SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Pat Evans, Ed Harrison, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Inspections Director Lance Norris, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Principal Community Development Planner Loryn Barnes, Assistant Inspections Director Bobby Pettiford, Planner Phil Mason, Planner Kay Pearlstein and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Item 1 - Preliminary Recommendations for a Rental Licensing Program
Inspections Director Lance Norris recommended that all rental units be required to participate in the Rental Licensing Program and that the Town Code be amended to include rental licensing in Section 9 of the Housing Code. He outlined the proposed fee schedule: one to four units ($12), 15 to 19 units ($8), 20, or more than 19 units ($5) Mr. Norris recommended that owners submit their name, address, and phone number on the application, as well as the name and address of any agent assigned to take care of the property. He also suggested that the Town purchase the software that would allow this information to be put on the Town website.
Mr. Norris stated that projected revenues from the program would be approximately $94,140 per year. He noted that the cost would be $92,300 the first year, but would decrease to $77,200 the second year. Mr. Norris proposed starting the Rental Licensing Program in January 2003 and recommended that the Council evaluate it in three years. He pointed out that this issue would come back to the Council for consideration at its February 25, 2002 meeting. Mr. Norris said that that the Council had requested a breakdown of complaints received, and he listed those complaints.
Planning Board Chair John Hopkins stated that the Board had been receptive to the rental licensing concept and saw it as a way to preserve the quality of the housing stock in Town. He noted, though, that some Board members thought the program might be too modest to be fully effective, and that some tenants might not come forward because of fear of landlord reprisals. Mr. Hawkins also said that some Board members thought the fees were too low but that the exemptions were appropriate. He noted that one dissenter felt that the Program might be unfairly targeted toward University students and is an inappropriate interference in private enterprise.
Chris Marthinson said that the crisis in zoning in Chapel Hill was not due to a lack of zoning regulations, but to a lack of affordable housing. He stated that this proposal would squeeze those who most need help. Mr. Marthinson described the program as "an ambitious but faulty proposal." He argued that the smallest fee would go to the wealthiest owners and that the program would yield only one inspector, which would not really benefit the Town and would lead to an increase in annual fees per unit. Mr. Marthinson gave Boulder, Colorado as an example of a town where such a program had lead to some being squeezed out and others not paying their fees. He suggested waiting until Boulder votes in February on what to do to extricate itself from its difficulties. Mr. Marthinson asserted that "ugly classism" was inherent in the proposal because it is an enforcement system against those without property while those living in their own homes are free of inspection and enforcement.
Charlie Nelson said that the Town had stated that large property owners do not present any of the problems that the proposed licensing fee is intended to alleviate. And yet they would be expected to provide a significant amount of funding and paperwork, he said. Mr. Nelson noted that there already are existing laws for enforcement, violations of building codes, and litter and noise. He added that occasional complaints of an unfit dwelling caused by either a bad tenant or landlord does not justify "dropping a nuclear weapon" on all landlords. Mr. Nelson argued that creating a database would be a "frivolous waste of revenue," adding that he had not seen any evidence that this approach works anywhere in the U.S.
Frances Ferris, External Relations Chair for UNC/Chapel Hill Student Government, said that she had fully supported the plan but was now having some concerns. Ms. Ferris commented that landlords probably would pass the cost of licensing on to their tenants. She also noted the small difference between estimated cost and estimated revenue and asked if that took into account the certain percentage who may not even apply for a license. Ms. Ferris said that she supported the idea in general but advised caution in increasing levels of bureaucracy, and warned against seeing only "the silver lining."
Lawrence Berry, a property owner with the Institute of Real Estate Management and president of the Triangle Apartment Association, spoke on behalf of local professional property managers and management companies. He disagreed with the Town Manager's comment that the cost would not adversely affect housing affordability, noting that such fees add to the burden of owners and operators, who sometimes have no choice but to pass it along to renters. Mr. Berry also challenged Council Member Wiggins' recent comment, quoted in the Herald/Sun, that residents often get answering machines rather than live operators when they call owners during off hours. Mr. Berry stated that this was not how his industry operated, adding that there are emergency answering services and paging services, and that owners have gone to sites at all hours of the night in response to emergencies.
Mr. Berry argued that licensing owners would not eliminate the problem of disturbances to others, adding that the Town already has ordinances to address those issues. He stated that complaints typically come from two single-family neighborhoods, Northside and Cameron-McCauley, and that it might be owners in those two neighborhoods who do not respond. Mr. Berry said that the problem does not lie within the professionally managed and maintained apartment communities, which, he said, always have someone on call. Nevertheless, he stressed, those owners are being asked to foot the majority of the rental licensing bill. He described this as unfair and inequitable, and said that it would not resolve the real problems.
Mr. Berry inquired about why the rental licensing fee would not be reduced in the second year along with the expenses. He suggested that the staff research such issues further and accept the assistance of the Triangle Apartment Association and the Institute of Real Estate Management in finding alternative solutions.
Kathy Powell, Executive Director of the Triangle Apartment Association, described the work of the Association's speakers’ network, which has been educating the public about rental choices for fifty years. She noted that they educate consumers about the responsibilities and obligations of both the landlord and the renter. Ms. Powell strongly encouraged the Town Council to reassess the Rental Licensing Program. She asked the Council to ensure that the program is fair and equitable, and that it directly addresses the specific problems and issues that impact the character and stability of the Town's residential neighborhoods. Ms. Powell extended an offer to work with the Town to educate and develop a greater sense of responsibility among renters, and to educate landlords, rental owners, and operators on maintaining and improving the quality of rental housing in Chapel Hill.
Elizabeth Phillips, representing the Board of Directors of the Triangle Apartment Association, suggested that the Town Council review the idea of enforcing the current regulations so that the police give citations rather than merely breaking up disruptive parties and then going away. She suggested that Council members compare the number of citations given to the number of complaints and see if there is an issue there. Ms. Phillips emphasized that there always is a way to reach management in case of emergencies. She said that larger landlords do not have these problems because they have recourse, such as eviction proceedings. Ms. Phillips noted that providing good residential attention is the key to success in this business. She said that professionally managed companies were not the problem and that it would be unfair to expect them to carry the brunt of the burden.
Meg Pisczek, a regional property manager for Crossland Properties, asked the Town Council to consider the following questions:
· Will homeowners be held to the same standards as landlords and renters?
· What is the recourse for a renter who lives next door to a homeowner who clearly is violating the ordinance?
· What type of complaint will trigger an investigation?
· How will you determine which complaints are legitimate?
· Will all complaints be investigated?
· Will investigations be conducted in a timely and expedient manner?
· How will you weed out legitimate complaints from those that are retaliatory in nature by residents who are irritated with landowners for enforcing their lease agreements?
· Do you, and will you, have the ability to hire additional staff if the stream of complaints is more than you think it's going to be?
· Will the investigator stand behind his finding with the landowner in court?
Debbie Conle, representing Equity Residential Properties, commented that after reviewing the proposal and hearing what had been said tonight she was still unclear about how a rental licensing fee would solve problems regarding trash, noise, and parking in two residential areas. She asked the Council to keep an open mind on this issue.
Lee Conner, a member of the Rental Licensing Task Force, noted that this plan had been discussed for two years now and that everyone had had a chance to comment. He encouraged the Council to make a decision. Mr. Conner argued that having registration would create a database that would lead to better communication between renters and landlords and allow for complaints to be tracked. He remarked that people licensed in any field complain about it at first, but that this does not stop governing bodies from requiring it. Mr. Conner described the suggestion that an extra dollar a month would destroy the Affordable Housing Program as "ludicrous."
Landowner P. H. Craig said that he agreed with the first speakers and disagreed with Mr. Conner. He argued that rental licensing would lead to litigation, would not be self-supporting, and would prevent many people from putting their units on the market. Mr. Craig stated that if the Council voted for this proposal it should not say it is in favor of low-cost housing.
Vickie Schudel, a manager with Equity Residential Properties, expressed concern about addresses and phone numbers of property managers being made public. She said that three other towns with similar programs had told her that they did not make such personal information available to the public. Ms. Schudel added that programs in those three towns also deal with structural issues only, not behavioral issues.
Josh Gurlitz spoke in support of the licensing program. It addresses conflicts in neighborhoods where homeowners and renters live side by side, he said . He added that creation of a zoning compliance officer was a great first step and that a Rental Licensing Program would create greater opportunities to mitigate conflicts. Mr. Gurlitz noted that the four goals listed in the Manager's report (raising community standards, developing a greater sense of responsibility by renters, improving the quality of housing, and improving communication between renters, Town, and property owners) are all important to creating neighborhoods in which renters and owner-occupiers can live side-by-side. The Program would help insure owner-occupiers that rental housing in the neighborhood would not decrease the value or experience of living Downtown, Mr. Gurlitz said.
Ruby Sinreich remarked that she had been advocating for rental licensing for a long time. She said that it would not only help tenants and their neighbors but it would also help landlords by maintaining the value of the neighborhoods where their rental properties are located. She noted that a dollar a month was a miniscule price to pay for something that would benefit everyone in Town. Ms. Sinreich described it as "crass" to say that the Program would negatively affect affordable housing. She said that affordable housing that is not livable is not much more valuable than no housing at all. Ms. Sinreich added that it would be worth paying more than a dollar a month to have more inspections. She suggested that the Town Council also update the Town's housing codes.
Pauline Kopec stated that many people in Chapel Hill, including her, had opened up part of their homes to students for housing. She said that she has a rental unit and a condo and that she tries to provide good, safe housing for students and has generally had good experiences with that. Ms. Kopec noted that it is difficult to dismantle a bureaucracy and suggested creating a committee of the University and the various management groups to make a computerized list of those who do not provide good housing and the students who do not behave as they should. Ms. Kopec asked Council members not to pass the Rental Licensing Program, adding that the bureaucratic paperwork would infringe upon property owners.
Betsy Pringle, who also served on the Rental Licensing Task Force, explained that they had reached a strong consensus that when money changes hands the situation becomes a business arrangement. Therefore, she said, property owners should be licensed in the same manner as other businesses. Ms. Pringle noted that the plan has a three-year trial period, and commented that the Town might have a good feeling about it in three years.
Pauline Grimson, representing the Westside Neighborhood Association, said that landlords are in a business that should be required to meet minimum standards and that the quality of some of the units might improve because of that. She asked the Council to seriously consider implementing the Rental Licensing Program.
Eric Plow, who described himself as a "good landlord," said that he had come to the conclusion that ninety-five percent of the landlords in Town were decent and about five percent were not. He predicted that even if this Program is passed he will say the same thing ten years from now. Nothing will change, Mr. Plow said, and licensing will create aggravation for everyone. He suggested that anyone who wanted to know where the crime problem areas are in Town should call Jane Cousins at the Police Department, adding that Ms. Cousins only received 75 such calls last year.
Edwin Caldwell, a local property owner, said that he keeps his property up because it is next door to somebody he grew up with. He does not allow his tenants to mistreat their neighbors, he said, but renters next to him sit outside when they have a party and throw beer cans in his yard. He stated that the Northside neighborhood was deteriorating and that it was necessary to get something on the books to stop it.
Tony Lindsey explained that he and his wife live in the Cameron-McCauley area and love having students living nearby. Most landlords are good, he said, adding that good landlords have expectations for the students and students respond well when expectations are clear. Mr. Lindsey said that there were major problems, though, with students in units where expectations were not made clear. He recommended identifying the landlords who are intentionally crowding units with many more than the maximum allowable tenants. He said that licensing will not accomplish that.
Jan Reist, who owns and rents a Victorian house in the McCauley Street area, explained that landlords are called discriminatory when they try to find particular types of renters but are then expected to control tenants if they get out of hand. She told Council members that tenants sometimes use the security deposit as the last months’ rent so that they do not have to pay for property damage. But it would cost too much, Ms. Reist explained, for the landlord to hire an attorney to go after that rent. She asked the Town Council to consider protecting landlords as well renters with whatever they finally decide to do.
Bud Matthews, owner of a small Chapel Hill service company, said that he had been inside a large number of local homes and that the same names come up again and again in discussions about landowner/tenant problems. He said that it would be unfair to punish everyone because of a few bad landlords. Mr. Matthews added that landlords always have to clean up after tenants because tenants do not seem to value leaving property in the same condition as they found it.
Anker Bell, who owns apartments off Airport Road, commented that the landlord is always labeled the "bad guy." Noting that there are some bad landlords, Mr. Bell suggested that the Building Inspections Department set the standards. Regarding noise complaints, he said that he himself had complained and that the police sometimes respond and sometimes they do not. Sometimes they disperse the party and sometimes they don't, Mr. Bell said, and police officers sometimes say that they cannot do anything because it is private property. He described as "nonsense" the notion that one person could regulate 10,000 apartments. Mr. Bell recommended passing a noise ordinance and giving the police more power to take care of complaints on the spot.
Mayor Foy, noting that the Council would not take action this evening, asked Council members if they had any questions or comments.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked whether fraternities and sororities would have to comply and whether the database would be used for other than the rental property issues. She wondered too if the Program could be funded by those who do not comply.
Council Member Bateman noted that the issue was not confined to the Historic District alone but also affected other neighborhoods where the cost of housing and the rental property is not high. She asked for elaboration on the comment that a database would track complaints. She also asked if it was true that the Town was not fining for infractions of the noise ordinance after police were called. Council Member Bateman asked what the ramifications were when the police were called for excessive parking and garbage on the curb. She asked who would keep the database and who would coordinate the information from that database with the police who receive complaints.
Council Member Strom thanked those on the Task Force and also those citizens who had commented tonight. He stated that he had not heard an argument tonight that had not been discussed by the Task Force. Council Member Strom explained that this Program had been reached by consensus of the Task Force even though several had advocated for a much tougher approach. He said that the key reform was to have landlords certify that their properties meet minimum housing codes, adding that this would not be a cumbersome administrative program. He asked the staff to bring back a brief description of what the minimum housing code is, and a description of the condition of the Town's housing code as well as options for changing that in the future.
Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos explained that the minimum housing code was about thirty years old. He said that the procedural provisions of the code needed to be updated and that he was working on some proposed changes. Mr. Karpinos explained that he had not looked at the substantive provisions but that the procedural provisions needed to be updated to fold into the Rental Licensing Program because that, as it is proposed, is an amendment to the procedural parts of the minimum housing code only. He stated that the Council might wish to pursue the substantive part and then go into the procedural provisions in more detail later.
Council Member Ward suggested not looking for exceptions if the Council goes ahead with this. He asked what would become of the excess revenue. Council Member Ward commented that he was conflicted about this Program and would like more discussion about a sunset law so that the Program gets a full review after three years.
Council Member Verkerk inquired about whether tenant abuse or landlord abuse had generated this in the first place.
Council Member Wiggins asked what the inspector would do and what the rationale was for a full-time position.
Mayor Foy asked for more clarity on what information would be in the database and whether it would include property managers' home addresses.
Item 2 - Orange County Regional Landfill: Application for Special Use Permit
Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper explained that this Special Use Permit (SUP) proposes construction of a 2,100 square-foot building for electronics and dry cell battery recycling at the Eubanks Road Regional Landfill facility. On a map, she indicated the facility on the south side of Eubanks Road. Ms. Culpepper stated that no key issues had emerged and that the Manager's preliminary recommendation was for Resolution A.
Orange County Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson noted that this building would support two soon-to-be-implemented toxicity-reduction programs that should be well received by the community. He described the imposed conditions as reasonable and fair and said that the Solid Waste Department would do its best to comply with them.
Planning Board Chair John Hawkins reported that there had been very little discussion of this straightforward application and that the Board had voted unanimously for approval. He said that Board members had asked if there were any limitations on development of that site, and that a representative of the Orange County Solid Waste Department had told them there were not.
Council Member Ward noted that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board had said that the bike rack at the landfill would be adequate. Other Council members noted that an additional bike rack had been removed from the Manager's recommendations.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO CONSIDER 1,000 FEET AS CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY (R-1). THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL LANDFILL (2002-01-23/R-1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council, having considered the evidence submitted in the Public Hearing thus far pertaining to the application for Special Use Permit for the Orange County Regional Landfill, hereby determines, for purposes of Development Ordinance Section 18.3, Finding of Fact C), contiguous property to the site of the development proposed by this Special Use Permit application to be that property described as follows:
All properties within 1,000 feet of the site.
This the 23rd day of January, 2002.
Item 3 - Orange United Methodist Church: Application for Special Use Permit
Ms. Culpepper indicated the property's location on Homestead Road and explained that the proposal included a new education building for Sunday school and preschool programs, an addition to the log cabin, a gravel loop driveway, a new 52-space parking area, and improvements to the sports field. She said that one key issue involved vehicular access to the site, and that the Transportation Board had recommended that the second access to the site be restricted to one-way. Ms. Culpepper said that the staff had discussed this with the Transportation Board, which agreed that a physical barrier would be needed in the southernmost access if traffic were to be restricted there. She reported that the Manager's recommendation (Resolution A) was for approval with no restrictions to the southern driveway. Ms. Culpepper noted that Resolution E would determine contiguous property for this application.
Reverend Albert Shuler, senior pastor at the church, explained that the church had been in ministry for more than 150 years and that its mission was to "produce devoted followers of Christ by welcoming, nurturing, proclaiming, serving, encouraging and sending." He explained that the church's membership had more than tripled in the1980s and had continued to grow since then. The church had added more than 200 members since he was appointed there in 1998, Reverend Shuler explained, and 40 more will be joining over the next month. Reverend Shuler pointed out that Sunday school classes were at capacity and that they have been unable to add new classes because of limited space.
Reverend Shuler explained that there were 127 children in the preschool and 50 more on the waiting list. The church has started an after school program, he said, but it can only receive 15 children because of space limitations. He added that office space is being shared with the nursery on Sunday mornings and that there are three services every Sunday morning because of the small sanctuary. He explained that growth has led to a need for more parking spaces, adding that people have been driving through and out again on Sunday mornings because there is nowhere for them to park. Reverend Shuler asked that special consideration be given to the church, which he described as committed to carrying out the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Molly Shivers, associate pastor at Orange United Methodist Church, listed the church's many community activities and noted that the church's presence at the gateway to Chapel Hill adds to the Town's character. She asked the Town Council to give consideration to the church's status as a charitable organization when considering the permit.
David Davis, representing the trustees of Orange United Methodist Church, explained some of the components of the church's plan. He said that the new building proposed behind the fellowship hall would be used for the preschool and the after school program, and could also be used for an eldercare program which is under discussion. Mr. Davis said that the addition to the log cabin would enable more community groups to use that space. He noted that the church allows overflow parking on the ball fields, but pointed out that this creates problems on rainy days. He explained that church members have also parked across the street, but on property that will not be useable much longer.
The request for more parking spaces is crucial, Mr. Davis said, because there are times when there is "enormous need" for additional parking. He pointed out that the new lot would be tucked back into a wooded area and would not disrupt the playing fields. Mr. Davis noted that the church had agreed to meet the more restrictive stormwater requirements even though their application had been submitted before those requirements came into effect. He stated that they understand the concerns of the Lake Ellen neighborhood. Mr. Davis pointed out that whatever funds the church spends must be taken from community projects, and asked the Council to support Resolution B, which removes stipulations 7, 8 and 9 and the recent requests by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.
Landscape architect David Swanson said that the other speakers had addressed the points he intended to make.
Planning Board Chairman John Hawkins said that the Board had voted unanimously to approve this project and had deemed it a worthy one.
Mr. Horton asked that the Council instruct that the comments in regard to the other petition be entered into the record on that hearing.
Council Member Harrison asked if the resolution language that says that all engineered structures "should" have an operation and maintenance plan means that it is in Town Code. Ms. Culpepper replied that this is not in the regulations now but is one of the items being addressed with the consultant working on the revisions to the Development Ordinance. She said that there is a stipulation that calls for a stormwater management plan and that she thought an operation and maintenance plan was a component of that. Ms. Culpepper agreed to confirm that next month when the item comes back to the Council.
Council Member Verkerk asked for clarification of the distance from Booker Creek and the Resource Conservation District (RCD). Ms. Culpepper replied that she understood the RCD boundary to be 75 feet from the bank of the creek. Council Member Verkerk asked how this would fit into the new regulations that might allow 100 feet. Ms. Culpepper replied that the new regulations would include both 75 and 100 feet, so this would remain the same. She explained that it would depend on how large an area drained at a particular location. Ms. Culpepper agreed to report back with more detail when this item comes back to the Council.
Council Member Wiggins commended Reverend Shuler and members of Orange United Methodist Church for continuing to maintain the small sanctuary. She noted that other churches had asked for much larger sanctuaries, and said that she had personally witnessed the struggle for space at Orange United Methodist Church.
Mayor Foy agreed that the church does contribute to the character of the entryway to Chapel Hill, adding that everyone appreciates that.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO CONSIDER 500 FEET AS CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY (R-2). THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION APPLICATION FOR THE ORANGE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH (2002-01-23/R-2)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council, having considered the evidence submitted in the Public Hearing thus far pertaining to the application for Special Use Permit Modification for Orange United Methodist Church, hereby determines, for purposes of Development Ordinance Section 18.3, Finding of Fact c), contiguous property to the site of the development proposed by this Special Use Permit Modification application to be that property described as follows:
All properties within 500 feet of the site.
This the 23rd day of January, 2002.
BY CONSENSUS, THE TOWN COUNCIL RECESSED THE PUBLIC HEARINGS TO FEBRUARY 11, 2002.
The meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m.