months, then that might nor be worth spending $2 million to address, he said.  Mr. Marcopolos said it was a matter of community trust and oversight.  He felt certain that, with enough people involved, the right actions would be taken, he said.

 

"So you are agreeing to the definition of offsite objectionable odor as defined by a collaborative process between OWASA, the neighbors, and the Council," said Mayor pro tem Wiggins. Mr. Marcopolos replied that he was agreeing to as much participation by stakeholders as they want. They should acknowledge, however, that one complaint over several months might not justify spending $2 million, he stated.  But if there are several complaints and the problem is ongoing, then OWASA is committed to spending that money to solve the problem, Mr. Marcopolos said. 

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked why the Council's role had been stricken from the revised resolution.  Mr. Horton explained that he had negotiated with OWASA's Executive Director Ed Kerwin, who had felt very strongly that OWASA should be the body to determine the work to be done.  Mr. Horton stated that he had felt equally strongly that the Council should determine when the problem had been solved to the satisfaction of the community.  He said that he had included that in the language because there was nothing that citizens could do if OWASA does not correct the problem to their satisfaction.  But there is something that citizens can do if the Council, as overseers, do not resolve it, Mr. Horton pointed out.  He said that he trusted the Council to address the neighborhood's concerns.  He also respected the Council's reasonableness and did not think they would direct OWASA to spend unreasonable sums of money straining at the very last little tiny odor unnecessarily, Mr. Horton said.

 

Council Member Greene commented that she was not clear about the cost of the digesters.  A schedule that Mr. Kerwin had provided had given the total cost as $3 million, whereas Mr. Marcopolos had quoted $5 million tonight, she said.  Council Member Greene verified that the bio-solid storage tank covers and scrubber had been completed on schedule.  She asked if OWASA was willing to include stipulations to the dates for installation of digester covers.  Mr. Marcopolos replied that he was not sure that would be a realistic approach, noting that they already had built in rewards and incentives for contractors.  OWASA expected that it would be complete in 18 months or sooner, he said.  Council Member Greene suggested having as many measures of odor as possible.  Mr. Marcopolos replied that the Board was entirely in favor of involving the neighborhood for the experiential data and consulting with an odor expert as well.

 

Council Member Harrison noted that the Council was moving toward a permanent stipulation rather than vague language.  He felt there should be more conversation between OWASA and the Town staff, he said.  Council Member Harrison pointed out that 18 months after construction begins would place the final date in January 2006.  But he felt inclined to move it back to October or November 2005, he said, because that would be when citizens' perceptions would be most acute. Council Member Harrison stated that he had talked with Mr. Marcopolos on the phone about these issues the prior evening.  He had also called a citizen and talked with OWASA Board Member Milton Heath, he said.  Council Member Harrison said that he and Mr. Heath had discussed the idea of consulting with Susan Schiffman, a Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences in the Department of Medical Psychiatry at Duke, with expertise in reactions to odor.

       

Council Member Strom praised the citizens for articulating their concerns and for making the Council aware of this issue.  And the OWASA Board could not have been clearer about its intent to work with the neighbors and the Town to address this issue, he said.  Council Member Strom noted that everyone involved had expressed interest in evaluating the problem once the digesters have been covered.  He wondered, though, if saying "not later than" a certain date would prohibit the Council from addressing this in the future, when conditions could change, such as biofilters malfunctioning or not being available.  Mr. Horton replied that the staff had considered that possibility but had concluded that once OWASA had met the Council's operating requirements they would have to continue those conditions in order to be in compliance with their permit.  Council Member Strom verified that the Council could call a hearing to determine whether or not the neighbors were satisfied.

 

Mr. Horton proposed the following alternate language to change the April 2007 date to November 2005: "no later than November 2005, the projected completion date of improvements related to odor elimination, or upon completion of the construction work on the digesters, whichever is later."  Mr. Marcopolos recommended dealing with it seasonally, since there are times of the year when there is more odor.  Mr. Horton recommended that the Council not hold "seasonal meetings" for this purpose.  Let OWASA do that, he said, and he pointed out that stipulations in the agreement would allow additional meetings if the Council so desired.  

 

Council Member Verkerk asked Mr. Marcopolos for his thoughts about meetings.  He replied that OWASA was flexible about that and did not want to impose a process on the neighborhood.

 

Council Member Ward spoke in favor of putting a reasonable timeframe on the directives in stipulation #5.  Mr. Horton replied that the Town did not know what amount of time might be reasonable for any particular element.  Mr. Kerwin would recommend a schedule to his Board, he said.  Mr. Horton pointed out that these would be written schedules and the Council would review and approve them.  Council Member Ward wondered about possible recourse if the Council did not approve.  Mr. Horton explained that "to the satisfaction of the Council" applied to the time element as well as determination of odor.

 

Since OWASA had expressed a willingness to evaluate opportunities to further reduce offsite noise, Council Member Ward asked that an additional stipulation be incorporated with regard to appearance.  He asked that the process be timely enough for OWASA to have Community Design Commission (CDC) input before ordering digester covers, for example.  Council Member Ward pointed out that OWASA would need to know what color the CDC might recommend. 

 

With regard to noise, Mr. Horton suggested adding a stipulation saying, "OWASA shall demonstrate compliance with the Town's noise ordinance and shall identify additional noise reduction measures that it will take as a part of this SUP."  Council Member Ward asked if it could include "by March 31, 2004," and Mr. Horton replied that he did not think OWASA could do so by that date.  Council Member Ward agreed to allow more time than that.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins thanked Mr. Marcopolos, Mr. Kerwin, and the OWASA Board for really listening and responding to the concerns expressed at the last hearing.  She hoped that OWASA would also be in touch with neighborhoods near pump stations, she said, explaining that they too were experiencing odor problems.  

 

Council Member Greene praised the collaboration and suggested that all think carefully about the Manager's last proposed language.  She suggested that the Council discuss whether or not leaving it open-ended rather than having a specific date was satisfactory.  Mr. Horton suggested adding, "or at such other time as the Council determines."

 

Mayor Foy and Council Member Ward pointed out that the first reading of the April 2007 date had been incorrect.  A meeting could be held at the Council's discretion at any time prior to that, Mayor Foy said.

 

Council Member Greene asked for some assurance for the neighbors that the problem would not drag on until 2007.

 

Mayor Foy mentioned a possible scenario, however, where there might have been much rain and OWASA is not able to complete the work by November 2005, and the Town is required to have a hearing.  That would not benefit anyone, he pointed out, and he proposed calling the public hearing when the work is done. Mr. Horton proposed the following language: "OWASA, by acceptance of this permit, agrees to exercise its good faith to attain the goals specified in its original development proposal."  It could also cite the calendar of goals that OWASA has set, Mr. Horton said.

 

Council Member Greene expressed confidence that OWASA would do this work.  But there is nothing on paper that says it will be done by a certain date, she pointed out.  Mr. Horton offered to bring back a more coherent approach at the next meeting, adding that he did not think it could all be sorted out tonight.  Council Member Greene asked if she was the only Council member who cared about this.

 

Mayor Foy ascertained that a reference to the timetable with language that says OWASA shall use its best efforts would reduce Council Member Greene's concerns.  Mr. Horton agreed to include that, noting that OWASA had created the timetable and had publicly committed to it.

 

With regard to stipulation #6, Mr. Horton proposed the following language:  "The applicant shall report on the progress of the proposed odor elimination construction completion date of November 2005 as part of an annual report on the Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant to be submitted in January of each year.  The applicant shall present an action plan if it projects not meeting the proposed construction completion date of November 2005, to be approved by the Town Council."  Mr. Karpinos then read the following modification to stipulation #13: "The Community Design Commission shall review and approve details for all building elevations (including color), lighting plans, and alternate buffers, and in a timely manner so that the Community Design Commission's comments can be considered in the final design and purchase of construction materials prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit."

 

Mayor Foy asked if the applicant objected to any of the proposed conditions.  Mr. Kerwin stated that it would not be in anyone's interest for OWASA to be unable to begin work without CDC approvals.  He asked for permission to begin the project with the understanding that there would be some phase approvals down the road.  Mr. Horton offered to modify the language so that decisions on color could be made after the permit is issued.

 

Mayor Foy verified that OWASA was accepting the following: 

 

·        revised language to stipulation #5

·        a revision to stipulation #6 requiring an annual report in January

·        a revision to stipulation #13 regarding the CDC's review of color

·        a reference to OWASA's schedule 

 

Mr. Horton added the following noise stipulation:  "that OWASA shall determine its compliance with the Town's noise ordinance and shall voluntarily undertake additional noise reduction efforts."

 

Mr. Kerwin stated that OWASA wanted to be in compliance with all regulations.  But he was not able to tell the OWASA Board what the impact of reaching a higher standard would be, he pointed out.  Mr. Kerwin agreed to look at other opportunities to improve and solve problems, but he was not willing to agree tonight to a higher standard for OWASA than the Council has for everyone else in Town, he said. 

 

Council Member Ward asked for feedback from the neighbors about whether their concerns had been addressed. "The broad answer is yes," Mr. Richman replied.  But he was still somewhat frustrated about how OWASA's efforts would be evaluated, he said.  Mr. Richman added that he chose to believe it would be a combination of data and human testimony and he chose to think that it was a good resolution.  "If it turns out that I'm wrong, I'll let you know," Mr. Richman said.

 

Mr. Horton proposed the following option to earlier language regarding noise: "OWASA shall immediately take such action as is necessary to comply with the Town's noise ordinance and will consider undertaking additional mitigation."  Council Member Ward accepted that, and there was no objection from OWASA.

 

MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM MEMBER WIGGINS, TO ADOPT R-10A, AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE CHANGES TO STIPULATIONS 5, 6, AND 13, A NEW STIPULATION REGARDING NOISE, AN INSERTED REFERENCE TO A GOOD FAITH EFFORT IN STIPULATION 1, WHICH SAYS, "OWASA SHALL USE ITS BEST EFFORTS TO MEET THE TIMETABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION AS SHOWN ON PAGE THREE OF THE FEBRUARY 16TH LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO THE TOWN MANAGER."  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

 

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE OWASA MASON FARM WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION (2004-03-01/R-10a)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 66, Lot 9A (PIN# 9798213071), if developed according to the site plan dated January 29, 2004:

 

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

 

  1. Would comply with all required regulations and standards of this Chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the applicable specific standards contained in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6), and with all other applicable regulations;

 

  1. Would continue a use and development that constitutes a public necessity; and

 

  1. Would conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in this Chapter and in the Comprehensive Plan.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Town Council of Chapel Hill that it finds, in this particular case, pursuant to Section 4.5.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance, that the following specific modifications of regulations satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree:

 

1.      Modification of the dimensional regulations in Section 3.6.3-3 of the Land Use Management Ordinance, to allow a maximum of 80,680 square feet of floor area in the Resource Conservation District.

 

2.      Modification of the dimensional regulations in Section 3.6.3-3 of the Land Use Management Ordinance, to allow a maximum of 368,000 square feet of impervious surface in the Resource Conservation District.

 

3.      Modification of the standards in Section 3.6.3(g)(1) of the Land Use Management Ordinance to allow the lowest floor elevation to be less than eighteen (18) inches above the Resource Conservation District elevation.

 

4.      Modification of the grading regulations in Section 3.6.3(g)(9) of the Land Use Management Ordinance, to allow the applicant to increase the flow velocity more than one foot per second and increase the base flood elevation more than one half foot.

5.      Modification of the stream buffers requirements for the Watershed Protection District in Section 3.6.4(f)(1) of the Land Use Management Ordinance to waive the 30-foot required buffer, on those portions of the site where protective barriers for flood control currently exist in these areas.

 

6.      Modification of the landscape buffer requirements in Section 5.6.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance to waive the 20-foot wide required buffer, on those portions of the site where protective barriers for flood control currently exist in these areas.

 

7.      Modification of the stormwater management performance criteria in Section 5.4.6(a-c) of the Land Use Management Ordinance for the treatment of stormwater (a) quality, (b) volume, and (c) rate to exceed the post-development performance criteria.

 

Said public purposes being the provision of a facility that is necessary to serve the community’s growing demand for a public service that is a public necessity and to operate that facility in a manner that reduces its adverse impact on surrounding and nearby properties.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for the OWASA Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:

 

                                                Stipulations Specific to the Development

 

1.      That construction begins by March 1, 2006 (2 years from the date of approval) and is completed by March 1, 2014, 10 years from the date of approval).  OWASA shall use its best efforts to meet the time table for construction as shown on page 3 of the February 16, 2004 letter from Ed Kerwin, OWASA Executive Director, to W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager (Subject: Supplemental Information on OWASA’s Odor Abatement Program), a copy of which letter is on file in the office of the Chapel Hill Town Clerk.

 

2.      Relationship to 1981 Special Use Permit: This authorization is intended supersede the original Special Use Permit, approved by the Town Council, April 13, 1981, recorded June 30, 1981, in deed book 366, page 440 of the Orange County Register of Deeds.

 

3.      Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit Modification authorizes the land use intensity requirements as specified below:

 

Land Use Intensity

OWASA Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant

Net Land Area

1,112,772 s.f.

Total # of Buildings

7 (5 existing, 2 new)

Total Other Structures (Treatment Plant Infrastructure)

24 (19 existing, 5 new)

Maximum Floor Area

80,680 s.f.

Minimum # of Parking Spaces

No Change

Minimum # of Bicycle Spaces

2

 

4.      Offsite Odor Elimination, Monitoring and Annual Report: That OWASA shall present an annual report to the Town Council regarding progress in meeting their offsite odor elimination goal to report on progress during construction, and to report on maintenance and the continuing efficacy of the program post-construction.  The Town Council may reduce the frequency or end the annual report requirement at such time as it determines reasonable.

 

5.      Offsite Odor Elimination, Public Forum: That OWASA shall address their offsite odor elimination goal in a Public Forum, scheduled and conducted by the Town Council, to be held no later than November, 2005, the projected completion of improvements related to odor elimination, or upon completion of the construction work on the digesters, whichever is later.  The applicant shall report either it has achieved the goal of offsite odor elimination or has not achieved offsite odor elimination.  The Town Council shall make a finding based on information submitted at the Forum.  If the Council finds that the goal of off-site odor elimination has been attained, OWASA will not be required to perform additional odor control work.

 

If the Council finds that the goal of off-site odor elimination has not been attained, then the Council shall direct OWASA to perform such additional work OWASA determines is necessary to eliminate off-site odor and the Council shall establish such reporting requirements as it deems reasonable.  OWASA agrees to perform such work as may be necessary to eliminate off-site odor to the satisfaction of the Council.

 

6.      Odor Elimination Construction Schedule Reporting: That the applicant shall report on the progress of the proposed odor elimination construction completion date of November, 2005 as part of the annual report on the Mason Farm wastewater treatment plant to be submitted in January of each year.  The applicant shall present an action plan if it projects not meeting the proposed construction completion date of November 2005, to be approved by the Town Council.

 

Stipulations Related to Access and Circulation

 

7.      Transportation Management Plan: That the applicant provide a Transportation Management Plan to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  The required components of the Transportation Management Plan shall include:

 

a)    Provision for designation of a Transportation Coordinator;

b)   Provision for an annual Transportation Survey and Annual Report to the Town Manager;

c)    Quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives;

d)   Ridesharing incentives; and

e)    Public transit incentives.

 

The plan shall be updated and approved annually by the Town Manager.

 

8.      Bicycle Parking: That the development shall provide 2 Class II bicycle parking spaces.

 

Stipulations Related to Landscape and Architectural Elements

 

9.      Required Landscape Bufferyard: That the following landscape buffers are required, unless modified as noted above:

 

Bufferyards

Location of Bufferyard

Required Bufferyards*

 

 

Northern boundary of site towards Mason Farm Road

Minimum 20’ Type “C” Buffer

 

Eastern boundary of site towards Morgan Creek

Minimum 20’ Type “C” Buffer

Southern boundary of site towards Morgan Creek bypass channel

Minimum 20’ Type “C” Buffer

 

Western boundary of site towards Morgan Creek

Minimum 20’ Type ‘C’ Buffer

 

*Since site is in the Watershed Protection District 30’ wide buffers are required along the stream channels on the periphery of the property. These may in some cases supersede the required bufferyards above.

 

10.  Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed landscape protection plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This plan shall include a detail of protective fencing; and construction parking and materials staging/storage areas. This plan shall also indicate which labeled trees are proposed to be removed and where tree protection fencing will be installed.

 

11.  Landscape Plan Approval: That detailed landscape plans (including buffers), landscape maintenance plans, and parking lot shading requirements be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. That the landscape plan shall indicate the size, type, and location of all proposed plantings.

 

12.  Landscape Buffer Replacement: That any existing landscaped buffer trees that are removed or damaged during construction shall be replaced post-construction, to be approved by the Town Manager.

 

13.  Community Design Commission Approval: That the Community Design Commission shall review and approved details for all building elevation details, lighting plans, and alternative buffers, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  CDC comments regarding design and color shall be provided in a timely manner so that they can be considered in the final design and purchase of construction materials. Zoning Compliance Permit(s) may be issued for construction phase(s) that are not specifically for structures, lighting fixtures, and alternative buffers. Special consideration shall be given to visual impact of the Mason Farm plant with particular attention paid to building material and paint colors.

 

Stipulations Related To Stormwater Management

 

14.  Stormwater Management Plan: That a Stormwater Management Plan shall be approved the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. That the applicant shall meet the requirements of Section 5.4.6 (a-c) of the Land Use Management Ordinance regulations, to the extent practicable, regarding stormwater quality, volume and rate, as reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

15.  Stream Buffer Requirements: That Section 3.6.4(f)(1) of the Land Use Management Ordinance be waived, which would otherwise require a 30-foot wide stream buffer in the Watershed Protection District, on those portions adjacent to Morgan Creek where protective barriers for flood control existed prior to the 1993 North Carolina Statute creating the Watershed Protection District.  Final approval subject to Town Manager approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

16.  Operations and Maintenance Plans: That an Operations and Maintenance Plan for all engineered stormwater control structures shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

17.  Performance Guarantee: That if more than one acre of land is disturbed, then a performance guarantee in accordance with Section 5-97.1 Bonds of the Town Code of Ordinances shall be required prior to final authorization to begin land-disturbing activities.

 

Stipulations Related to Utilities

 

18.  Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), Duke Power Company, BellSouth, Public Service Company, Time/Warner Cable and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. That the final plans demonstrate there is no conflict between utility lines, easements, and other site elements.

 

19.  Utility Lines: That except for existing 3-phase electric utility lines, all new or relocated utility lines shall be installed underground and shall be indicated on final plans.

 

Stipulations Related to Fire Protection/Fire Safety

 

20.  Fire Flow: That a fire flow report prepared by a registered professional engineer and demonstrating compliance with the provisions of the Design Manual be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

21.  Fire Department Connection and Fire Hydrant: That the final proposed location for all fire department connections and the location and number of new fire hydrants shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

 

Miscellaneous Stipulations

 

22.  Off-Site Easements: That all necessary off-site utility, construction, access, maintenance, or other easements, if required, shall be obtained and a recorded copy of such easements shall be submitted to the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

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

 

24.  Erosion Control: That a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan be approved by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources and a copy of the approval be submitted to the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

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

 

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

 

27.  Construction Sign Required: That the developer shall post a construction sign that lists the property owner’s representative, with a telephone number; the contractor’s representative, with a telephone number; and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  The construction sign may have a maximum of 32 square feet of display area and may not exceed 8 feet in height.  The sign shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of light letters on a dark background.

 

28.  Noise: OWASA shall take action immediately to demonstrate compliance with the Noise Ordinance and shall consider such additional noise reduction measures as it determines useful.

 

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

 

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

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for OWASA Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion.

 

This the 1st day of March, 2004.

Item 7 - Proposed 2004-2005 Budget for the Public Housing Program

 

Housing Director Tina Vaughn presented the proposed budget for the Public Housing Program.  The Department would maintain its current budget and did not propose any new personnel or services, she said.  Ms. Vaughn explained that the 2004-2005 budget was estimated at about $1,651,898. She listed the proposed expenditures for next year, as well as estimated revenues.  Ms. Vaughn told Council members that her Department would use about $132,000 from Fund Balance to cover estimated expenditures.  This will leave about $330,000 in Fund Balance, she said, noting that this was a little more than HUD's recommended amount.  Ms. Vaughn noted that HUD requires submission of her budget 90 days before the Town's fiscal year begins.  This meant it was due by April 1, 2004, she said.

 

Council Member Strom verified that the Public Housing Department might receive more funding from HUD next year.  They might use some Fund Balance again, Ms. Vaughn said, but she hoped not as much.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if rents would be increased if the Fund Balance reached a lower level.  Ms. Vaughn replied that the Town cannot increase rents, since they cannot be more than 30% of the adjusted household income.  Acting Town Manager Florentine Miller explained that the Manager would work closely with Ms. Vaughn to see if areas could be cut back without tremendously impacting service if the fund balance decreased to much.

 

MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-11.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).         


Page 1 of Resolution R-11 goes here

 

Page 2 of Resolution R-11 goes here

 

Page 3 of Resolution R-11 goes here

 

Item 8 - Certification of November 4, 2003 Bond Referenda Results

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM TO ADOPT R-3.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

 

A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AND DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD IN THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA ON NOVEMBER 4, 2003 (2004-03-01/R-3 )

 

WHEREAS, the Town Council has considered the Certificate of Canvass of the Orange County Board of Elections canvassing the referendum held for the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina on November 4, 2003 and certifying the result thereof to the Town Council and has canvassed the result of said Election;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina that it be and hereby is certified and declared that the number of voters registered and qualified to vote at said Election was 34,192.

 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that it be and hereby is certified and declared that the total number of voters who voted “YES” in answer to the question

 

SHALL the order authorizing $5,000,000 of bonds secured by a pledge of the faith and credit of the Town of Chapel Hill to pay capital costs of providing additional parks and recreation facilities, including, without limitation, the acquisition, construction and installation of real estate improvements and equipment required therefor and the acquisition of necessary land or rights in land, and a tax to be levied for the payment thereof, be approved?

 

was 5,915.  The total number of voters who voted “NO” in answer to such question was 1,860.

 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that a statement substantially in the form hereinafter set forth declaring the result of said election shall be prepared, delivered to the Town Clerk for filing and recordation and published in accordance with law:

 

STATEMENT OF RESULT OF GENERAL ELECTION HELD FOR
THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA

NOVEMBER 4, 2003

 

WHEREAS, by direction of the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, a general election was duly called and held for the Town of Chapel Hill on November 4, 2003 for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of said Town the question hereinafter set forth, and the said Town Council has received from the Orange County Board of Elections a certification of the results of said election, and has determined the result of said election to be as hereinafter stated;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

 

The Town Council hereby makes the following statement of the result of said election pursuant to The Local Government Bond Act:

 

1.         The number of voters registered and qualified to vote at said election was 34,192.

 

2.             The total number of voters who voted “YES” in answer to question,

 

SHALL the order authorizing $5,000,000 of bonds secured by a pledge of the faith and credit of the Town of Chapel Hill to pay capital costs of providing additional parks and recreation facilities, including, without limitation, the acquisition, construction and installation of real estate improvements and equipment required therefor and the acquisition of necessary land or rights in land, and a tax to be levied for the payment thereof, be approved?

 

was 5,915.  The total number of voters who voted “NO” in answer to such question was 1,860.  The question in the form submitted was approved by the affirmative vote of majority of those who voted thereon at said election.

 

Any action or proceeding challenging the regularity or validity of this bond referendum must be begun within 30 days after March 7, 2004.

 

Town Council of the

Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina

 

This the 1st day of March, 2004.

 

 

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-4. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

 

A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AND DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD IN THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA ON NOVEMBER 4, 2003 (2004-03-01/R-4)

 

WHEREAS, the Town Council has considered the Certificate of Canvass of the Orange County Board of Elections canvassing the referendum held for the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina on November 4, 2003 and certifying the result thereof to the Town Council and has canvassed the result of said Election;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina that it be and hereby is certified and declared that the number of voters registered and qualified to vote at said Election was 34,192.

 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that it be and hereby is certified and declared that the total number of voters who voted “YES” in answer to the question

 

SHALL the order authorizing $2,000,000 of bonds secured by a pledge of the faith and credit of the Town of Chapel Hill to pay capital costs of the acquisition of land or rights in land for the preservation of open spaces and areas, and a tax to be levied for the payment thereof, be approved?

 

was 5,692.  The total number of voters who voted “NO” in answer to such question was 1,767.

 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that a statement substantially in the form hereinafter set forth declaring the result of said election shall be prepared, delivered to the Town Clerk for filing and recordation and published in accordance with law:

 

 

STATEMENT OF RESULT OF GENERAL ELECTION HELD FOR
THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA

NOVEMBER 4, 2003

 

WHEREAS, by direction of the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, a general election was duly called and held for the Town of Chapel Hill on November 4, 2003 for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of said Town the question hereinafter set forth, and the said Town Council has received from the Orange County Board of Elections a certification of the results of said election, and has determined the result of said election to be as hereinafter stated;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

 

The Town Council hereby makes the following statement of the result of said election pursuant to The Local Government Bond Act:

 

1.         The number of voters registered and qualified to vote at said election was 34,192.

 

2.             The total number of voters who voted “YES” in answer to question,

 

SHALL the order authorizing $2,000,000 of bonds secured by a pledge of the faith and credit of the Town of Chapel Hill to pay capital costs of the acquisition of land or rights in land for the preservation of open spaces and areas, and a tax to be levied for the payment thereof, be approved?

 

was 5,692.  The total number of voters who voted “NO” in answer to such question was 1,767.  The question in the form submitted was approved by the affirmative vote of majority of those who voted thereon at said election.

 

Any action or proceeding challenging the regularity or validity of this bond referendum must be begun within 30 days after March 7, 2004.

 

Town Council of the

Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina

 

This the 1st day of March, 2004.

 

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-5. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

 

A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AND DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD IN THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA ON NOVEMBER 4, 2003 (2004-03-01/R-5)

 

WHEREAS, the Town Council has considered the Certificate of Canvass of the Orange County Board of Elections canvassing the referendum held for the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina on November 4, 2003 and certifying the result thereof to the Town Council and has canvassed the result of said Election;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina that it be and hereby is certified and declared that the number of voters registered and qualified to vote at said Election was 34,192.

 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that it be and hereby is certified and declared that the total number of voters who voted “YES” in answer to the question

 

SHALL the order authorizing $16,260,000 of bonds secured by a pledge of the faith and credit of the Town of Chapel Hill to pay capital costs of providing additional library facilities, including, without limitation, the acquisition, construction, equipping and installation of real estate improvements and machinery and equipment required therefor and the acquisition of necessary land or rights in land, and a tax to be levied for the payment thereof, be approved?

 

was 5,974.  The total number of voters who voted “NO” in answer to such question was  1,864.

 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that a statement substantially in the form hereinafter set forth declaring the result of said election shall be prepared, delivered to the Town Clerk for filing and recordation and published in accordance with law:

 

STATEMENT OF RESULT OF GENERAL ELECTION HELD FOR
THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA

NOVEMBER 4, 2003

 

WHEREAS, by direction of the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, a general election was duly called and held for the Town of Chapel Hill on November 4, 2003 for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of said Town the question hereinafter set forth, and the said Town Council has received from the Orange County Board of Elections a certification of the results of said election, and has determined the result of said election to be as hereinafter stated;

 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

 

The Town Council hereby makes the following statement of the result of said election pursuant to The Local Government Bond Act:

 

1.         The number of voters registered and qualified to vote at said election was 34,192.

 

2.         The total number of voters who voted “YES” in answer to question,


SHALL the order authorizing $16,260,000 of bonds secured by a pledge of the faith and credit of the Town of Chapel Hill to pay capital costs of providing additional library facilities, including, without limitation, the acquisition, construction, equipping and installation of real estate improvements and machinery and equipment required therefor and the acquisition of necessary land or rights in land, and a tax to be levied for the payment thereof, be approved?

 

was 5,974.  The total number of voters who voted “NO” in answer to such question was 1,864.  The question in the form submitted was approved by the affirmative vote of majority of those who voted thereon at said election.

 

Any action or proceeding challenging the regularity or validity of this bond referendum must be begun within 30 days after March 7, 2004.

 

Town Council of the

Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina

 

This the 1st day of March, 2004.

 

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM. TO ADOPT R-6. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

 

A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AND DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD IN THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA ON NOVEMBER 4, 2003 (2004-03-01/R-6)

 

WHEREAS, the Town Council has considered the Certificate of Canvass of the Orange County Board of Elections canvassing the referendum held for the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina on November 4, 2003 and certifying the result thereof to the Town Council and has canvassed the result of said Election;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina that it be and hereby is certified and declared that the number of voters registered and qualified to vote at said Election was 34,192.

 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that it be and hereby is certified and declared that the total number of voters who voted “YES” in answer to the question

 

SHALL the order authorizing $5,600,000 of bonds secured by a pledge of the faith and credit of the Town of Chapel Hill to pay capital costs to acquire, construct, improve, reconstruct, provide and replace certain sidewalks and streets, including, without limitation, curbs and gutters, bridges, viaducts, overpasses, underpasses, culverts, drains, traffic controls, signals and markers, lighting, grade crossings and related facilities, including the acquisition of machinery and equipment required therefor and the acquisition of necessary land or rights in land, and a tax to be levied for the payment thereof, be approved?

 

was 6,057.  The total number of voters who voted “NO” in answer to such question was 1,746.

 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that a statement substantially in the form hereinafter set forth declaring the result of said election shall be prepared, delivered to the Town Clerk for filing and recordation and published in accordance with law:

 

STATEMENT OF RESULT OF GENERAL ELECTION HELD FOR

THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA

NOVEMBER 4, 2003

 

WHEREAS, by direction of the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, a general election was duly called and held for the Town of Chapel Hill on November 4, 2003 for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of said Town the question hereinafter set forth, and the said Town Council has received from the Orange County Board of Elections a certification of the results of said election, and has determined the result of said election to be as hereinafter stated;

 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

 

The Town Council hereby makes the following statement of the result of said election pursuant to The Local Government Bond Act:

 

1.         The number of voters registered and qualified to vote at said election was 34,192.

 

2.             The total number of voters who voted “YES” in answer to question,

 

SHALL the order authorizing $5,600,000 of bonds secured by a pledge of the faith and credit of the Town of Chapel Hill to pay capital costs to acquire, construct, improve, reconstruct, provide and replace certain sidewalks and streets, including, without limitation, curbs and gutters, bridges, viaducts, overpasses, underpasses, culverts, drains, traffic controls, signals and markers, lighting, grade crossings and related facilities, including the acquisition of machinery and equipment required therefor and the acquisition of necessary land or rights in land, and a tax to be levied for the payment thereof, be approved?

 

was 6,057.  The total number of voters who voted “NO” in answer to such question was 1,746.  The question in the form submitted was approved by the affirmative vote of majority of those who voted thereon at said election.

 

Any action or proceeding challenging the regularity or validity of this bond referendum must be begun within 30 days after March 7, 2004.

 

Town Council of the

Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina

 

This the 1st day of March, 2004.

 

 

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-7. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). 

 

 

A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AND DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD IN THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA ON NOVEMBER 4, 2003 (2004-03-01/R-7)

 

WHEREAS, the Town Council has considered the Certificate of Canvass of the Orange County Board of Elections canvassing the referendum held for the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina on November 4, 2003 and certifying the result thereof to the Town Council and has canvassed the result of said Election;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina that it be and hereby is certified and declared that the number of voters registered and qualified to vote at said Election was 34,192.

 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that it be and hereby is certified and declared that the total number of voters who voted “YES” in answer to the question

 

SHALL the order authorizing $500,000 of bonds secured by a pledge of the faith and credit of the Town of Chapel Hill to pay capital costs to acquire, construct, equip and install energy efficient facilities in certain existing public buildings, including, without limitation, the acquisition of lighting, heating, ventilating, air conditioning and related fixtures, machinery and equipment required therefor and the acquisition of necessary land or rights in land, and a tax to be levied for the payment thereof, be approved?

 

was 5,416.  The total number of voters who voted “NO” in answer to such question was 2,006.

 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that a statement substantially in the form hereinafter set forth declaring the result of said election shall be prepared, delivered to the Town Clerk for filing and recordation and published in accordance with law:

 

STATEMENT OF RESULT OF GENERAL ELECTION HELD FOR
THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA

NOVEMBER 4, 2003

 

WHEREAS, by direction of the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, a general election was duly called and held for the Town of Chapel Hill on November 4, 2003 for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of said Town the question hereinafter set forth, and the said Town Council has received from the Orange County Board of Elections a certification of the results of said election, and has determined the result of said election to be as hereinafter stated;

 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

 

The Town Council hereby makes the following statement of the result of said election pursuant to The Local Government Bond Act:

 

1.         The number of voters registered and qualified to vote at said election was 34,192.

 

2.         The total number of voters who voted “YES” in answer to question,

 

SHALL the order authorizing $500,000 of bonds secured by a pledge of the faith and credit of the Town of Chapel Hill to pay capital costs to acquire, construct, equip and install energy efficient facilities in certain existing public buildings, including, without limitation, the acquisition of lighting, heating, ventilating, air conditioning and related fixtures, machinery and equipment required therefor and the acquisition of necessary land or rights in land, and a tax to be levied for the payment thereof, be approved?

 

was 5,416.  The total number of voters who voted “NO” in answer to such question was  2,006.  The question in the form submitted was approved by the affirmative vote of majority of those who voted thereon at said election.

 

Any action or proceeding challenging the regularity or validity of this bond referendum must be begun within 30 days after March 7, 2004.

 

Town Council of the

Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina

 

This the 1st day of March, 2004.

 

 

Item 9 - Appointment: Library Board of Trustees.

 

The Council appointed Leslie Johns.

 

 

Council Members

 

 

Library Board of Trustees

Foy

Greene

Harrison

Hill

Kleinschmidt

Strom

Verkerk

Ward

Wiggins

TOTAL

Martha O’Hara Conway

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leslie Johns

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

9

Brandon Rector

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brynda Smith

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 10 - Petitions

 

a.     By the Mayor and Council Members. None.

 

b.     By the Manager and Attorney. None

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.