MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE

   TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989, 7:30 P.M.

 

Mayor Howes called the meeting to order.

 

Council Members in attendance were:

 

     Julie Andresen     Nancy Preston

     David Godschalk    James C. Wallace

     Joe Herzenberg     Arthur Werner

     David Pasquini     Roosevelt Wilkerson, Jr.

 

Also in attendance were Council Member‑Elect Joyce Brown, Town Manager David Taylor, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Public Safety Director Cal Horton, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Mayor Beverly Kawalec, Assistant to the Attorney Richard Sharpless, and Student Liaison to the Council Bill Hildebolt.

 

Mayor Howes noted that this evening's meeting would be continued

to Tuesday, November 21st.

 

Ceremony

 

Mayor Howes requested that Sarah Campbell, Mr. & Mrs. Bachman, Herschel Slater, Mike Loveman and Council Member David Godschalk come to the speaker's podium for a presentation. Mayor Howes said that due to the generosity of Ms. Campbell, Mr. and Mrs. Bachman, and Mrs. Margaret Parker, who was unable to attend the ceremony, one continuous piece of open space was made available on Franklin Street near Stroud Hill. Mayor Howes noted Council Member Godschalk's leadership in acquiring the land. Council Member Godschalk said that the ceremony was the culmination of a land use conflict with a happy ending. Council Member Godschalk noted that the Council acted in 1986 to form a committee to ac­quire 1,450 feet of greenway between Plant Road and Howell Lane. He stated that the Bachman, Campbell and Parker donation was an important model for others wishing to donate land to the Town in the future. Council Member Godschalk thanked the donors for their generosity.

 

Ms. Campbell said she was pleased to give something back to the Town. Ms. Campbell expressed pleasure in helping to keep the Town attractive. Mr. Bachman added that he and his wife were pleased to make the land donation.

 

Petitions

 

Estelle Mabry said that the West End Street Fair on November 5th was a tremendous success for Habitat for Humanity and all in­volved parties. Ms. Mabry gave gifts of T‑shirts to the Mayor, Council and Town staff.

 

Mayor Howes said that some members of the Council were initially skeptical about the Street Fair. Mayor Howes stated that the event was a tribute to Ms. Mabry and her associates' hard work. Mayor Howes noted that the success of the event had made a good case for holding future Town festivals on West Franklin Street.

 

Student Liaison to the Council Bill Hildebolt presented a peti­tion signed by 1,000 Town residents urging the Council to take no action on the proposed noise ordinance until the Noise Committee could be reconstituted to make a recommendation on the situation.

 

Mr. Coates requested that his concerns about drainage at 304 West Franklin Street be handled on November 3Oth, rather than November 21st, since he would be out of town on the latter date.

 

Mayor Howes noted that eight persons had requested to speak on the noise ordinance this evening. He added that since a public hearing on the matter had been previously held on this matter, it would be the decision of the Council whether additional comments would be heard tonight.

 

Ms. Landsberger said there is a need for a Senior Activity Center in the eastern portion of Chapel Hill. Ms. Landsberger said that the Orange County Advisory Board on Aging had asked her to make this request. Ms. Landsberger said that the center would ideally begin operations in early 1990. Ms. Landsberger said that a sim­ilar request would be made to the Orange County Commissioners.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON, TO REFER TO THE TOWN MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0)‑

 

Council Member Andresen noted that she and Council Member Godschalk would be meeting with the Watershed Work Group on No­vember 15th to discuss wastewater package treatment plants and related water and sewer issues. Council Member Andresen invited Council members to visit with Orange County Commissioners and Council Member Godschalk and herself about these issues.

 

Council Member Werner inquired what action would be taken by the group. Council Member Godschalk noted that the group would make recommendations, followed by a public hearing. Council Member Andresen said that Orange County Commissioners want to be good stewards of the watershed.

 

Minutes of October 10, 17 and 23, 1989

 

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GODSCHALK, TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10TH. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

 

Council Member Preston requested two modifications to the minutes of October 17, 1989.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER GODSCHALK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17TH AS AMENDED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

 

Council Member Preston requested two modifications to the minutes of October 23, 1989.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23RD AS AMENDED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

 

Rezonings

 

Planning Director Roger Waldon stated that the staff report be­fore the Council provided a brief recapitulation of the rezoning proposal and the staff response to various issues. Mr. Waldon said that the concept of rezoning was initially discussed by the Council in 1984. Mr. Waldon noted that the idea of small area planning for undeveloped areas outside the Town limits and inside the planning jurisdiction. Mr. Waldon said that many citizen comments concerning a rezoning proposal had been heard by the Council at an October 17th public hearing.

 

Mr. Waldon reviewed key issues including non‑conforming lots, the Eastowne master plan, a small area plan schedule, future rezon­ing, and the status of public facilities.

 

Mr. Waldon said that a three‑step growth management approach was recommended to the Council by the Town staff. Mr. Waldon said that the first step, small area plans, is before the Council for consideration this evening. Mr. Waldon reviewed the Ordinances and Resolutions before the Council, noting that Ordinance 1 would rezone the areas under consideration. He added that adoption of Resolution 1 would deny the rezoning and Resolution 2 would di­rect the Town Manager to return to the Council with a schedule for small area plans.

 

Council Member Andresen inquired whether small area plans would address water, sewer and roadway needs. Mr. Waldon said yes. Council Member Andresen inquired why it would take two and a half years to compose the small area plans. Mr. Waldon said the de­termination whether or not adequate facilities are available could be made quickly. Mr. Waldon stated that it would take time to tie infrastructure needs to land uses. Mr. Waldon added that the process would be very participatory, involving property own­ers and other Town residents.

 

Council Member Andresen inquired which areas considered for re­zoning currently had water and sewer service. Mr. Waldon said that virtually the entire southern and northwestern areas pro­posed for rezoning do not currently have water and sewer service.

 

Council Member Andresen asked when the areas would receive water and sewer service if they were not rezoned. Mr. Waldon responded that if the areas were not rezoned, the main mechanism for utili­ty installation would be future development in the area.

 

Mr. Waldon noted that the Planning Board had concurred with the concept of small area plans, but did not agree with the need for downzoning. Mayor Howes agreed with this assessment.

 

Council Member Godschalk inquired how staffing would be handled for small area plans. Mr. Waldon responded that three planners in the Comprehensive Planning section would be responsible for putting together the plans, working on two or three plans concur­rently.

 

Council Member Werner said that small area plan development ap­peared to be a much less extensive effort than the compilation of the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Werner noted that his major concerns were timing and open‑mindedness of the processes. Mr. Waldon suggested that the small area plans should be done several at a time, but he would recommend against doing all the plans at the same time. Council Member Werner said he wanted to ensure property owners that small area plans and rezonings will happen in a timely fashion. Mr. Waldon said that the bulk of time in developing small area plans would be tied to property owner and citizen participation.

 

Council Member Pasquini said he liked the concept of small area plans. Council Member Pasquini added that property owners have a vested right to develop their properties. Council Member pasquini said that property owners should have collateral use of their property to coincide with the development of small area plans. Council Member Pasquini concluded his remarks by stating that if a property owner wishes to develop their land, staff should outline what facilities are needed prior to development.

 

Council Member Preston said she would prefer a more positive ap­proach to the situation at hand. Council Member Preston ex­pressed her liking for small area plans, adding her discomfort with mass downzoning, since low density zoning already exists in the areas. Council Member Preston inquired whether downzoning is essential to the development of small area plans. Mr. Waldon said he expected that some of the areas proposed for rezoning would ultimately carry higher densities than those at present. Mr. Waldon stated that rezoning of property puts the developer in the posture to question whether facilities are available. Mr. waldon said that zoning is the Council's most effective tool in managing land use.

 

Council Member Preston noted that the Council had a history of not rezoning property. Council Member Preston inquired why it was necessary to rezone properties to lower densities. Town Attorney Karpinos noted that the courts were currently considering whether water and sewer service can be required in a rural transition zone.

 

Mayor Howes stated that the program being discussed by the Coun­cil would serve as the cornerstone of growth management for the Town. Mayor Howes said the proposed program rested on the abili­ty to do small area planning in a timely fashion. Mayor Howes noted that he was personally impressed by the arguments of prop­erty owners at the October 17th public hearing who said that re­zoning was unnecessary. Mayor Howes concluded his remarks by not­ing that the Planning Board had seen the merits of small area plans.

 

Council Member Andresen stated that there would be possible prob­lems with timing of rezoning. Council Member Andresen noted that the Town currently has limited commercial and no industrially‑zoned areas. Mr. Waldon responded that most of the areas proposed for rezoning are currently zoned R‑1 and R‑2. Council Member Andresen inquired whether passage of Ordinance 1 was aimed at reducing traffic congestion and other growth prob­lems. Mr. Waldon said implementation of the Manager's recommend­ed program would grant staff authority to monitor the adequacy of public facilities for individual developments. Council Member Andresen said she would like to see additional alternatives to address timing concerns. Council Member Wilkerson said he was concerned about timing matters. Council Member Wilkerson stated that previous councils have used rezoning as a last resort to control development.

 

Mayor Howes inquired whether the staff had any additional ideas concerning timing, should the matter be deferred. Town Manager Taylor said that no members of the Council appeared to be com­fortable with downzoning at this time. Town Manager Taylor said that the staff could put together a proposed schedule, processes and proposed staffing levels for the proposed growth management program.

 

Council Member Preston inquired whether the item could be de­ferred until January. Town Manager Taylor said this was not an unreasonable length of time to defer. Town Attorney Karpinos said there were no statutory limits to prevent the deferral.

 

Council Member Werner said that downzoning appeared to be the major issue capturing the Council's attention this evening. May­or Howes noted that action separate from downzoning could be tak­en by the Council this evening. Council Member Andresen ex­pressed her preference for taking action on all items simultane­ously.

 

Council Member Pasquini stated that properties could be developed for their permitted uses, regardless of small area plans. Council Member Pasquini said that downzoning was the best growth manage­ment mechanism proposed by Town staff this evening.

 

Council Member Preston suggested that small area plans could be developed incrementally without the need for simultaneous rezon­ing. Council Member Preston inquired whether downzoning would be in place for an indefinite time while rezoning requests were ap­proved. Mr. Waldon said no, noting that facility needs and ap­propriate density patterns would be identified as a part of the small area plan and rezoning processes.

 

Council Member Preston inquired whether some parcels of land could remain zoned rural transition for a long period of time. Mr. Waldon said this was possible.

 

Council Member Godschalk said it was clear that the majority of the Council would not vote in favor of the rezoning proposal. Council Member Godschalk stated that techniques other than downzoning are needed as growth management mechanisms.

 

Mayor Howes said it appeared that the Council was requesting that the Town Manager return at a future date with new growth manage­ment mechanisms and a schedule for implementation.

 

Council Member Werner noted that a detailed schedule would not be necessary, adding that this matter should not be left unresolved for a long time.

 

Town Manager Taylor said he would strive to prepare a report for the December 12th Council meeting.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER GODSCHALK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON, TO REFER THE MATTER TO STAFF, REQUESTING THAT THE TOWN MANAGER PREPARE A SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND ALTERNATIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT MECHANISMS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

 

Mayor Howes said that the Council and concerned property owners had held a searching discussion on this matter this evening and in recent weeks. Mayor Howes thanked all parties for their interest and said the participatory approach would serve the Council well in the future.

 

Noise Ordinance

 

Mayor Howes noted that eight persons had indicated a desire to speak on the proposed noise ordinance.

 

Public Safety Director Cal Horton noted that the Noise Ordinance had been most recently amended in February, 1987 to permit a max­imum of seventy‑five decibels on Friday and Saturday evenings. Mr. Horton noted that the Council‑appointed Noise Committee was composed of twenty‑nine members, from a cross‑section of communi­ty groups. Mr. Horton stated that the revision subcommittee rec­ommended in November, 1987 that slightly higher noise levels be permitted in the campus area. The subcommittee report also suggested that the Police Department have an active role in enforcement. In February, 1988, the monitoring committee report­ed that the ordinance seemed to be working well. Mr. Horton stated that following the departure of Ron Secrist, work on the noise ordinance appeared to have been suspended for approximately eight months. Mr. Horton stated that some of the revisions made in 1987 appeared to have provided relief in most neighborhoods.

 

Mr. Horton stated that a petition recently received from resi­dents in the Short Street/Pritchard Avenue neighborhood requested that outdoor sound amplification permits be prohibited. Mr. Horton noted that if this were not feasible, the residents re­quested that the maximum decibel level be reduced from seven­ty‑five to fifty. Mr. Horton noted that this approach was not recommended by the Town staff. Mr. Horton added that the peti­tioners had recommended a 9 p.m. ending time for outdoor events.

 

Town Manager Taylor stated that the Police department should de­velop new noise standards when individual permits are requested. Mr. Taylor stated that all parties could work with the Dispute Settlement Center to work toward a consensus solution. Mr. Tay­lor said his recommendation was to maintain the seventy‑five decibel maximum in the campus area.

 

Council Member Godschalk inquired further about the standards to be implemented by the Police department. Town Manager Taylor said that there is some existing criteria for noise permits which could be further refined in the future. Town Manager Taylor said he could not be more specific about Chief Gold's specific crite­ria at this time. Council Member Godschalk inquired whether per­mits would be issued if all criteria were met. Mr. Taylor said this was correct.

 

Council Member Preston suggested that applicants for noise per­mits should tell neighbors when parties will begin and end. Town Manager Taylor noted that the idea of a notice had been dis­cussed. He added that this element did not necessarily need to be in the noise ordinance. Public Safety Director Cal Horton stated that records of compliance would be maintained, whereby past violators would not be issued new permits. Mr. Horton said that reasonable review procedures could be established over time. Council Member Andresen noted that some citizens were concerned about types of noise other than amplified music. Council Member Andresen suggested that the noise committee be reconstituted, with all parties being given the opportunity to further discuss the noise ordinance and related issues. Mr. Horton noted that regulation of some types of noise (such as car‑door slamming) proved extremely difficult.

 

Mayor Howes asked the pleasure of the Council on the eight per­sons who had requested to speak on the noise issue. The Council agreed that speakers should try to limit their remarks to one minute.

 

Margaret Taylor, President of the Alliance of Neighborhoods, said she supported the concerns of neighborhoods relative to the noise ordinance. Ms. Taylor said noise problems are an ongoing concern for long‑term Town residents. Ms. Taylor stated that the noise issue bears on the livability of neighborhoods. Ms. Taylor urged the Council to adopt a strong noise ordinance.

 

Philip Pavlik said he would like to see the work of the Noise Committee completed. Mr. Pavlik inquired why the proposed ordi­nance recommended a night‑time decibel limit equivalent to the daytime limit for industrial zones. Mr. Pavlik said that another University town, Ann Arbor, Michigan, the home of the University of Michigan, has a maximum fifty‑five decibel level.

 

C. Tom Nuzum said that the 1987 noise ordinance standards were an improvement from previous ordinances. Mr. Nuzum said that the source of noise, depending on weather conditions, is up to one‑half mile away. Mr. Nuzum urged the Council to adopt a stronger noise ordinance. Mr. Nuzum said that the right to pri­vacy overrode other concerns.

 

Mike Troy, owner of He's Not Here Bar, said his establishment had lived with the seventy‑five decibel limit since 1985. Mr. Troy stated that the complaints from Short and Pritchard Street resi­dents did not stem from his place of business. Mr. Troy urged the Council and the noise committee to study the idea of main­taining the campus as a separate noise district. Mr. Troy said that He's Not Here had lived with the current noise regulations and been a model citizen.

 

Mike Burnet, Manager of He's Not Here, expressed his concurrence with Mr. Troy's remarks.

 

Council Member Wilkerson said that he and his family had lived in a house near He's Not Here. Council Member Wilkerson said he and his family moved because of noise problems in the area.

 

Mark Smith, President of Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity, said that the current noise ordinance had been attained after a series of compromises on the part of many parties. Mr. Smith requested that the Council continue promulgation of the current noise ordi­nance.

 

David Godschalk, a resident of 209 Pritchard Avenue, said that the current problem stemmed from newer residents being unaccus­tomed to dealing with students. Mr. Godschalk said he was confi­dent that a happy medium could be achieved by the parties commu­nicating with one another.

 

Neal McKnight noted that a recent meeting to discuss the noise situation in the Short Street/Pritchard Avenue area had been at­tended by twenty student residents and one other neighborhood resident. Mr. McKnight said a lack of communication had been common throughout the process. Mr. McKnight expressed his belief that communication could be renewed by reconstituting the Noise Committee.

 

Mayor Howes noted that several persons had referred to the Noise Committee. He added that it would be necessary to reconstitute the Committee if this approach were taken. Council Member Preston said it was unfortunate that the final report of the Com­mittee was not available, since the Committee had represented a good cross‑section of the community in troubleshooting the situa­tion. Council Member Preston suggested that the Noise Committee be reconstituted and come back to the Council with a final recom­mendation on the noise ordinance. Council Member Herzenberg con­curred, requesting that a final report be furnished early in the new year.

 

Council Member Andresen suggested that the Council consider the resolution presented this evening, particularly the noise stan­dards. Council Member Preston suggested that the Noise Committee could further investigate this matter.

 

Mayor Howes stated that Public Safety Director Cal Horton had continued the work of Mr. Secrist with the noise issue.

 

Council Member Andresen said she was prepared to vote on the or­dinance before the Council this evening.

 

Council Member Godschalk said that Council Member Preston's idea was a good one, which should be followed. Council Member Preston added that she would like to see criteria and standards speci­fied.

 

Council Member Wallace said nothing would be lost by reconstitut­ing the Noise Committee. Council Member Wallace suggested that all interested parties should be represented on the committee.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO RECONSTITUTE THE NOISE COMMITTEE. THE MOTION FUR­THER SPECIFIED THAT THE COMMITTEE WOULD RETURN TO THE COUNCIL WITH ITS RECOMMENDATIONS PRIOR TO FINAL COUNCIL ACTION. THE MO­TION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

 

Open Space

 

Assistant Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal stated that the resolu­tion before the Council would adopt guidelines for the use of $5 million of voter‑approved open space bonds. Ms. Loewenthal said that on September 11th, the Council requested that the Community Appearance, Greenways, and Parks and Recreation Commissions establish a mutually agreeable series of guidelines for expenditure of the bond monies. Ms. Loewenthal outlined the seven general priority categories and four selection criteria for land acquisition. Ms. Loewenthal noted that all three advisory , bodies recommended adoption of the guidelines.

 

Council Member Godschalk inquired why entranceways had fallen to second priority on the general priority category list. Ms. Loewenthal said the shift was made due to concern with the avail­ability of land. Ms. Loewenthal stated that entranceway parcels can be preserved in ways that community parks can not. Ms. Loewenthal also noted that community park parcels are also more difficult to acquire.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GODSCHALK, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 4. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANI­MOUSLY (9‑0).

 

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING GENERAL PRIORITY CATEGORIES AND GENERAL CRITERIA TO BE USED AS GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING POTENTIAL LAND FOR PARKS, ENTRANCEWAYS, GREENWAYS, NATURAL AREAS, AND SCENIC VISTAS, AND FOR FUTURE ACQUISITION OF THESE LANDS (89‑11‑13/R‑4)

 

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill appointed the Appearance Commission, the Greenways Commission, and the Parks and Recreation Commission to advise the Council on matters relat­ed to parks and facilities, entranceways, greenways, natural ar­eas, and scenic vistas; and

 

WHEREAS, the 1989 Parks and Open Space Bond monies are designated to be used to acquire land for these purposes; and

 

WHEREAS, the Appearance Commission, the Greenways Commission, and the Parks and Recreation Commission have reviewed Town staff and citizen studies and reports regarding the various needs for open space in Chapel Hill;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council commends the Appearance Commission, the Greenways Commission, and the Parks and Recreation Commission for their efforts in recommending general priority categories and general criteria for considering potential open space land; and

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following general priority cate­gories and general criteria be used as guidelines by the Council in the formal evaluations of potential land for parks, entranceways, greenways, natural areas, and scenic vistas, and for the future acquisition of these lands:

 

General Priority

 

     1.   A community park site (20‑100 acres) on the eastern side of Town.

 

     2.   Key entranceway parcels along N.C. 54 East, N.C. 86 North, U.S.15‑501 South, N.C. 54 Bypass West, U.S. 15‑501 North, and Laurel Hill Parkway.

 

     3.   Key greenway parcels to complete major segments in the master plan for greenways, generally following priori­ties of Booker Creek, Bolin Creek, and Battle Branch.

 

     4.   Neighborhood parks in the two neighborhood planning districts where available sites are most limited.

 

     5.   Natural areas which have been identified as being the most vulnerable to development.

 

     6.   Neighborhood parks in the three remaining neighborhood planning districts which were identified in the 1989 Community Facilities Report.

 

     7.   Key entranceway parcels that are not obtainable through the development review process or through provisions in the buffer requirements in the Development Ordinance, generally following the priorities found in #2 above.

 

General Criteria

 

     1.   Preference should be given to parcels that meet more than one program objective (e.g. a park site that in­cludes greenways and/or entranceways).

 

     2.   Acquisition by donation, partial gift, dedication of easement, or acquisition of development rights, as well as by fee simple, should be considered.

 

     3.   Any acquisition should meet clearly identified objec­tives of a Town‑approved program.

 

     4.   The Council should ultimately determine the most favor­able market opportunities as they occur, and will therefore determine the actual sequence of these purchases. The specific types of land purchased, as well as the sequence by which they are purchased, may differ from the suggested priority category list.

 

This the 13th day of November, 1989.

 

Library Committee

 

Mayor Howes presented a report on behalf of the Library Commit­tee. Mayor Howes noted that Council Members Herzenberg and Pasquini also serve on the committee. Mayor Howes acknowledged the attendance of Library Board members Zora Rashkis, Everett Emerson and Lisa Price, and Library Director Kathleen Thompson.

 

Mayor Howes stated that a future library site had been acquired at the corner of Estes Drive and Franklin Street.  Mayor Howes noted that a need for a forty thousand square foot facility had been identified by the project architect Josh Gurlitz.  Mayor Howes said that errors had been made in estimates during 1986, when the building cost had been estimated to be approximately $3 million. Mayor Howes said there had been a considerable mismatch between money available and that actually needed. Mayor Howes said it would be unfair to the community to build a facility smaller than what was actually needed. To this end, Mayor Howes said a private consultant was commissioned to evaluate the poten­tial for private fund‑raising.

 

Mayor Howes concluded his remarks by noting that the Library Com­mittee recommends proceeding with planning for a larger library facility. Mayor Howes added that the need for a future bond is­sue is anticipated. Mayor Howes said the timing of a bond issue remained a subject for discussion, noting that the Library Com­mittee had passed a resolution recommending that the library bond referendum be held in May, 1990.

 

Ms. Loewenthal noted that the library building consultant, HBW, concluded that a library building of sixty thousand square feet would ultimately be needed by 2010. Ms. Loewenthal stated that American Library Association guidelines suggest that the Town currently needs twenty‑four thousand square feet of library building space. Ms. Loewenthal added that if current furniture and equipment is moved to the new facility, it would be possible to construct a twenty‑eight thousand square foot facility.

 

Ms. Loewenthal noted that partial work on design development had been completed. Ms. Loewenthal added that the special use permit for the site could be submitted by the end of April, 1990, if necessary. Ms. Loewenthal said that the need for redesign and review time could be minimized, with bids let in April, 1991 and occupancy possibly occurring as soon as mid‑1993. Ms. Loewenthal stressed the importance of allowing community input into the de­sign of the facility.

 

Council Member Preston inquired whether a forty‑seven thousand square foot building would be adequate for the Town's need in the year 2000. Ms. Loewenthal said yes, if projections were correct. Council Member Preston inquired what activities would occur be­tween 2000 and 2010. Ms. Loewenthal stated that financing and building would take place in this time period. Council Member Preston inquired whether costs could be trimmed by eliminating schematics. Council Member Preston also pondered about the final conceptual phase of the project. Mayor Howes said that no final decisions had been made about the final phase of the project. Ms. Loewenthal noted that the building program was flexible, al­lowing for future building expansions. Ms. Loewenthal noted that eliminating schematics would not result in cost savings.

 

Ms. Loewenthal stated that the Town has high per capita usage of the library facility, adding that it is not practical not to build enough space. Ms. Loewenthal advised that it was best to hold bond referendums on more than one item at a time, in order to comprehensively assess all community needs at one time. Ms. Loewenthal noted that the staff recommends a November bond refer­endum, since this would permit overall Town capital planning. Ms. Loewenthal said that the recognition of the library as a well‑known, important landmark in the Town, coupled with diffi­culty of converting the building to a residential use, would make resale of the building both difficult and undesirable. Ms. Loewenthal stated that the long‑term desirable use for the cur­rent library would be for Town‑related business.

 

Council Member Werner inquired about the appraisal value of the library building. Ms. Loewenthal said this was difficult to pin­point. Council Member Preston noted that smaller homes in the area sell for approximately $400,000.

 

Council Member Godschalk inquired about the composition of mem­bership of the American Library Association. Ms. Loewenthal said that the group is composed primarily of librarians.

 

Council Member Godschalk inquired what building standards are based upon. Ms. Thompson said population is the principal deter­minant. Mayor Howes noted that the Library Committee had used more than American Library Association standards in reaching its recommendations. Mayor Howes noted that the Library Committee envisions the library facility as an information center for the community.

 

Council Member Godschalk stated that the American Library Associ­ation is an interest group with vested interests. Council Member Godschalk said the proposed ultimate size of ?he facility ap­peared to be staggeringly large. Council Member Andresen in­quired whether the City and County of Durham met American Library Association standards. Council Member Andresen further inquired whether the Town was going beyond what other communities do in terms of building a library facility. Ms. Thompson responded that other academic communities had been examined and found to have similar facilities to those proposed by the Town. Council Member Andresen inquired whether any analysis of future addition­al operating costs had been performed. Ms. Thompson responded that additional annual operating costs of $200,000 to $400,000 were anticipated in the new facility. Council Member Andresen inquired whether there had been any discussion of Orange County and other jurisdictions assisting with library costs. Mayor Howes said yes.

 

Council Member Wallace noted that a November bond referendum would be approximately one year away. Council Member Wallace said he had heard considerable criticism about the time that has already lapsed on this process. Council Member Wallace stated that the sooner a public hearing is held on the library facility, the better off all parties will be.

 

Council Member Godschalk said that the capital planning process is at issue. Council Member Godschalk stated that boards and commissions advocate their own interests, with the Council balancing board and commission bond referendum recommendations.  Council Member Godschalk said that the library bond referendum should be considered in November, when other issues are considered.

 

Council Member Herzenberg noted that the new library building had been requested in 1980‑81, with $4 million of bonds being ap­proved in 1986. Council Member Herzenberg said he concurred with Council Member Wallace's suggestion that the bond referendum be held in the spring of 1990.

 

Council Member Werner said Council Members Herzenberg and Wallace had made good arguments, but November appeared to be a better alternative. Council Member Werner noted that the size of the required library facility had been misjudged at the first bond referendum. Council Member Werner said the six months between May and November would give everyone a better sense of costs and needs. Council Member Werner also suggested that the Council ought to take advantage of having the library on a bond referen­dum ballot.

 

Council Member Preston said she believed that a bond referendum vote on the library would be jeopardized if it were held any lat­er than May, 1990. Council Member Preston expressed concern about the current economic climate, adding that the library project needed to be initiated as soon as possible.

 

Council Member Pasquini said the project consultant had been asked to design a state‑of‑the‑art library during the building program process. Council Member Pasquini said it was distressful to think that the bond referendum had been passed but that the library would not be built within seven years time. Council Member Pasquini said the facility should begin as soon as possible, with the bond referendum to occur in November, 1990 or later.

 

Council Member Andresen said she did not favor May bond referen­dums, since they do not reflect the community sentiment. Council Member Andresen added that capital needs other than the library are currently under consideration. Council Member Andresen sug­gested that a Citizen Task Force could be established, as in the past, to assist with bond referendum passage.

 

Council Member Preston inquired why a $3 million bond referendum was being proposed when only $2.71 million was needed for the project. Town Manager Taylor stated that costs are bound to in­crease in the future, necessitating contingencies.

 

Mayor Howes noted that the building program would drive the pro­cess. Mayor Howes added that the Library Committee had decided it wanted to stick by the building program.

 

Council Member Wallace stated that some of the arguments being used by other Council members are reversible. Council Member Wallace noted that some Council members had suggested not holding an open space bond referendum at all in 1989. Council Member Wallace said it was critical to understand the feelings of citizens concerning the library facility as soon as possible.

Council Member Wallace said holding the referendum in May would be safer than waiting until November.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILKERSON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 5D, DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER TO PL?N A BOND REFERENDUM FOR NOVEMBER, 1990. THE MOTION WAS ADOPT­ED BY A VOTE OF 6‑3, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESTON, HERZENBERG AND WALLACE VOTING NO.

 

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO PREPARE PRELIMINARY DESIGN WORK AND AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND TO INCLUDE A NOVEMBER 1990 LIBRARY BOND REFERENDUM IN 1990‑95 CIP (89‑11‑13/R‑5d)

 

WHEREAS, the residents of the Town of Chapel Hill use their Pub­lic Library more than the residents of any other town in North Carolina; and

 

WHEREAS, the present library building of 12,800 square feet is too small for the present operations; and

 

WHEREAS, American Library Association minimum standards recommend a 24,000 square foot library to adequately accommodate our present population, and an expansion to 47,000 square feet would be needed to accommodate our projected 2000 population; and

 

WHEREAS, American Library Association minimum standards further recommend that a library of 64,000 square feet will be needed by this community by about 2010; and

 

WHEREAS, careful research and study by the Library Committee and staff produced a library building program recommending construc­tion of 47,000 square feet in Phase I to accommodate both expand­ed existing services and the addition of services not currently provided; and

 

WHEREAS, our architect estimates that the cost of a 47,000‑square‑foot building, if built now, would cost approxi­mately $7.95 million; and

 

WHEREAS, the present resources available for the project total $5.23 million; and

 

WHEREAS, the voters of Chapel Hill in 1986 approved a bond refer­endum to issue $4.0 million of General Obligation bonds to build a library; and

 

WHEREAS, a 1989 Fundraising Feasibility Study noted that 94? of those surveyed think the library is "very important" to the com­munity and that 90% think the library is "important to the Town's future;" and

 

WHEREAS, the use of bond financing makes capital available and allows the cost of major facilities to be shared by future users; and

 

WHEREAS, the Town's annual update of its 5‑year Capital Improve­ments Program includes consideration of all major capital needs and resources with which to fund them; and

 

WHEREAS, the 1989‑94 Capital Improvements Program includes dis­cussion of November 1990 referenda for street improvements bonds ($8 million), parks and open space bonds ($4 million) and housing bonds ($2 million); and

 

WHEREAS, the Council and the community should be able to consider any major capital need in the context of all other identified capital needs;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it is appropriate for the voters of Chapel Hill to express themselves on the question of the Town's issuing sup­plemental bonds for the construction of the first phase of the new library.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 1990‑95 Capital Improvements Pro­gram process should include public discussion of a supplemental library bond issue along with discussion of the Town's other cap­ital needs.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager is authorized to include a November 1990 referendum for $3 million of library bonds in the Preliminary 1990‑95 Capital Improvements Program.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager is authorized to direct the architects to prepare conceptual plans and an application for a Special Use Permit for a library of approximately 64,000 square feet, with the size of each phase being flexible until after No­vember 6, 1990.

 

This the 13th day of November, 1989.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 6. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANI­MOUSLY (9‑0).

 

A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A DESIGN PROCESS AND SCHEDULE FOR THE NEW LIBRARY (89‑11‑13/R‑6)

 

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill wishes to provide opportunity for citizens and advisory groups to be involved in the design process for the new library and Pritchard Park; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council has appointed a Library Committee to work with the architects during the design process; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council has appointed the Library Board of Trustees, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Greenways Commission to provide advice; and

 

WHEREAS, plans for the library and park must receive a Special Use Permit from the Council; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council will review plans for the library and park both in its capacity as owner and in its capacity as regulator;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following process and approximate schedule for the design of the new library and park:

 

                  DESIGN PROCESS AND SCHEDULE

Stage                                      Weeks         Start

 

Program Analysis: Architects, Library

Committee, Staff                              4        11/1/89

 

Schematic Design Production for site and

 

building: Architects                           8       11/29/89

Review of Schematic Design: Library Committee,

Council, Advisory Boards, Public, Staff                      6     1/24/90

 

Partial Design Development: Architects        6        3/14/90

 

Special Use Permit Application Process       32        4/25/90

 

Partial Design Development: Architects        6        12/5/90

 

Review of Design Drawings: Library Committee,

HBW, Advisory Boards, Staff                   5        1/16/91

 

Contract Documents Production: Architects    16         5/8/91

 

Review of Contract Documents: Staff           2        5/22/91

 

Bid and Negotiation Process: Architects,

Staff                                         8        5/22/91

 

Bid Award: Council                         7/8   or   8/19/91

 

This is the 13th day of November, 1989.

 

Council Member Godschalk said he did not like the vagueness of the resolution before the Council concerning future Town usage of the library facility. Council Member Godschalk said he would like to see the facility used as a senior activity center or similar use. Mayor Howes said the resolution before the Council was not confining, since no final decision was currently being made. Council Member Werner said he was unclear why the resolu­tion was being offered at this time.

 

Mayor Howes said some members of the Library Board of Trustees had suggested selling the library building once the new facility is opened for use. Mayor Howes stated it was unlikely that the building could be sold for a high enough price to close the current funding gap. Mayor Howes said the resolution, if adopted, would be viewed as a statement of broad Council policy.

 

Town Manager Taylor said the intent of the resolution is to main­tain the library building in the Town's inventory of buildings. He noted that the facility could possibly be used as a Parks and Recreation headquarters building, with the entrance portion of the building continuing to serve as a reading room. Town Manager Taylor added that space in the building could be used for meeting rooms for community organizations, historical exhibits and other miscellaneous activities.

 

Council Member Pasquini said passage of the resolution appeared to be very premature.

 

Council Member Herzenberg said the resolution was on the agenda to overcome perceptions that the library building will be sold or continue to be used as a library facility. Mayor Howes added that the Town owns the building and will determine its future use.

 

Council Member Werner said that since a future Council will de­termine the use of the building, passage of the resolution seemed useless.

 

Council Member Godschalk said there is great concern in the com­munity about the future of the library building. Council Member Godschalk said that the building will be symbolically preserved in the future.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 7.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 6‑3, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS PASQUINI, WALLACE AND WERNER VOTING NO.

 

A RESOLUTION TO REUSE THE PRESENT LIBRARY BUILDING FOR TOWN PUR­POSES (89‑11‑13/R‑7)

 

WHEREAS, the present Library building is a Town landmark which has come to be appreciated by many Chapel Hill residents for its architecture, grounds and ambience; and

 

WHEREAS, the library building is located in the Historic Dis­trict; and

 

WHEREAS, the library building is located in the R‑2 zoning dis­trict, a district which allows primarily single and two‑unit res­idential and related uses, churches, public cultural facilities (such as libraries and museums), public use facilities (such as Town offices and fire stations), schools and accessory uses; and

 

WHEREAS, future rezoning of this property is unlikely, given the nature of the surrounding neighborhoods; and

 

WHEREAS, the resale value of the building would be severely re­stricted by the R‑2 and Historic District regulations; and

 

WHEREAS, many Town functions are currently crowded into space inadequate to serve the public;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the present library building be retained by the Town and used for Town purposes.

 

This is the 13th day of November, 1989.

 

Rescheduling of December 11, 1989 Council Meeting

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WALLACE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 3. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

 

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2‑3 (REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE COUN­CIL) OF THE TOWN CODE (89‑11‑13/0‑3)

 

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the calendar of regular meetings in 1989 is temporarily amended as follows:

 

     The December 11 meeting is rescheduled to December 12.

 

This the 13th day of November, 1989.

 

Nominations for Parks and Recreation Commission

 

Council Member Preston proposed that all names before the Council be placed into nomination for consideration at the Council's No­vember 3Oth meeting. Council Member Werner noted that he had recruited Tony Hatcher to serve on the Parks and Recreation Com­mission. Council Member Werner stated that Mr. Hatcher has three children and would be a good candidate to fill the vacancy.

 

Property and Business Interest Disclosure Ordinance

 

Town Attorney Karpinos briefly reviewed the effect of the ordinance requiring disclosure of property interests by the Council.

 

Council Member Preston said she felt sad about having to place this item on the Council's agenda. Council Member Preston noted that it was sad to have to legislate ethical behavior. Council Member Preston stated that she had nothing to hide and would vote in favor of the ordinance. Council Member Preston concluded her remarks by saying she hoped that the requirement for business and property disclosure would not prevent qualified candidates from running for Council in the future. Council Member Godschalk ob­served that there were a number of other constraints which pre­vent some persons from running for Council.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER PASQUINI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 4. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANI­MOUSLY (9‑0).

 

AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING DISCLOSURE OF REAL PROPERTY AND BUSINESS INTERESTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL (89‑11‑13/0‑4)

 

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that a new Article III, Chapter 2 of the Town Code is hereby added as follows:

 

  ARTICLE III. DISCLOSURE OF PROPERTY AND BUSINESS INTERESTS

 

Section 2‑49. Property disclosure.

 

The Mayor and every member of the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill shall disclose any legal, equitable, beneficial or contractual interest he/she or his/her spouse may have in any real property within the Chapel Hill corporate limits, the Town's extraterritorial planning jurisdiction and the Town of Chapel Hill transition area, as established by the Orange County/Carrboro/Chapel Hill Joint Planning Agreement adopted pursuant to Chapter 233, 1987 Session Laws. The real property which must be disclosed includes all real property which the Mayor or any member or his/her spouse holds title to, individually or jointly, any real property held in trust as well as any pecuniary interest he/she may have in any business, firm, or corporation of whatever nature, which holds title to or has any ownership interest in any real property within the Chapel Hill corporate limits, the Town's extraterritorial planning jurisdiction and the Town of Chapel Hill Transition Area, as established by the Orange County/Carrboro/Chapel Hill Joint Planning Agreement adopted pursuant to Chapter 233, 1987 Session Laws. Such disclosure shall contain the general location of the real property, but need not include its value.

 

Section 2‑50. Disclosure of business interests.

 

The Mayor and every member of the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill shall disclose any legal, equitable, beneficial or contractual interest he/she may have in or with any business, firm, or corporation, of whatever nature, which is doing business with the Town of Chapel Hill pursuant to contracts which have been awarded by the Town of Chapel Hill.

 

The Mayor and every member of the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill shall disclose any legal, equitable, beneficial or contractual interest he/she may have in any business, firm, or corporation, of whatever nature, which is attempting to secure the award of a bid from the Town of Chapel Hill or the approval of any board or agency of the Town of Chapel Hill.

 

An interest of less than ten percent of the stock of a corpora­tion or less than ten percent ownership in any other business entity shall not constitute an interest requiring disclosure.

 

Section 2‑51. Reporting required.

 

The disclosures required by this Article shall be in writing and filed with the Chapel Hill Town Clerk.

 

The written disclosures required by this Article shall be made within the following time periods which are applicable:

 

     (1)  the later of 30 days after the effective date of this title or 30 days after the elected official has assumed office;

 

     (2)  the earlier of 30 days of the acquisition of any legal, equitable, beneficial 'or contractual interest in the property or business, firm, or corporation required to be disclosed in Sections 2‑49 and 2‑50 or prior to the award by the Town of a contract with or a permit or other approval to a business, firm, or corporation re­quired to be disclosed in Section 2‑50.

 

Section 2‑52. Disqualification from voting.

 

Subject to the limitations contained in this section, if the May­or or any Council Member has an interest required to be disclosed by this title he/she shall disqualify himself/herself from voting on any matter involving any such interest which comes for offi­cial action before the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill. The following interests do not require disqualification:

 

     (1)  interest in real property which must be disclosed in Section 2‑49 provided the issue before the Town Council is one of policy that affects the real property dis­closed no differently than all other property similar­ly situated.

 

     (2)  an interest in business, firm, or corporation which is negligible from the point of view of the operation of the business, firm, or corporation.

 

This the 13th day of November, 1989.

 

Consent Agenda

 

COUNCIL MEMBER PASQUINI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

 

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS (89‑11‑13/R‑8)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the resolutions as submitted by the Manager in regard to the following:

 

     a.   Approving interest rate for sale of general obligation bonds (R‑9).

 

     b.   Bids for telephone equipment (R‑10).

 

     c.   Release of N.C. Economic Development funds to the Tri­angle J Council of Governments (R‑11).

 

This the 13th day of November, 1989.

 

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INTEREST RATE ON $5,000,000 IN GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS SOLD ON OCTOBER 31 (89‑11‑13/R‑9)

 

WHEREAS, the Local Government Commission of North Carolina has informed the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it has sold "Bonds"), and that the contract of sale contemplates that the Bonds shall bear interest as hereinafter provided;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, as follows:

 

1.   The Bonds shall bear interest as follows:

 

          bonds payable in each of the years 1991 and 1992, 6.20% per annum;

 

          bonds payable in the year 1993, 6.40% per annum;

 

          bonds payable in each of the years 1994 to 2006, inclusive, 6.50% per annum; and

 

          bonds payable in the year 2007, 6.60% per annum.

 

2.   This resolution shall become effective upon its adoption.

 

This the 13th day of November, 1989.

 

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PUR­CHASE OF AN ELECTRONIC KEY TELEPHONE SYSTEM FOR THE POLICE DE­PARTMENT (89‑11‑13/R‑10)

 

WHEREAS, The Town of Chapel Hill has solicited formal bids by legal notice in The Chapel Hill Newspaper on September 17, 1989 in accordance with G.S. 143‑129 for the purchase of an electronic key telephone system; and

 

WHEREAS, the following bids have been received and opened on Oc­tober 4, 1989 as follows:

 

Vendor                                             Total Price

 

Atcom, Inc.                                         $15,930.00

 

Business Communications, Inc.                       $19,395.00

 

AIM Telephones, Inc.                                $21,733.50

 

GTE South, Inc.                                     $23,193.37

 

Executone Information Systems, Inc.                 $23,571.00

 

Syscom, Inc.                                        $24,840.00

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town rejects the low bid of Atcom, Inc., in the amount of $15,930.00 as nonresponsive and accepts the bid of Business Communications, Inc., in the amount of $19,395.00 as the lowest responsive bidder.

 

This the 13th day of November, 1989.

 

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS (89‑11‑13/R‑11)

 

WHEREAS, in North Carolina the Lead Regional Organizations, as voluntary organizations serving municipal and county governments, have established productive working relationships with the cities and counties across the State; and

 

WHEREAS, many counties and cities continue to need assistance in pursuing economic and community development opportunities, but federal assistance in the form of intergovernmental revenues has been severely curtailed in recent years; and

 

WHEREAS, the 1989 General Assembly has again recognized this need through the appropriation of $990,000 each year of this biennium to help the Lead Regional Organizations assist local governments with grant applications, economic development, community develop­ment, support of local industrial development and other activi­ties as deemed appropriate by their local governments; and

 

WHEREAS, these funds are not intended to be used for payment of members' dues or assessments to a Lead Regional Organization or to supplant funds appropriated by the member governments; and

 

WHEREAS, in the event that a request is not made by a unit of government for release of these funds to our Regional Council, the available funds will revert to the State's General Funds; and

 

WHEREAS, in Region J funds in the amount of $55,000 will be used to carry out the economic development plan approved by the COG Board of Delegates and especially to improve the economy of the counties and towns of the Region by strengthening ties to and consequently benefits of the Research Triangle Park;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town of Chapel Hill requests the release of its $3,393.00 share of these funds to the Triangle J Council of Governments at the earliest possible time in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 500 of the 1989 Session Laws (SB 43).

 

This the 13th day of November, 1989.

 

Recess of Meeting to November 21, 1989

 

COUNCIL MEMBER PASQUINI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 12, RECESSING THE COUNCIL MEETING UNTIL NO­VEMBER 21, 1989, SUBJECT TO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOLLOWING THE MEETING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9‑0).

 

The meeting stood adjourned at 10:58 p.m.