AGENDA #12

 

MEMORANDUM

 

 

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

 

FROM:            W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

 

SUBJECT:       Response to Petition from Colonial Heights Residents

 

DATE:             February 25, 2002

 

 

This memorandum responds to a petition brought to the Council on February 11, 2002.  The petition comes from Michael and Amelia Collins and makes four requests of the Town Council.  The Collins petition attaches a related petition signed by 47 residents of Colonial Heights, making 2 of the 4 requests in the Collins petition.  All 47 residents show addresses as Williams Circle, Lea Court, or Bradley Road.  A copy of these materials is attached.  We recommend that the Council adopt the attached resolution, referring this issue to the Town Manager to study the possibility of a rezoning initiative for this area, and directing the Town Manager to examine the property in order to determine compliance with applicable health and safety codes.

 

THE PETITION

 

The precipitating event for these petitions is a January 22, 2002, administrative approval of a minor subdivision for a property at 717 Williams Circle.  We note that on February 14, we received an application for appeal of this approval.  That application will be heard by the Chapel Hill Board of Adjustment on March 6, 2002.

 

The Collins petition requests that the Town Council take four actions:

 

  1. Order or recommend that the Board of Adjustment grant the appeal thereby rescinding the approval of the minor subdivision.

 

  1. Investigate the subject property to determine whether it meets minimum standards of safety and hygiene under the Town’s ordinances.

 

  1. Institute procedures that will provide for a period of review and approval for minor subdivisions in residential neighborhoods by persons affected.

 

  1. Consider any other action that the Council deems appropriate, including condemnation/purchase of the subject property for residential or recreational use.

 

 

The accompanying petition signed by other residents contains requests (1) and (3) of these four items.

 

DISCUSSION

 

We offer the following comments on each of the four requests.

 

  1. Order or recommend that the Board of Adjustment grant the appeal thereby rescind the approval of the minor subdivision. [Petitioners’ Request]

 

Staff Comment:  The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial body which, upon creation by the Council, takes on the powers and duties assigned to it by State Law and Town Ordinances.  The Council has the authority to appoint members of the Board of Adjustment.  Upon taking office, Board members take an oath to perform the duties assigned to them by law.

 

Among those powers and duties are the authority to review decisions and orders of the Town Manager made in the administration of the Development Ordinance.  (In this specific case, the Manager approved a minor subdivision.) The Council adopts the Development Ordinance and the Manager is assigned the responsibility of administering the Ordinance.  (In this specific case, the issue involves whether the Manager correctly approved the minor subdivision under the provisions of the Ordinance.)  Decisions of the Manager may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment.  (That has been done in this case.) The Board hears cases and has the authority to reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, the Manager’s decision.  (The Board is scheduled to hear this case on March 6.)  Persons aggrieved may seek judicial review of decisions of the Board of Adjustment.  There is no oversight role provided in the statutes or ordinances for the Council with respect to the specific decision which the Board of Adjustment is called upon to make.

 

The Council cannot order the Board of Adjustment to grant the appeal.   Further, we do not believe it would be reasonable nor good public policy for the Council to make a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment in these circumstances.

 

We note that the appeal is going forward to the Board of Adjustment on March 6.

 

  1. Investigate the subject property to determine whether it meets minimum standards of safety and hygiene under the town’s ordinances.  [Petitioners’ Request]

 

Staff Comment:  There are provisions in the Town Code of Ordinances that include minimum standards for maintenance of private property.  Among these are regulations addressing accumulation of garbage and household refuse, nuisances, and dilapidated vehicles. 

 

In response to the petition, we have investigated the subject property to determine compliance with these minimum standards.  We inspected the property on February 19, 2002, and did not find violations of minimum health and safety regulations. 

 

  1. Institute procedures that will provide for a period of review and approval for minor subdivisions in residential neighborhoods by persons affected.  [Petitioners’ Request]

 

Staff Comment:  We currently have procedures to provide notification to nearby property owners when an application for a minor subdivision is submitted to the Town.  These procedures were initiated by a Council-adopted resolution on April 10, 1995 and call for the Town Manager to send notice to property owners within 500 feet of a property upon submittal of a minor subdivision application for the property.  These procedures were followed in the case of the minor subdivision application for 717 Williams Circle. 

 

We note that the Development Ordinance is very prescriptive regarding approval of subdivisions, and there is no latitude for discretionary action if an application meets all requirements in the Ordinance.  We do not believe that it would be reasonable or legal to write the Ordinance in a manner that would require that “persons affected” by a proposed action be placed in a position to approve or deny an application.

 

We further note that the Development Ordinance makes a distinction between major and minor subdivisions.  The Council could decide to modify the Development Ordinance such that all subdivisions, major and minor, would need to be approved by the Town Council, following a public hearing.  We note that approximately 7-10 minor subdivisions are processed administratively in a typical year.   A minor subdivision is defined in the Development Ordinance as:

 

Minor Subdivision -- a subdivision pursuant to an approved Zoning Compliance Permit for a two-family or multi-family townhouse development, an approved Special Use Permit for a planned development, or an approved commercial subdivision, or a subdivision that does not:

 

i)    create more than four (4) lots from any one tract of land, whether such lots are created at one time or over an extended period of time; and

 

ii)   dedicate or improve any new street other than widening approved existing streets; and

 

iii)   extend a public water or sanitary sewerage system other than laterals to individual lots; and

 

iv)  install drainage improvements which would require easements through one or more lots to serve other lots.

 

We do not recommend eliminating the distinction between major and minor subdivisions.

  1. Consider any other action that the Council deems appropriate, including condemnation/purchase of the subject property for residential or recreational use.  [Petitioners’ Request]

 

Staff Comment:   The property is not currently identified on any plans for recreation facilities or recreational use.

 

We note an additional idea that has not been raised by the petitioners, but that may be worth considering for this neighborhood.  Many typical existing lots in Colonial Heights are more than twice as large as the minimum lot size specified by the Residential-2 zoning district that covers this neighborhood.  (Minimum lot size in R-2 is 10,000 square feet).  It is possible that a rezoning initiative for this neighborhood might address the issue by raising the threshold for possible subdivision of existing single lots into two lots.  This solution was successfully used previously when another Chapel Hill neighborhood faced a similar issue.  This solution would not affect the subject property (717 Williams Circle) but may preclude further such subdivisions of existing lots.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

 

We believe that the minor subdivision application that was administratively approved on January 22, 2002 for a lot at 717 Williams Circle was correctly processed and approved.  The correctness of that action has been appealed to the Board of Adjustment, and will be determined by the Board in March.  We do not believe that it would be appropriate for the Town Council to participate in that consideration by the Board of Adjustment.  We note that a decision of the Board of Adjustment may be appealed to Superior Court.

 

We recommend that the Council adopt the attached resolution that would direct the Town Manager to study possibilities for a rezoning initiative for the Colonial Heights neighborhood that might preclude future minor subdivisions in this neighborhood.

 

ATTACHMENT

 

  1. February 11, 2002 petition from Michael and Amelia Collins (p. 6).

 

 

 

A RESOLUTION REGARDING COLONIAL HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD (2002-02-25/R-15)

 

WHEREAS, the Town Council has received a petition raising concerns about the condition of a property located at 717 Williams Circle in Chapel Hill;  and

 

WHEREAS, the petition also raises concerns about potential impacts of subdivision of single lots in this neighborhood into two lots;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council requests the Town Manager to prepare a report on the feasibility of initiating a rezoning action for the Colonial Heights neighborhood that would serve to help preclude future subdivision of single lots into two lots.

 

This the 25th day of February, 2002.