MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, MONDAY, JULY 8, 1991 AT 7:30 P.M., TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBER
Mayor Howes called the meeting to order.
Council Members in attendance were Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Herzenberg, Alan Rimer, Arthur Werner and Roosevelt Wilkerson. Council Member Preston was absent excused due to an illness in her family. Council Member Wallace was absent excused due to illness. Also in attendance were Assistant to the Mayor Lisa Price, Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Finance Director James Baker, Library Director Kathleen Thompson, Assistant to the Attorney Richard Sharpless and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos.
There were no ceremonies or hearings.
Item 3 - Petitions
________ Elfers, a resident of Glen Heights subdivision, requested the Council's assistance in securing sewer service for residents of her neighborhood. Ms. Elfers said that Federal money was available to the Town for this purpose. Council Member Andresen said that the Town should look into the matter with concern, even though the Town was not directly involved in providing water and sewer service. She said that the Town should take some responsibility for the public welfare.
COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE TOWN MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
Martha Birchfield, representing the Ruth Faison Shaw Memorial Committee, requested the staff's continued assistance with siting of the Ms. Faison Shaw's former home.
COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE TOWN MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
Don Stanford, a resident of Mallette Street, requested that commercial vehicles be prohibited from Mallette Street. He noted the importance of preserving the livability of the downtown area. Mr. Stanford said the prohibition of such vehicles would enhance the quality of life of citizens in the area.
COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILKERSON, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE TOWN MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
William Hutchins, representing the Public Information Network, requested the Town's endorsement in securing grant funding for a citizen's computer bulletin board. He said the program would be beneficial to residents of the Town and Orange County.
COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE TOWN MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
Council Member Werner requested that the Town Manager provide suggestions for revisions to the current downtown parking ordinance. He also requested that the Manager provide a list of downtown establishments violating the current parking ordinance. Council Member Werner said that the parking ordinance, when enacted, was not envisioned to apply to late night businesses. He suggested that the Council review the existing downtown parking ordinance in the future.
Council Member Herzenberg said that parking regulations for the downtown area would make it unviable for a new movie theater to operate in the central business district.
Council Member Andresen requested a clarification of Council Member Werner's request to the staff concerning parking regulations. Council Member Werner said he was proposing that the Manager and Town staff analyze the existing parking ordinance in concert with concerns of the Council. Council Member Andresen said she had no objection to a review of the ordinance. Mayor Howes noted that the Cat's Cradle had appealed the Town Manager's finding concerning building occupancy capacity. Town Attorney Karpinos said that operation of the Cat's Cradle with more than two hundred and twelve occupants was unlawful. Town Manager Horton said that as long as there was no appearance of imminent peril, the Town would not take action to enforce stricter requirements.
COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE TOWN MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
Mayor Howes said that agenda item 14o was not directly related to the Cat's Cradle matter.
Item 4 - Minutes of June 17, 19 and 24, 1991
COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER, TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 17TH AS PRESENTED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council Member Brown requested one modification to the minutes of June 19, 1991.
COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER, TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 19TH AS REVISED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
Council Member Brown requested one modification to the minutes of June 24, 1991.
COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER, TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 24TH AS REVISED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
Item 5 - Thoroughfare Plan Proposal
Planning Director Roger Waldon said that the Thoroughfare Plan was a long-term planning document, with a twenty to thirty year time horizon. He also noted that the plan was interjurisdictional and was part of an overall planning strategy for the region. He briefly reviewed the Thoroughfare Plan process and recent Council actions on the plan. Mr. Waldon stated that two items, the South Loop roadway and the section of Laurel Hill Parkway between NC 54 and U.S. 15-501 North, still required Council consideration and action. He stated that the staff had responded to previous Council questions in the package of materials before the Council.
Mr. Waldon said the South Loop roadway request was justified on the basis of proposed land uses. He stated that approval of the Soutn Loop Road request was recommended with conditions, including replacement of housing units in Odum Village. Mr. Waldon also said that further discussion of planning processes between the Town and University was being recommended.
Mr. Waldon said that the request for Laurel Hill Parkway was based on expected development and traffic. He also emphasized the need to preserve a corridor for future roadway construction. Mr. Waldon said approval of Laurel Hill Parkway was recommended with conditions, including minor thoroughfare designation and limiting the roadway to two lanes with bicycle lanes. He added that further discussion with Durham City and County officials was recommended, to discuss procedures for disclosing proposed roadway alignments to individual property owners.
Mr. Waldon noted that any actions taken by the Council this evening would be reviewed by the regional Transportation Advisory Committee at its meeting on August 2nd. He stated that the Manager was recommending adoption of three resolutions pertaining to the Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Waldon briefly reviewed the effect of each of the resolutions. He also outlined the proposed specific roadway corridor for Laurel Hill Parkway.
Council Member Brown inquired whether Durham County had acted on the proposed Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Waldon said that Durham County and City had enacted development plans along the proposed corridor for Laurel Hill Parkway. He noted that Durham County was still investigating how much of the roadway was located in the Town's and County's jurisdictions. Mr. Waldon noted that Durham County was awaiting the Council's final action prior to acting in the matter.
Council Member Brown noted that the University's physical development plan included many proposed new and realigned roadways. Mr. Waldon said that this was correct. He noted that the Thoroughfare Plan was focused on only one element of the University development plan, the proposed realignment of Manning Drive.
Council Member Brown requested additional clarification of traffic counts from Mr. Bonk. Mr. Bonk said it was important to understand that traffic modeling was a very delicate process. He said it was not possible to definitively project increases in anticipated traffic along specific roadways. Council Member Brown said it was wise not to include the South Loop Road in the Thoroughfare Plan if adequate traffic information was unavailable. Council Member Brown said traffic impact, environmental and related information were unavailable concerning the proposed South Loop Road. Mr. Bonk said that the roadway proposal was justified on the basis of proposed future development by the University. Council Member Brown stated that Mr. Bonk and University planners had been quoted as saying the proposed roadway was not needed. Mr. Bonk said this was based on current, rather than future, University needs. Council Member Brown said an overall analysis of the Thoroughfare Plan appeared to be advisable. Mr. Bonk said there was a need for more analysis in the future.
Council Member Andresen said she was interested in an earlier proposal to close or shut down a portion of Manning Drive. She inquired about potential impacts on pedestrian movements in the campus and hospital areas. Mr. Bonk said two prime objectives related to the realignment of Manning Drive were to divert traffic from the University's dormitories and hospital corridors. Council Member Andresen inquired about the possibility of the Department of Transportation agreeing to close a portion of Manning Drive. Mr. Waldon said he could not speak for Department of Transportation officials on this matter.
Council Member Andresen asked whether there had been any traffic planning at the health affairs complex. Mr. Waldon said he had a number of conversations with hospital officials on this matter. He noted that alternates to automobiles were particularly problematic in the health affairs area. Council Member Andresen said that health affairs employees could possibly be encouraged to use park and ride lots. Council Member Andresen inquired about funding possibilities for the South Loop roadway. Mr. Waldon stated that the Council would play an integral role in determining overall Town roadway priorities. Council Member Andresen inquired about the possibility of adding a roadway to the Thoroughfare Plan in the future. Mr. Bonk responded that the process would be somewhat easier if the roadway in question were within the boundaries of one jurisdiction.
Council Member Rimer inquired about the University's position on the replacement of housing units at Odum Village. Mr. Horton stated that several months ago, the University had made firm commitments, including a letter from Chancellor Hardin, to make these types of replacements. Council Member Herzenberg noted that read brief passages from staff memorandums concerning the proposed realignment of Manning Drive and its impact on projected traffic volumes.
COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1A, EXCLUDING THE FIFTH AND SIXTH PARAGRAPHS CONCERNING LAUREL HILL PARKWAY.
Council Member Werner noted that the urban area technical coordinating committee had chosen to disregard all roadway recommendations of local governments to date. Mr. Horton said that the Transportation Advisory Committee, a group of elected officials, carried the most weight concerning final recommendations. Mayor Howes expressed concurrence with this observation. Mayor Howes stated that the Transportation Advisory Committee was unlikely to recommend any elements in the plan that had not been adopted by local governments. Council Member Herzenberg urged Council Members to vote against the proposed resolution.
COUNCIL MEMBER WILKERSON PROPOSED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ADD THE WORDING "SAID REPLACEMENT NOT COME FROM EXISTING HOUSING STOCK." TO THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. THE MOVER AND SECONDER CONCURRED WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
Council Member Wilkerson said he hoped that the University would take seriously the Council's message on replacement of housing at Odum Village. He stated that prior to destroying this valuable resource, it was essential to have a replacement in place.
Council Member Brown stated that a road such at the South Loop could have a very detrimental impact on existing neighborhoods. She said that there would likely be a dimunition of quality of life in some of the neighborhoods. Council Member Brown expressed concern that the loss to the area would be permanent and irrevocable.
Council Member Andresen said she was not prepared to vote in favor of the proposed South Loop Road this evening. She noted that the University had come a long way in its proposal to replace student housing at Odum Village. Council Member Andresen said she still had concerns about project review. She also stated that the Town and University needed to approach the Department of Transportation jointly with a listing of roadway priorities. Council Member Andresen said she was prepared to vote for the South Loop Road in the future, if University officials worked with the Town to support projects such as widening of NC 86. Mayor Howes said he thought that the University had joined with the Town in supporting past roadway requests. Council Member Andresen said an informal group such as the Consultation and Coordination Committee was not the type of group to work on these major issues. Council Member Werner responded that the Consultation and Coordination Committee had taken substantive action, such as requiring the University to provide replacement housing for Odum Village. Council Member Andresen said she stood corrected on this point. Mayor Howes said the roadway evaluation process was not perfect, nor was it worthless. Mr. Horton said there were many more opportunities for discussion with the University through the Transportation Improvement process.
Council Member Brown stated that the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act provided for review of State buildings and projects which met certain criteria. She stated that these types of review could be better used by the Town to coordinate with citizens.
THE MOTION WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR. THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 4-3, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS ANDRESEN, BROWN AND HERZENBERG VOTING NO.
COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1A, EXCLUDING REFERENCES TO THE SOUTH LOOP ROADWAY.
Council Member Brown said that if the Council proceeded on this matter, small area plans which could be used for creative purposes would be lost. Council Member Brown stated that there was a rare opportunity for the Town to cooperate with Durham City and County to examine create alternatives for the proposed roadway.
Council Member Rimer said the City of Durham had reserved a right-of-way within its jurisdiction. He said that reserving the right-of-way did not necessitate building a road in the future. Council Member Rimer said the present was the proper time for the Council to vote on this matter.
THE MOTION WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR AND ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 6-1, WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN VOTING NO.
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PROPOSED 1985‑2010 DURHAM‑CHAPEL HILL‑CARRBORO URBAN AREA THOROUGHFARE PLAN (91-7-8/R-1a)
WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed the proposed 1985‑2010 Durham‑Chapel Hill‑Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that certain portions of the Thoroughfare Plan result in significant environmental and social impact; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that there are alternative ways to alleviate anticipated traffic congestion and meet national and state transportation goals and objectives;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the section of the Laurel Hill Parkway, between N.C. 54 and U.S. 15‑501 be included in the Thoroughfare Plan as a minor thoroughfare along the alignment as shown in the revised TCC recommendation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this roadway should be limited to two travel lanes in width and should include appropriate bicycle facilities and sidewalks.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
Council Member Rimer inquired about the possibility of adding the South Loop Road to the Thoroughfare Plan in the future. Mayor Howes said this was possible.
Council Member Werner said Resolution 1b was very similar to the mission of the Consultation and Coordination Committee. Council Member Andresen said the proposed resolution dealt more closely with the nature of project review. Council Member Andresen said it was time to look at doing project review in a different way with the University. Mayor Howes said there was no harm in adopting the proposed resolution.
COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1B. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE TOWN/UNIVERSITY COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION COMMITTEE REVIEW A PROCESS FOR TOWN REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (91-7-8/R-1b)
WHEREAS, the continued development of the University medical, research and academic campus will have a direct impact on the surrounding neighborhoods and the entire Town; and
WHEREAS, there is a need for Town participation in the continuing development of the University campus;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Coordination and Consultation Committee should review the most appropriate manner in which the Town of Chapel Hill could review and approve future University development projects
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CCC should report its findings and recommendations to the Town Council and University of North Carolina.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
Council Member Werner said that notification of roadway alignment on plats appeared to be a simple staff function. Mr. Horton said policies in place that were not being followed. He stated that reinforcement from a group of elected officials was being requested. Council Member Andresen asked whether Council Member Werner would concur with Mayor Howes sending a letter to joint planning group concerning roadway locations on final plats. Council Member Werner said yes. Mayor Howes suggested that the staff prepare a revised resolution to this end.
Council Member Brown asked whether the Council concurred that the Town should use the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act for future project review and notification. Mayor Howes said he was interested in seeing what the act provided. He noted that process had been discontinued due to redundancy concerns. Mayor Howes encouraged Council Member Brown to work with the staff on this matter. Council Member Brown said she would do so.
Item 6 - 1991-92 Budget Ordinance
Town Manager Horton said that the staff believed the Town would have a budget shortfall of $372,000 due to various actions by the State Legislature during its current session. Mr. Horton suggested that one-time and long-term adjustments be utilized to offset this shortfall. He stated hiring of the eight new public safety officer positions could be postponed for one month and hiring of other new positions could be postponed for three months to achieve savings of $52,500. Mr. Horton also outlined other means to offset the shortfall including use of contingency funds, a reduction in landfill charges and a one-cent increase in the General Fund tax rate. Mr. Horton said the approximate total budget for the General Fund was $20,965,000. He said no changes were proposed in other funds.
Dr. John Graham, representing Tax Watch, said it was symbolically important to maintain the current property tax rate. Dr. Graham suggested that a one year salary pause be implemented for Town employees making more than $40,000 per annum. He also suggested that the merit pool be decreased from $470,000 to $440,000. Dr. Graham said an additional $30,000 could be saved on bonds by postponing the purchase of a fire truck for one year. Tax Watch's complete statement of budget reduction suggestions is on file in the Clerk's Office. Dr. Graham requested that the Council adopt a budget at the current tax rate.
Council Member Brown said she was concerned about the proposed one cent property tax rate increase. She stated that $40,000 of 91-92 funds could be transferred to the 92-93 budget for purposes of purchasing a fire truck. Mr. Horton said this would have the effect of allocating $40,000 for the fire truck and $360,000 for other purposes during the next fiscal year. Council Member Brown also suggested allocating $28,000 from the hotel-motel tax, currently slated for the Orange County Visitor's Center. She also suggested deleting one traffic signal technician at a potential savings of $20,846. Council Member Brown suggested postponing the purchase of a side-loading refuse truck at a cost of $65,000, for one year.
COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 1, ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 91-92.
Council Member Andresen stated that the State government had not been kind in its proposed allocations to local governments. Council Member Andresen said that Tax Watch had put forward some good suggestions, although she did not agree with all of them. She suggested that the Manager return to the Council in the future with proposals for further reducing the proposed budget. Town Manager Horton said he had made his best effort at presenting a budget fitting the criteria outlined by the Council during the budget making process. Council Member Andresen said she preferred to vote on a budget with no tax increase. Council Member Brown expressed her concurrence with this approach.
Council Member Werner inquired about the term of the interim budget, recently adopted by the Council. Mr. Horton responded that this document would be in effect through the end of August. He noted that it would be difficult to proceed in some areas if a final budget were not adopted this evening.
Council Member Wilkerson said he favor adopting a budget this evening that included a property tax increase. Council Member Wilkerson said he was more in favor of adopting a budget at the August 26th meeting. Mayor Howes said he did not think the Council was well-advised in delaying adoption of a final Town budget. He said that the Manager had done a good job of presenting a budget which did not involve a property tax increase. Mayor Howes urged the Council to adopt a final budget this evening. Council Member Rimer said that the Council would have to make some hard decisions this evening.
Council Member Herzenberg said he regretted that Council Members Preston and Wallace were not in attendance this evening. He said that Council Members Preston and Wallace would likely have chosen to proceed with the adoption of a budget this evening. Council Member Werner inquired how many votes were required for adoption of the budget this evening. Mayor Howes said that a simple majority of those present (four of seven Council Members) would be required for adoption of the budget. Council Member Werner called Council Member Herzenberg's question.
Council Member Wilkerson suggested amending the main motion to remove three positions from the traffic signalization program. Town Manager Horton said that two of the positions were currently filled. Council Member Wilkerson suggested removing one position, at a savings of $20,846.
COUNCIL MEMBER WILKERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO REMOVE ONE TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECHNICIAN POSITION.
Council Member Rimer inquired about the impact of the proposed position deletion. Mr. Horton said he believed that there would be difficulties encountered in designing, building and maintaining the traffic signal system in the long term. Town Manager Horton said the staffing levels were based on consultations with Department of Transportation officials and a consultant. Council Member Herzenberg said that the single largest growth-related complaint of Town residents was automobile traffic congestion. Council Member Werner noted the positive merits of the traffic management system in reducing levels of air pollution in the future. Council Member Brown said it would be possible to revisit staffing levels for the traffic signal program in future years.
THE MOTION WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR AND FAILED 3-4, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS ANDRESEN, BROWN AND WILKERSON VOTING AYE.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN, THAT $28,000 CURRENTLY ALLOCATED FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY VISITOR'S BUREAU BE UTILIZED TO OFFSET THE ANTICIPATED BUDGET SHORTFALL.
THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 4-3, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS ANDRESEN, BROWN, RIMER AND WERNER VOTING AYE.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN, TO REDUCE THE SMALL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ALLOCATION FROM $400,000 TO $360,000.
Council Member Brown said that the $40,000 would be reserved in next year's budget. Mr. Horton said that the fire truck could not be ordered until a final budget had been adopted. He said that a fire truck would take nine to eighteen months to be delivered. He briefly described methods for payments for such equipment. Council Member Rimer inquired whether the $30,000 interest payment deferral proposal was a fictitious number. Mr. Horton said this was correct. Mayor Howes stressed the importance of acquiring a new aerial ladder truck for purposes of major fires. Council Member Rimer noted that the effect of adopting the proposal would be to earmark $40,000 in next year's capital improvements for purchase of the new fire truck. Mayor Howes said that the action would place a burden on future Councils.
THE MOTION WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR AND FAILED 3-4, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS ANDRESEN, BROWN AND RIMER VOTING AYE.
Council Member Wilkerson noted that Tax Watch was requesting that the merit pay pool be reduced from $470,000 to $440,000. He noted that the proposed pool had already been reduced to approximately $354,000.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN SUGGESTED THE DELETION OF A REFUSE COLLECTION TRUCK AT A SAVINGS OF $65,000. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Council Member Rimer said that many trucks in the Public Works Department were currently out of service.
Council Member Werner called the question.
THE MAIN MOTION, ORDINANCE 1, WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR AND ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 4-3, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS HERZENBERG, RIMER AND WERNER AND MAYOR HOWES VOTING AYE.
ORDINANCE 1 NEEDS TO BE CUT AND PASTED
AND IT TAKES UP THREE PAGES
Item 7 - Delta Delta Delta Sorority Special Use Permit
There were no additional parties wishing to be sworn on the matter.
Planning Director Roger Waldon said there was little to add to comments at the public hearing. He stated that the application was recommended for approval with conditions.
COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2A. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY
(7-0).
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR DELTA DELTA DELTA SORORITY (File No. 74.A.4) (91-7-8/R-2a)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Delta Delta Delta Sorority development, proposed on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 74, Block A, Lot 4, if developed according to the site plan dated February 12, 1991 and revised March 28, 1991, would
1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of the development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13 and 14, and with all other applicable regulations (with the exceptions listed below);
3. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or be a public necessity; and
4. Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds, in this particular case, that the following modifications satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree:
1. Modification of Subsection 14.6.7 of the Development Ordinance to allow the existing three parking spaces on site to suffice for the subject property.
2. Modification of Subsection 14.12 of the Development Ordinance to allow the existing vegetation on site to meet buffer requirements.
These findings are conditioned on the following:
1. That construction begin by July 8, 1992 (one year from the date of approval) and be completed by July 8, 1993 (two years from the date of approval).
2. That the sorority shall be limited to use as a sorority with a maximum of 8 residents plus staff.
3. That this property be used in conjunction with the adjacent property, currently used as the Delta Delta Delta Sorority.
4. That parking of automobiles on the front lawn of this property is prohibited.
5. That the Historic District Commission review all exterior changes to the structure for approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
6. That final site plan, utility plans, landscaping, and landscape maintenance plans be approved by the Town Manager before issuance of Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans conform to plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and the design standards of the Development Ordinance and the Design Manual.
The landscape plan shall include a planting strip along the property's western line, adjacent to the private right-of-way, with landscaping sufficient to prevent parking of automobiles on the property's lawns.
7. That on-site refuse collection by the Town will not be provided to this property. If at some future date the Town Manager determines that on-site refuse collection is necessary, plans for such service shall be provided by the applicant and approved by the Town Manager.
8. That the applicant take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.
9. That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Duke Power, Carolina Cable, Public Service Company, Southern Bell, and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The property owner shall be responsible for assuring these utilities, including cable television, are extended to serve the development.
10. That a Landscape Protection Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
11. That a fire flow report prepared by a registered professional engineer, showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Design Manual, be approved prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
12. That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
13. That if any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for the Delta Delta Delta Sorority Special Use Permit in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
Item 8 - Parrish Property Conditional and Special Use
Planning Director Roger Waldon said adoption of Ordinance 2 was recommended to the Council.
COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL ZONING ATLAS (91-7-8/O-2)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the proposal to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone property as shown on Map 1 attached from Residential-2 to Neighborhood Commercial-C (Conditional Use Zoning), and finds that the amendment achieves the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, owners of property adjacent to these properties being considered for rezoning have been notified of this proposal to rezone property;
SECTION I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Chapel Hill Zoning Atlas be amended to rezone Durham County Tax Map 491-5-13, property of Vernon L. Parrish on Highway 54 as shown of Map 1 attached, from Residential-2 to Neighborhood Commercial-C (Conditional Use Zoning).
SECTION II
That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
No additional parties wished to be sworn on the Parrish Special Use Permit application.
Planning Director Roger Waldon said that adoption of Resolution 4a was recommended.
COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER, TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 4A. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE VERNON L. PARRISH PROPERTY, HIGHWAY 54 (91-7-8/R-4a)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council finds that the proposed development, on property identified as Triangle Township, Durham County, Tax Map 491, Block 5, Lot 13, if developed according to the site plan dated May 10, 1991 and the conditions listed below would:
1. Be located, designed and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare;
2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13 and 14, and with all other applicable regulations;
3. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or be a public necessity;
4. Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
These findings are conditioned upon the following:
1. That construction begin by July 8, 1992 (one year from the date of Council approval) and be completed by July 8, 1993 (two years from the date of Council approval).
2. That the use of the property be limited to a use that can be accommodated within the existing structure on the property, or the structure with minor addition/alteration (addition of up to 5% of the existing floor area), and which parking needs can be accommodated within the existing gravel drive and parking area on the property. Uses meeting this description are limited to residential uses, professional offices or clinics, visual or performing arts studios, warehouse/storage, contracting businesses (such as electrical, plumbing, and building) and low-volume commercial uses such as appliance stores, bookstores, hobby shops, and antique stores. Uses specifically prohibited include high-volume retail uses such as banks, fast-food restaurants, convenience stores, and gas stations.
3. That any trucks or any vehicles other than cars stored on the site as a part of the use be completely screened from the public right-of-way. Any storage of equipment or materials, or display of goods for sale, must be enclosed within the structure.
4. That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, a landscape protection plan be reviewed by the Town's Urban Forester. This plan should indicate the location of tree protection fencing, a detail of this fencing and standard landscape protection notes.
5. That the Appearance Commission review and approve any screening of trucks or any vehicles other than cars, and review and approve any signs for the property; this stipulation shall be attached as a condition to the Zoning Compliance Permit, allowing such review to occur after issuance of the Zoning Compliance Permit.
6. That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
7. That if any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirely shall be void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council finds in this particular case that the use of existing vegetation on the site to meet buffer requirements satisfies public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree, and approves modifying Subsection 14.12 of the Development Ordinance dealing with landscaped buffers on this site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for Special Use Permit approval of the Vernon L. Parrish property on Highway 54 in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
Item 9 - Library Design Development
Library Director Kathleen Thompson said that interior and exterior design drawings for the proposed library were being presented this evening. Ms. Thompson said the interior drawings emphasized four major areas: collection expansion, children's programming, meeting room use and expanded reference services. She said that the exterior design emphasized building integration with a natural passive park environment and minimal exterior building maintenance. Ms. Thompson briefly reviewed the timeframe for the building program to date. Ms. Thompson introduced Josh Gurlitz, the project architect.
Josh Gurlitz briefly reviewed slides of the proposed library building. He stated that all main functions for the library would be arrayed along one main corridor. Mr. Gurlitz reviewed the building floor plan and layout. Mr. Gurlitz said the reading room was being developed as a large, airy area with glass on three sides. Mr. Gurlitz also reviewed the floor plan for the ground floor of the building including administrative and staff areas and meeting rooms. He also reviewed exterior elevations of the building, noting that it was designed to complement the surrounding park and hillsides. Mr. Gurlitz also showed photographs of a model of the building.
Mayor Howes noted that Library Committee members Ed Hinsdale and Lisa Price were in attendance this evening. Council Member Rimer inquired about strategies for solar heating and placement of computer in the library. Mr. Gurlitz briefly reviewed both features relative to the building. Council Member Rimer inquired about the nature of the dissenting vote on the Library Committee. Mayor Howes said this dealt with the treatment of the entrance to the building.
Council Member Brown said the plans looked very interesting. She inquired about daylighting strategies and grants being pursued for this purpose. Mr. Gurlitz said that daylighting offered great opportunities for cost savings and the opportunity to create a warm and inviting building interior. He stated that daylighting was being emphasized by the location of furniture and facilities. Mr. Gurlitz also said that roof appertures might be used to introduce daylighting through the roof of the building. He said that grants might be used to finance these specialty items. Mr. Gurlitz said cost savings were based on roof appertures and were projected conservatively, based on the number of hours of library operation.
COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 5. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT DRAWINGS FOR THE CHAPEL HILL PUBLIC LIBRARY (91-7-8/R-5)
WHEREAS, the Library Committee, Library Board of Trustees and staff have thoroughly reviewed the design development drawings and recommend approval; and
WHEREAS, the design drawings reflect the intent of the building program accepted by the Council in December 1990; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Town to incorporate energy saving design whenever possible in new Town facilities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes GGA Associates to begin detailed construction drawings and specifications based on the design development drawings for the Chapel Hill Public Library except for design of the daylighting features.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council further authorizes the Manager to apply for appropriate energy conservation grants to offset possible capital costs associated with incorporating daylighting design features into the new library and directs him to report his findings in late August/early September.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
Item 10 - Setting Public Hearing on Smoking Ordinance
Town Attorney Karpinos noted that the staff was recommending a public hearing be called on September 30th. He noted that numerous letters had been received to date, expressing a broad range of public opinion. Mr. Karpinos briefly reviewed the proposed provisions of the smoking ordinance. He added that small restaurants would be exempted from provisions pertaining to smoking provisions. Mayor Howes said the resolution would call a public hearing on the revised smoking ordinance proposal.
COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 6. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REGULATING SMOKING IN PUBLIC AREAS AND PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT (91-7-8/R-6)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that a public hearing is called for September 30, 1991, to receive public input on the proposed Ordinance B regulating smoking in public areas and places of employment.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
Item 11 - Hotel/Motel Tax Allocation
Town Manager Horton said this item was carried over from the Council's June 24th meeting, since the Council voted four to two on proposals totalling $8,000.
COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION.
Council Member Brown requested that performance agreements utilize recycled paper. Mr. Horton said this could be accommodated,
THE MOTION WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR AND ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
(Insert resolution from June 24th meeting)
Item 12 - Franklin Street Corridor Study
Planning Director Roger Waldon stated that on April 22nd, the staff brought an item before the Council concerning the East Franklin Street corridor. Mr. Waldon said that the Town's Design Review Board had completed its report on this matter.
Design Review Board Chairperson Bruce Ballentine invited the Mayor and Council to attend a meeting of the Design Review Board. He stated that the Board reviewed projects early in the process to determine their compliance with the Town's Design Guidelines. Mr. Ballentine said that the Board had enjoyed great success in its mission to date. He suggested that a joint workshop between the Council and Design Review Board might be held in the future. Mr. Ballentine briefly reviewed the Board's involvement and recommendations relating to the East Franklin Street Corridor study. He noted that the group had walked the site extensively, commenting on landscaping existing buildings along the corridor. Mr. Ballentine said that the Board had specific concerns about streetscaping and two undeveloped tracts zoned high-density residential in the area. Mr. Ballentine briefly reviewed the board's recommendations including protection of significant trees and existing neighborhoods and limiting the number of driveways in the area.
Gretchen Vicery, a property owner in the area, requested that the Council not hold a public hearing on the East Franklin Street corridor study. Ms. Vicery said she disagreed with the Planning Board that the study changed the Town's existing land use plan. Ms. Vicery said the proposed guidelines were very general and did not require additional public input.
_________ Cooper expressed her concurrence with Ms. Vicery's remarks concerning the corridor study.
John Morris, representing the Martindales and Williams properties, said that his clients were very pleased with the Design Review Board and staff's work on the East Franklin Street corridor study. Mr. Morris requested that the Council move forward on implementation of the corridor study guidelines. Mr. Morris expressed concern about the recommendation to preserve a wooded drainage area with significant trees. He said that there was only one landmark tree in the drainage area. Mr. Morris requested that his client have the right to develop the tract in accordance with existing development regulations.
Mayor Howes noted that the Manager was recommending holding a public hearing on the study.
Council Member Brown requested that language concerning solar design features be incorporated into guidelines for the East Franklin Street corridor study. Council Member Rimer said that the basic document was similar to the general guidelines requested by the Council. He said that the original design guidelines mandated that the Design Review Board or Planning Board continue to design guidelines over time. He added that public hearings had not been considered a requirement at that time. Council Member Rimer said that the guidelines were acceptable to the property owners, with the exception of one item. He suggested that the Council adopt the guidelines at this evening's meeting.
Council Member Andresen said that public hearings played an integral role in improving final results. Council Member Andresen said she was surprised at the general nature of the land use study. Mr. Waldon said that the study included specific drawings for the corridor area. He stated that the purpose of the study was not to do specific site design, but rather to suggest how they might be accomplished on a macro level.
Town Manager Horton said a public hearing was being recommended since this component was being added to the Town's Comprehensive Plan. He stated that studies of this type merited the broadest possible review venue, a public hearing before the Council.
Council Member Brown inquired about the possible delay of pending projects. Mr. Horton said he did not have sufficient detail to specifically respond to individual situations. Mr. Waldon said that once the process was completed, property owners could submit applications for conditional use rezoning. He said that one application in the area had been received earlier in the spring. Council Member Werner said that it seemed unfair to advertise holding a public hearing and then not hold one. Council Member Andresen suggested holding a public hearing on the proposal.
Council Member Herzenberg noted that no public hearing had been scheduled. Mayor Howes said that it was appropriate to hold public hearings prior to introducing new elements to the Comprehensive Plan.
COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 7. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 5-2, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS HERZENBERG AND RIMER VOTING NO.
A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EAST FRANKLIN STREET CORRIDOR STUDY (91-7-8/R-7)
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board has prepared a draft study of the area of East Franklin Street between Estes Drive and Elliott Road that proposes design concepts for ways of potentially developing the area which expands current land use patterns and policies;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council calls a public hearing to consider the draft study for September 16,1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Town Hall, 306 N. Columbia Street.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
Item 12.1 - Setting Parking Facility Hearing
Town Manager Horton said that the staff was attempting to identify a feasible means to finance the proposed Rosemary Street Parking Facility. He said that the Town had been unable to obtain a favorable investment grade rating on revenue bonds. Mr. Horton said the usage of certificates of participation was becoming increasingly prevalent as a means of financing facilities. He suggested that the Council hold a public hearing on this possible new means of financing. Mr. Horton briefly reviewed the proposed schedule for financing and bids for the facility. He noted that the possibility of a private placement still existed. Mr. Horton stated that this might be a preferable alternative.
COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 8.1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY
(7-0).
A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER FINANCING FOR THE ROSEMARY STREET PARKING FACILITY (91-7-8/R-8.1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby calls a public hearing for Monday, August 26, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Town Hall, 306 N. Columbia Street, to consider financing the proposed Rosemary Street Parking Facility by an installment purchase contract as authorized by General Statute 160A-20.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby authorizes the publication of a notice of said public hearing on August 14 as required by this statute.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
Item 13 - Board and Commission Appointments
Council Member Brown requested that the Clerk speak into the microphone at the Council table. Mayor Howes said the Clerk would do so. The Council made the following appointments to advisory boards and commissions. Appointees are denoted in bold print. Original voting ballots are available for inspection, by appointment, in the Clerk's Office.
Housing Advisory Board
Patricia Davies 6 votes (
)
Hal Cooper 1 vote (Werner)
Planning Board
Mary Reeb 5 votes (Andresen, Brown, Herzenberg,
Werner, Wilkerson)
Marcella Groon 2 votes (Howes, Rimer)
Mayor Howes noted that Donald Shaw, recently appointed Planning Board member, was in attendance at this evening's meeting.
Transportation Board
Richard Franck 7 votes
Paul Killough 6 votes
Billie Cox 5 votes
Wayne Pein 5 votes
Belinda Wells 4 votes
Ruby Seinreich 3 votes
The Council agreed to consider the fifth appointment to the Transportation Board at its August 26th meeting. Council Member Herzenberg noted Mr. Franck was in attendance this evening.
Item 14 - Consent Agenda
Mayor Howes suggested that the Council consider Item O first.
Council Member Wilkerson requested to be excused from voting on Items C and J, due to potential conflicts of interest. The Mayor and Council agreed to the request.
Council Member Herzenberg requested removal of Item L.
Town Manager Horton said periodic requests had been received private property owners in the downtown area concerning vandalism on their lots. Mr. Horton said that there had been concerns about broken bottles, cans and litter in private parking lots. He stated that there was concern about illegal alcohol and drug use and concealment of weapons in private parking lots. Mr. Horton said that the ordinance before the Council would permit regulation of parking on private property, at the request of individual property owners. Mr. Horton said the listing before the Council included eight individual properties and times for restriction enforcement. Mr. Horton briefly reviewed planned procedures for implementing the parking restrictions.
Council Member Herzenberg requested that the Manager read the list of properties requesting enhanced parking restrictions. Mr. Horton did so. He noted that the times of restrictions, varied according to the nature of business at individual establishments.
Bill Burton, a local attorney, said that the proposed parking restrictions were a short-sighted solution. He stated that additional property owners would also request parking restrictions. Mr. Burton said that the police department would have to spend a considerable amount of time enforcing the proposed new restrictions.
Council Member Werner inquired about existing enforcement authority of Town public safety personnel, relative to observed possible violations in private parking lots. Town Manager Horton said that if illegal activity were observed, the officers could act accordingly. Council Member Werner inquired whether the principal difference between the existing and proposed ordinance was a provision for ticketing vehicles on private property. Mr. Horton said that the proposed new restrictions would enable more diligent enforcement of illegal drug and alcohol use and weapons possesion on private property. Mr. Horton added that many existing ordinances were enforced selectively out of practical necessity.
Council Member Werner expressed concern that the new restrictions might send a message that new establishments would be required to provide additional parking in the area, to compensate for restricted areas. Mr. Karpinos said that were a variety of methods in the existing ordinance to comply with parking requirements, including agreements between nearby tenants and property owners. Mayor Howes said the Town was proud of its considerable amount of downtown nightlife, some of which was not desirable.
Council Member Werner said he was not comfortable on the proposed parking restriction ordinance this evening. He requested additional follow-up work by the staff on existing and proposed parking restrictions. Council Member Andresen said the ordinance would enable the police to properly carry out its duties. Council Member Andresen said she favored enacting the ordinance on a trial basis. Council Member Rimer expressed his concurrence with Council Member Werner's concerns. He suggested looking at alternative statutes to permit broader police power on entering private properties. Council Member Brown said she favored enacting the ordinance on a trial basis. Council Member Herzenberg noted that a dentist in his neighborhood had to regularly remove litter from his parking lot, adjacent to several bars in the downtown area.
COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN
TO ADOPT CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 'O'. THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 3-4, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS ANDRESEN AND BROWN AND MAYOR HOWES VOTING AYE.
COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER, TO ADD THE WORDS "SEXUAL ORIENTATION" TO THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT WITH THE DOWNTOWN COMMISSION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN, TO ADOPT CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A-N AND P. THE MOTION FOR ALL ITEMS, EXCEPTING C AND J, WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). ITEMS C AND J WERE ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 6-0, WITH COUNCIL MEMBER WILKERSON ABSTAINING.
Council Member Andresen said that there would be a hearing by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission on watershed protection standards and classifications. She suggested that the Council might have an interest in commenting on these matters in August or September.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
(91-7-8/R-9)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the resolutions and ordinances as submitted by the Manager in regard to the following:
a. Report on Town Parking Lot #3.
b. Shepherd Lane property acquisition (R-10).
c. Extraterritorial jurisdiction line adjustments (R-11).
d. Glenmere lot transfer (R-12).
e. Firefighter certification (R-13).
f. Water supply watershed comments (R-14).
g. Vested rights development ordinance text amendment (O-3).
h. Revisions to Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control ordinance (O-4).
i. Community Development Entitlement project ordinance (O-5).
j. Amendment Housing Assistance Plan (R-15).
k. Housing and Urban Development grant application (R-16).
l. Downtown Commission Contract (R-17).
m. Engineering Department report.
n. Sidewalks plan update process (R-18).
o. Parking restrictions (O-6).
p. UNC orientation traffic (O-7).
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
A RESOLUTION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIRE A PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN AND NON-MOTORIZED VEHICLE EASEMENT, AND A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT, ACROSS SHEPHERD LANE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. PROPERTY, USING THE TOWN'S POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN (91-7-8/R-10)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the Town Attorney to initiate proceedings to acquire a public pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle easement, and a temporary construction easement, across the Shepherd Lane Homeowners' Association, Inc. property, using the Town's power of eminent domain.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ENTER INTO A MUTUAL WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF CARRBORO CONCERNING THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION LINE (91-7-8/R-11)
WHEREAS, the New Covenant Christian Church, as the property owner of Tax Map 122.B.22, requests that the Town of Chapel Hill and the Town of Carrboro adjust the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction line as it affects their property; and
WHEREAS, Section 5.17 of the Charter of the Town of Chapel Hill allows relocation of the division line between the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Town of Chapel Hill and the Town of Carrboro by mutual written agreement of said municipalities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council indicates its agreement to adjust the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction line on Tax Map 122.B.22 westward to the centerline of Smith Level Road, and authorizes the Mayor to sign a mutual written agreement with the Town of Carrboro to effect such a change.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO ENDORSE AN AGREEMENT WITH CAZCO, INC. AND TO ARRANGE FOR THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY (91-7-8/R-12)
WHEREAS, the Council approved a Preliminary Plat for Southbridge Subdivision, including a phase now referred to as Glenmere Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the property owner, Cazco, Inc., dedicated for public or private use certain lots within the Glenmere Subdivision shown as lots 1 and 2 on a plat recorded in the Orange County Registry on August 29, 1985 in Plat Book 42, Page 118, and labelled the 2 lots as "Recreation Area(s)"; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that lands dedicated as part of Phases 3 and 4 of the Southbridge Subdivision exceeds the minimum recreation area requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the land area above the minimum recreation area requirements for Southbridge, Phases 3 and 4, is hereby accepted by the Town as an equivalent recreation area within the meaning of the rights referenced on the plat recorded in Plat Book 42, Page 118;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to endorse the "Agreement Between Cazco, Inc. and the Town of Chapel Hill" prepared by Northen, Blue, Little, Rooks, Thibaut and Anderson, Attorneys at Law, and to arrange for preparation of a deed to transfer lots 1 and 2 on the Glenmere Subdivision plat recorded in Plat Book 42, Page 118 to Cazco, Inc.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTIFICATION OF FIREFIGHTERS
(91‑7‑8/R‑13)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Mayor is hereby authorized to certify to the North Carolina Firefighters' Pension Fund the attached roster of Firefighters and Public Safety Officers employed by the Town of Chapel Hill on June 30, 1991.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
A RESOLUTION COMMENTING ON PROPOSED CLASSIFICATIONS FOR PROTECTING WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS (91-7-8/R-14)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill requested on July 9, 1990 by Resolution 90-7-9/R-6 that the Environmental Management Commission consider special standards for specific watersheds; and
WHEREAS, the water supply rules adopted by the Environmental Management Commission on December 13, 1990 include a provision at 15 NCAC 2B .0104 (k) which allows the Commission to designate critical water supply watersheds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council requests the Environmental Management Commission to:
1) Designate University Lake watershed as a critical water supply watershed, with recommendations regarding standards to be developed after discussions among the local governments involved; and
2) After completion of appropriate technical studies by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (now tentatively scheduled for FY 1992-93), that the Commission consider designating Cane Creek watershed as a critical water supply watershed if supported by the conclusions of the study.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE REGARDING VESTING PROPERTY RIGHTS (91-7-8/O-3)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the proposed amendment to the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance to designate a Special Use Permit as a Site Specific Development Plan in accordance with recently adopted State legislation, and finds that the amendment is appropriate due to changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally and achieves the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance shall be amended as follows:
SECTION I
ADD a new Subsection 2.121.1 to read as follows:
2.121.1 Site Specific Development Plan: A Special Use Permit issued by the Council authorizing the development of a zoning lot.
SECTION II
ADD a new Subsection 20.4 to read as follows:
20.4 Site Specific Development Plan
In accordance with N.C. General Statutes, approval of a Special Use Permit shall constitute approval of a Site Specific Development Plan. Such approval shall establish a vested property right within the meaning of G.S. 160a.385.1 that expires two years after the date of the Council approval if no building permit application has been filed. Such vested right shall only preclude subsequent Ordinance changes affecting the type and intensity of development on the property for which the right has vested.
SECTION III
That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION REGULATIONS (91‑7-8/O‑4)
WHEREAS, the Town Council of Chapel Hill, North Carolina recognizes a great need to control soil erosion and sedimentation and those activities which result in erosion and sedimentation within Chapel Hill and within areas affecting the Town; and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly, through Chapter 392 of the Session Laws of North Carolina, 1973, and other laws, has delegated to local governments the power to control such erosion and sedimentation; and
WHEREAS, Town Council desires to exercise such power;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill:
SECTION 1 - TITLE
This ordinance may be cited as the Chapel Hill Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
SECTION 2 - PURPOSES
This Ordinance is adopted for the purposes of:
a. Regulating the clearing, grading, excavation, filling and manipulation of the earth and the moving and storing of waters in order to: control and prevent accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation, prevent the pollution of water, prevent damage to public and private property, maintain the balance of nature, prevent the obstruction of natural and artificial drainageways, inhibit flooding and reduce the undermining of roads and other transportation facilities.
b. Establishing procedures through which these purposes can be fulfilled.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5 herein, the Town Council hereby declares its intent that all of the departments and agencies of the Town of Chapel Hill, its contractors and subcontractors shall comply with the regulations set forth in this Ordinance.
SECTION 3 - DEFINITIONS
As used in this Ordinance, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following definitions apply:
Accelerated Erosion - any increase over the rate of natural erosion as a result of land-disturbing activities.
Acre - 43,560 square feet.
Act - the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 and all rules and orders adopted pursuant to it.
Adequate Erosion Control Measure, Structure, or Device - one which controls the soil material within the land area under responsible control of the person conducting the land-disturbing activity.
Agricultural Land - land used primarily for the production of plants and animals and intended for private consumption or sale, including but not limited to forage and sod crops, grain and feed crops, tobacco, cotton and peanuts; dairy animals and dairy products; poultry and poultry products; livestock, including the breeding and grazing of any or all such animals; bees and apiary products; and fur animals.
Borrow - means fill material which is required for on-site construction and is obtained from other locations.
Buffer Zone - the strip of land adjacent to a lake or natural watercourse. The boundaries and purposes of which are as set forth in Section 8(a).
Channel - a natural or artificial watercourse with a definite bed and banks to confine and conduct the flow of water.
Channel Alterations - a change of the water-carrying capacity or flow characteristics of a natural or artificial channel by clearing, excavation, bank stabilization or other means.
Channel Stabilization - erosion prevention and velocity control in a channel using jetties, drops, revetments, vegetation, and other measures.
Commission - the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Completion of Construction or Development - means that no further land-disturbing activity is required on a phase of a project except that which is necessary for establishing a permanent ground cover.
Denuded Area - any area deprived of its protective vegetative cover and left in that exposed condition.
Department - the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Development - any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to construction of buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, or drilling operations.
Discharge Point - means that point or points at which runoff leaves a tract of land.
District - the Orange or Durham County (as applicable) Soil and Water Conservation District created pursuant to Chapter 139, North Carolina General Statutes.
Diversion - a channel or ridge or combination thereof which is constructed across sloping land either on the contour or at a predetermined grade which purpose is to intercept and divert surface runoff before it gains sufficient volume and velocity to cause erosion and convey the surface runoff to a protected area.
Energy Dissipator - a structure or a shaped channel section with mechanical armoring placed at the outlet of pipes or conduits to receive and break down the energy from high velocity flow.
Erosion - the wearing away of land surface by the action of wind, water, gravity, or any combination thereof.
Erosion Control Officer - the person designated under Section 16 of this Ordinance.
Ground Cover - any natural vegetative growth or other material which renders the soil surface stable against accelerated erosion.
Groundwater Recharge - the infiltration of water into the earth, which may increase the total amount of water stored underground or only replenish supplies depleted through pumping or natural discharge.
High Quality Waters - means those classified as such in 15A NCAC 2B.0101(e) (5) - General Procedures, which is incorporated herein by reference to include further amendments pursuant to G.S. 150B-14(c).
Explanatory Note: The complete official definition of High Quality Waters is contained in 15A NCAC 2B.0101(e) (5) - General Procedures. In general, High Quality Waters are defined by the Division of Environmental Management as those waters which are: those rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics; native trout waters; primary or functional nursery areas; critical habitat areas; all water supply watersheds which are either classified as WS-I or WS-II or those for which a formal petition for reclassification as WS-I or WS-II has been received by the Division of Environmental Management; and all Class SA (shellfish) waters.
High Quality Water (HQW) Zones - means areas in Coastal Counties that are within 575 feet of High Quality Waters and for the remainder of the State areas that are within one mile and drain to HQW's).
Impervious Structure - any structure which prevents free seepage of rainwater into the ground, including but not limited to buildings, paved roads, paved parking lots, airport runways, etc.
Intermittent Stream - a stream or portion of a stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation. It receives little or no water from springs and no long-continued supply from melting snow or other sources. It is dry for a large part of the year.
Lake or Natural Watercourse - any stream, river, brook, swamp, sound, bay, creek, run, branch, canal, waterway, estuary, and any reservoir, lake or pond, natural or impounded, in which sediment may be moved or carried in suspension, and which could be damaged by accumulation of sediment; or any body of water which is or would be denoted by a solid blue line or solid blue shapes on United States Geological Survey topographic maps.
Land-disturbing Activity - means any use of the land by any person in residential, industrial, educational, institutional, or commercial development, highway and road construction and maintenance that results in a change in the natural cover or topography and that may cause or contribute to sedimentation.
Local Government - any county, incorporated village, town or city, or any combination of counties, incorporated villages, towns, and cities, acting through a joint program pursuant to the provisions of the Act.
Natural Erosion - the wearing away of the earth's surface by water, wind, or other natural agents under natural environmental conditions undisturbed by man.
Peak Discharge - the maximum instantaneous flow from a given storm condition at a specific location.
Person - any individual, partnership, firm, association, joint venture, public or private corporation, trust, estate, commission, board, public or private institution, utility, cooperative, interstate body, or other legal entity.
Person Conducting Land-disturbing Activity - any person who may be held responsible for a violation unless expressly provided otherwise by this Ordinance, the Act, or any order adopted pursuant to this Ordinance or the Act.
Person Responsible for the Violation - as used in this Ordinance means:
a. the developer or other person who has or holds himself/ herself out as having financial or operational control over the land-disturbing activity; and/or
b. the landowner or person in possession or control of the land when he/she has directly or indirectly allowed the land-disturbing activity or has benefited from it or he/she has failed to comply with any provision of this Ordinance, the Act, or any order adopted pursuant to this Ordinance or the Act as imposes a duty upon him/her.
Phase of Grading - one of two types of grading, rough or fine.
Plan - erosion and sediment control plan.
Sediment - solid particulate matter, both mineral and organic, that has been or is being transported by water, air, gravity, or ice from its site of origin.
Sedimentation - the process by which sediment resulting from accelerated erosion has been or is being transported off the site of the land-disturbing activity or into a lake or natural watercourse.
Siltation - sediment resulting from accelerated erosion which is settleable or removable by properly designed, constructed, and maintained control measures; and which has been transported from its point of origin within the site of a land-disturbing activity; and which has been deposited, or is in suspension in water.
Storm Drainage Facilities - the system of inlets, conduits, channels, ditches, and appurtenances which serve to collect and convey stormwater through and from a given drainage area.
Stormwater Runoff - means the direct runoff of water resulting from precipitation in any form.
Stream - a body of water flowing in a natural surface channel. Flow may be continuous or only during wet periods.
Swale - an elongated depression in the land surface that is at least seasonally wet, is usually heavily vegetated, and is normally without flowing water. Swales conduct stormwater into primary drainage channels and provide some groundwater recharge.
Ten Year Storm - means the surface runoff resulting from a rainfall of an intensity expected to be equaled or exceeded, on the average once in 10 years, and of a duration which will produce the maximum peak rate of runoff for the watershed of interest under average antecedent wetness conditions.
Tract - means all contiguous land and bodies of water in one ownership, or contiguous land and bodies of water in diverse ownership being developed as a unit, although not necessarily all at one time.
Uncovered - means the removal of ground cover from, on, or above the soil surface.
Undertaken - means the initiating of any activity, or phase of activity, which results or will result in a change in the ground cover or topography of a tract of land.
Velocity - means the average velocity of flow through the cross-section of the main channel at the peak flow of the storm of interest. The cross-section of the main channel shall be that area defined by the geometry of the channel plus the area of the flow below the flood height defined by vertical lines at the main channel banks. Overload flows are not being included for the purpose of computing velocity of flow.
Waste - means surplus materials resulting from on-site construction and disposed of at other locations.
Wetland - areas that are inundated or saturated at a frequency and for a duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life requiring saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction.
Working Days - means days exclusive of Saturday and Sunday during which weather conditions or soil conditions permit land-disturbing activity to be undertaken.
SECTION 4 - JURISDICTION AND EFFECT
a. Jurisdiction
This ordinance shall apply within the Town of Chapel Hill and its extraterritorial jurisdiction.
b. Effect
It shall be unlawful, within the jurisdiction of this Ordinance, to engage in land-disturbing activity, except as provided herein, without first obtaining a permit as required by this Ordinance and without complying with the conditions of the issuance of said permit.
Conflicts and duplications among portions of this Ordinance shall be resolved in favor of the more stringent regulation.
Whenever conflicts exist between federal, state or local laws, ordinances, or rules, the more restrictive provision shall apply.
SECTION 5 - SCOPE AND EXCLUSIONS (COUNTY-WIDE)
This Ordinance shall apply to land-disturbing activities undertaken by any person in the Town of Chapel Hill, with the following exclusions:
a. Agricultural Land
Those undertaken on agricultural land for the production of plants and animals useful to man, including but not limited to: forage and sod crops, grains and feed crops, tobacco, cotton, and peanuts; dairy animals and dairy products; poultry and poultry products; livestock, including beef cattle, sheep, swine, horses, ponies, mules or goats, including the breeding and grazing of any or all such animals; bees and apiary products; fur animals.
b. Forest Land
Those undertaken on forest land for the production and harvesting of timber and timber products and which are conducted in accordance with "Forest Practice Guidelines Related to Water Quality" (best management practices) as adopted by the Department. If land-disturbing activity undertaken on forest land for the production and harvesting of timber and timber products is not conducted in accordance with "Forest Practice Guidelines Related to Water Quality", the provisions of this ordinance shall apply to such activity and any related land-disturbing activity on the tract.
c. Activities undertaken by persons as defined in G.S. 113A‑52(8) who are otherwise regulated by the provisions of G.S. 74‑46 through G.S. 74‑68, the Mining Act of 1971.
d. State Jurisdiction
Those land-disturbing activities over which the State by statute (G.S. 113A-56(a)), has exclusive regulatory jurisdiction, which are activities:
(1)conducted by the State,
(2)conducted by the United States,
(3)conducted by persons having the power of eminent domain,
(4)conducted by local governments,
(5)funded in whole or in part by the State or the United States.
SECTION 6 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
a. Protection of Property - person(s) conducting land-disturbing activities shall take all reasonable measures to protect all public and private property from damage by such activities. This requirement shall apply to any areas to be disturbed, regardless of the size of the area to be uncovered.
b. Erosion Control Plan Requirements - prior to the commencement of any land-disturbing activity that will result in the uncovering of more than 20,000 square feet of land, the person(s) conducting the land disturbing activity must prepare and submit an Erosion Control Plan for the proposed site. The Plan must be approved and a Grading Permit obtained prior to the start of the disturbance.
SECTION 7 - BASIC CONTROL OBJECTIVES
An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan may be disapproved pursuant to Section 18 of this ordinance if the plan fails to address the following control objectives:
a. Identify Critical Areas - on-site areas which are subject to severe erosion, and off-site areas which are especially vulnerable to damage from erosion and/or sedimentation, are to be identified and receive special attention, and appropriate mitigative measures are to be taken to protect those areas.
b. Plan for Erosion Control - design the development and site plan so that the necessary sediment-trapping devices and erosion control measures can be accommodated and are accessible for maintenance and removal. Observe the requirements and standards in Orange County's "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Manual".
c. Limit Exposed Areas - all land-disturbing activities are to be planned and conducted to minimize the size of the area to be exposed at any one time.
d. Limit Time of Exposure - all land-disturbing activities are to be planned and conducted to limit exposure to the shortest feasible time.
e. Control Surface Water - surface water runoff originating upgrade of exposed areas should be controlled to reduce erosion and sediment loss during the period of exposure.
f. Control Sedimentation - all land-disturbing activities are to be planned and conducted so as to prevent off-site sedimentation damage.
g. Manage Storm Water Runoff - when the increase in the peak rates and velocity of storm water runoff resulting from a land-disturbing activity is sufficient to cause accelerated erosion of the receiving watercourse, plans are to include measures to control the velocity and the rate of release at the point of discharge so as to minimize accelerated erosion of the site and increased sedimentation of the stream.
SECTION 8 - MANDATORY DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY
No land-disturbing activity subject to the control of this Ordinance shall be undertaken except in accordance with the following mandatory standards:
a. Buffer Zone
1.No land-disturbing activity during periods of construction or improvement to land shall be permitted in proximity to a lake or natural watercourse unless a buffer zone is provided along the margin of the watercourse of sufficient width to confine visible siltation within the twenty-five percent (25%) of the buffer zone nearest the land-disturbing activity. Waters that have been classified as trout waters by the Environmental Management Commission shall have an undisturbed buffer zone 25 feet wide or of sufficient width to confine visible siltation within the twenty-five percent (25%) of the buffer zone nearest the land-disturbing activity, whichever is greater. Provided, however, that the Town may approve plans which include land-disturbing activity along trout waters when the duration of said disturbance would be temporary and the extent of said disturbance would be minimal. This subdivision shall not apply to a land-disturbing activity in connection with the construction of facilities to be located on, over, or under a lake or natural watercourse.
2.The 25-foot minimum width for an undisturbed buffer zone adjacent to designated trout waters shall be measured horizontally from the top of the bank.
3.Where a temporary and minimal disturbance is permitted as an exception by Section 8(a)(1) of this ordinance, land-disturbing activities in the buffer zone adjacent to designated trout waters shall be limited to a maximum of 10% of the total length of the buffer zone within the tract to be distributed such that there is not more than 100 linear feet of disturbance in each 1000 linear feet of buffer zone. Larger areas may be disturbed with the written approval of the Director of the Division of Land Resources of the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
4.No land-disturbing activity shall be undertaken within a buffer zone adjacent to designated trout waters that will cause adverse temperature fluctuations, as set forth in 15 NCAC 2B.0211 "Fresh Surface Water Classification and Standards", in these waters.
b. Graded Slopes and Fills
The angle for graded slopes and fills shall be no greater than the angle which can be retained by vegetative cover or other adequate erosion control devices or structures. In any event, slopes left exposed will, within 30 working days of completion of any phase of grading, be planted or otherwise provided with ground cover, devices, or structures sufficient to restrain erosion.
c. Ground Cover
Whenever land-disturbing activity is undertaken on a tract comprising more than 20,000 square feet, if more than 20,000 contiguous square feet are uncovered, the person conducting the land-disturbing activity shall install such sedimentation and erosion control devices and practices as are sufficient to retain the sediment generated by the land-disturbing activity within the boundaries of the tract during construction upon and development of said tract, and shall plant or otherwise provide a permanent ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion after completion of construction or development. Except as provided in Section 8(d)(2)(e) of this ordinance, provisions for a ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion must be accomplished within 30 working days or 120 calendar days, whichever period is shorter, following completion of construction or development.
d. Design and Performance of Control Measures
1.Except as provided in Section 8(d)(2)(b) of this ordinance and in the standard for sediment ponds in the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Manual, erosion and sedimentation control measures, structures, and devices shall be so planned, designed, and constructed as to provide protection from accelerated erosion and sedimentation from the calculated maximum peak rates of runoff from the ten-year frequency storm. Runoff rates shall be calculated using the procedures in the USDA Soil Conservation Service's "National Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices", or other calculation procedures acceptable to the Erosion Control Officer.
2.In High Quality Water (HQW) zones the following design standards shall apply:
a.Uncovered areas in HQW zones shall be limited at any time to a maximum total area of 20 acres within the boundaries of the tract. Only the portion of the land-disturbing activity within the HQW zone shall be governed by this section. Larger areas may be uncovered within the boundaries of the tract with the written approval of the Director of the Division of Land Resources of the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
b.Erosion and sedimentation control measures, structures, and devices within HQW zones shall be so planned, designed, and constructed to provide protection from the runoff of the 25-year storm which produces the maximum peak rate of runoff. The peak rate of runoff shall be calculated according to procedures in the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service's "National Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices" or according to procedures adopted by any other agency of this state or the United States or any generally recognized organization or association.
c.Sediment ponds (also called "sediment basins") with HQW zones shall be designed and constructed such that the pond will have a settling efficiency of at least 70% for the 40 micron (0.04 mm) size soil particle transported into the basin by the runoff of that 2-year storm which produces the maximum peak rate of runoff. The peak rate of runoff shall be calculated according to procedures in the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service's "National Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices" or according to procedures adopted by any other agency of this State or the United States or any generally recognized organization or association.
d.Newly constructed open channels in HQW zones shall be designed and constructed with side slopes no steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical if a vegetative cover is used for stabilization unless soil conditions permit a steeper slope or where the slopes are stabilized by using mechanical devices, structural devices or other acceptable devices. In any event, the angle for side slopes shall be sufficient to restrain accelerated erosion.
e.Ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion must be provided for any portion of a land-disturbing activity in a HQW zone within 15 working days or 60 calendar days, whichever period is shorter, following completion of construction or development.
e. Prior Plan Approval
No person shall initiate any land-disturbing activity if more than 20,000 square feet are to be uncovered unless, thirty or more days prior to initiating the activity, an erosion and sedimentation control plan for such activity is filed with, approved by, and a Grading Permit obtained from the Erosion Control Officer.
SECTION 9 - STORMWATER OUTLET PROTECTION
a. Control of Velocity
Persons shall plan and conduct land-disturbing activity so that the post-construction velocity of the 10-year storm runoff in the receiving watercourse to the discharge point does not exceed the greater of:
1.the velocity established by the table in paragraph d of this subsection; or
2.the velocity of the 10-year storm runoff in the receiving watercourse prior to development.
If conditions (1) or (2) of this paragraph cannot be met, then the receiving watercourse to and including the discharge point shall be designed and constructed to withstand the expected velocity anywhere the velocity exceeds the "prior to development" velocity by 10%.
b. Acceptable Management Measures
Measures applied alone or in combination to satisfy the intent of this subchapter are acceptable if there are no objectionable secondary consequences. Innovative techniques and ideas will be considered and may be used when shown to have the potential to produce successful results. Some alternatives are to:
(1)avoid increases in surface runoff volume and velocity by including measures to promote infiltration to compensate for increased runoff from areas rendered impervious;
(2)avoid increases in stormwater discharge velocities by using vegetated or roughened swales and waterways in lieu of closed drains and high velocity paved sections;
(3)provide energy dissipators at outlets of storm drainage facilities to reduce flow velocities at the point of discharge; these may range from simple rip-rapped sections to complex structures;
(4)protect watercourses subject to accelerated erosion by improving cross-sections and/or providing erosion-resistant lining.
c. Exceptions - this rule shall not apply in areas where it can be demonstrated that stormwater discharge velocities will not create an erosion problem in the receiving watercourse.
d. The following is a table of permissible velocity for stormwater discharges:
MATERIAL MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE VELOCITIES
(f.p.s.) (m.p.s.)
Fine Sand (noncolloidal) 2.5 .8
Sandy Loam (noncolloidal) 2.5 .8
Silt Loam (noncolloidal) 3.0 .9
Ordinary Firm Loam 3.5 1.1
Fine Gravel 5.0 1.5
Stiff Clay (very colloidal) 5.0 1.5
Graded, Loam to Cobbles (noncolloidal) 5.0 1.5
Graded, Silt to Cobbles (colloidal) 5.5 1.7
Alluvial Silts (noncolloidal) 3.5 1.1
Alluvial Silts (colloidal) 5.0 1.5
Coarse Gravel (noncolloidal) 6.0 1.8
Cobbles and Shingles 5.5 1.7
Shale and Hard Pans 6.0 1.8
Source: Adapted from recommendations by Special Committee on Irrigation Research, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1926, for channels with straight alignment. For sinuous channels, multiply allowable velocity by 0.95 for slightly sinuous channels, by 0.9 for moderately sinuous channels, and by 0.8 for highly sinuous channels.
SECTION 10 - BORROW AND WASTE AREAS
When the person conducting the land-disturbing activity is also the person conducting the borrow and waste disposal activity, areas from which borrow is obtained and which are not regulated by the provisions of the Mining Act of 1971, and waste areas for surplus materials other than landfills regulated by the Department's Division of Solid Waste Management shall be considered as part of the land-disturbing activity where the borrow material is being used or from which the waste material originated. When the person conducting the land-disturbing activity is not the person obtaining the borrow and/or disposing of the waste, these areas shall be considered a separate land-disturbing activity.
SECTION 11 - ACCESS AND HAUL ROADS
Temporary access and haul roads, other than public roads, constructed or used in connection with any land-disturbing activity shall be considered a part of such activity.
SECTION 12 - OPERATIONS IN LAKES OR OTHER NATURAL WATERCOURSES
Land-disturbing activity in connection with construction in, on, over or under a lake or natural watercourse shall be planned and conducted in such a manner as to minimize the extent and duration of disturbance of the stream channel. The relocation of a stream, where relocation is an essential part of the proposed activity, shall be planned and executed so as to minimize changes in the stream flow characteristics except when justification for significant alteration to flow characteristics is provided. Every effort shall be made to maintain buffer zones consisting of existing vegetation between the land-disturbing activity and the watercourse.
SECTION 13 - RESPONSIBILITY FOR INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE
During the development of a site, the person engaged in or conducting the land-disturbing activity shall be responsible for installing and maintaining all temporary and permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures and facilities as required by the approved or revised Erosion Control Plan, any provision of the Ordinance, the Act, or any order adopted pursuant to this Ordinance or the Act. The responsibility for installing and maintaining permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures and facilities after completion of the site development shall lie with the land owner or person in possession or control of the land except facilities and measures installed within road or street rights-of-way or easements accepted for maintenance by a government agency.
SECTION 13.1 - OFF-SITE FACILITIES
The Erosion Control Officer may allow stormwater runoff that is discharged in volumes or at rates in excess of those otherwise allowed by this Ordinance to be discharged into drainage facilities off the site of development if the off-site facilities and the channels leading to them are designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the standards of this Ordinance. Adequate provision must be made for the sharing of the construction and maintenance expenses of the facilities. A request to use off-site drainage facilities and all information related to the proposed off-site facilities should be made part of the developer's erosion and sedimentation control plan.
SECTION 14 - ADDITIONAL MEASURES
Whenever the Erosion Control Officer determines that significant sedimentation is occurring as a result of land-disturbing activity, despite application and maintenance of protection practices, the person conducting the land-disturbing activity or the person responsible for maintenance will be required to take additional protective action.
SECTION 15 - EXISTING UNCOVERED AREAS
a. All uncovered areas existing on the effective date of this Ordinance which (1) resulted from land-disturbing activities not excluded under Section 5, and (2)) if such areas are outside the University Lake Watershed and exceed 20,000 contiguous square feet, and (3) are subject to continued accelerated erosion, and (4) are causing off-site damage from sedimentation, shall be provided with a ground cover or other protective measures, structures, or devices sufficient to restrain accelerated erosion and control off-site sedimentation.
b. Notice of Violation
The Erosion Control Officer will serve upon the landowner or other person in possession or control of the land written notice of violation by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or other means reasonably calculated to give actual notice. The notice will set forth the measures needed to comply and will state the time within which such measures must be completed. In determining the measures required and the time allowed for compliance, the authority serving notice shall take into consideration the economic feasibility, technology, and quantity of work required, and shall set reasonable and attainable time limits for compliance.
c. The Erosion Control Officer reserves the right to require preparation and approval of an erosion control plan in any instance wherein extensive control measures are required.
d. This rule shall not require ground cover on cleared land forming the future basin of a planned reservoir unless the disturbance and length of time of the exposure prior to the filling of the reservoir will result in erosion and sedimentation of the downstream channel.
SECTION 16 - EROSION CONTROL OFFICER
The Orange County Erosion Control Officer will be responsible for carrying out the provisions of this Ordinance, unless the Town appoints, employs or contracts with another qualified person(s) to perform such responsibilities.
SECTION 17 - PERMITS
a. No person shall undertake any land-disturbing activity which would require the uncovering of 20,000 square feet or of land without first obtaining the required approvals and permits from the Erosion Control Officer. Permit application forms must be signed by the landowner or his authorized agent. The agent signing must have a signed letter of authorization from the owner.
No permit is required for the following activities:
1.For the purpose of fighting fires.
2.For the stockpiling of raw or processed sand, stone, or gravel in material processing plants and storage yards, provided that sediment control measures have been utilized to protect against off-site damage.
3.For disturbances that do not exceed 20,000 square feet in surface area. In determining the area, contiguous lands under one or diverse ownership being developed as a unit will be aggregated.
b. Erosion Control Plan Approvals
An Erosion Control Plan must be submitted to the Erosion Control Officer when the proposed land disturbance is greater than 20,000 square feet.
c. Before starting a land-disturbing activity greater than 20,000 square feet, the owner or his agent shall obtain a Grading Permit from the Erosion Control Officer. Erosion Control Plans must be approved before a Grading Permit will be issued. Grading permits may be obtained when the Plan or Waiver is approved or prior to the start of the land disturbance.
d. Expiration of Permits
Erosion Control Plan Approvals expire one year after the approval date unless the land disturbance is started as defined below.
A Grading Permit must be obtained before beginning the disturbance and may be obtained at any time as long as the Plan Approval is valid. Grading Permits expire with the expiration of the Plan Approval unless the disturbance is begun. Once the disturbance begins, a Grading Permit is valid for a period of two years starting with the commencement of the disturbance, as defined below. The Grading Permit must be renewed if the disturbance continues more than two years. The renewal fee is one half the original fee and is valid for one year.
For the purpose of determining the expiration date of the plan approval and grading permit, the land-disturbing activity is considered to have started when the preconstruction conference has been held, the necessary erosion control practices have been properly installed, and the site clearing or grading has begun.
e. Orange County may establish such fees as considered necessary to defray costs of administering this ordinance on behalf of the Town.
f. Pursuant to G.S. Section 153A‑357, no building permit shall be issued unless an erosion control plan has been approved, where such approval is required, for the site of the activity or a tract including the site of the activity.
g. Whenever a person conducting a land-disturbing activity is not complying with the provisions of this ordinance, the Grading Permit, the Approved Erosion Control Plan or any amendments to the Plan, the Erosion Control Officer may revoke the Grading Permit for the site. Notice of Revocation shall be sent by registered or certified mail to the person conducting the land-disturbing activity. In the event delivery cannot be accomplished by registered or certified mail, it may be accomplished in any manner provided in Rule 4(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon receipt of the Revocation Notice, the person responsible must immediately order all land-disturbing activities to cease except those which are specifically directed towards bringing the site into compliance. Once the site has been inspected and remedial work approved by the Erosion Control Officer, the responsible party may reapply for a Grading Permit and pay the appropriate fee. Resumption of land-disturbing activities other than those necessary to bring the site back into compliance before the reissuance of the Grading Permit will constitute a violation of the ordinance. The person conducting the land-disturbing activity may appeal the revocation of a Grading Permit following procedures set out in Section 21(f) of this Ordinance.
SECTION 18 - EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLANS
a. Plan Requirement
An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared for all land-disturbing activities subject to this Ordinance whenever the proposed activity is to be undertaken on a tract comprising more than 20,000 square feet, if more than 20,000 square feet are to be uncovered. Three (3) copies of the Plan shall be filed with the Erosion Control Officer, one of which will be forwarded to the Orange or Durham County (as applicable) Soil and Water Conservation District, at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the proposed activity.
b. The Orange or Durham County Soil and Water Conservation District, within 20 days of receipt of any plan, or within such additional time as may be prescribed by the Chapel Hill Town Council, or such other body or officer designated by the Council, shall review such plan and submit its comments and recommendations to the Erosion Control officer. Failure of the District to submit its comments and recommendations to the Erosion Control Officer within the prescribed time will not delay final action on the plan.
c. Review and Response to Plans
The Erosion Control Officer will review each complete plan submitted and within 30 days of receipt thereof will notify the person submitting the plan that it has been approved, approved with modifications, approved with conditions, approved with performance reservations, or disapproved. Examples of conditions of approval are, but are not limited to: channel stabilization must be successful or another type of lining must be used; delineating certain areas to be graded and stabilized within a specified number of days to reduce the potential for erosion and protect critical areas; providing a performance security to provide permanent ground cover; and requiring the person financially responsible to retain the services of a professional engineer or architect to supervise implementation of the approved erosion control plan.
Failure to approve or disapprove a complete erosion and sedimentation control plan within 30 days of receipt of the complete plan shall be deemed approval. Denial of a plan must specifically state in writing the reasons for denial. The County must approve or deny a revised plan within 15 days of receipt, or it is deemed to be approved. If, following commencement of a land-disturbing activity pursuant to an approved plan, the County determines that the plan is inadequate to meet the requirements of this Ordinance, the County may require such revisions as are necessary to comply with this Ordinance.
When the person or firm submitting the plan fails to respond to comments or correspondence from the Erosion Control Division staff with either revised plans or written correspondence within 90 days, the Division will assume that the application will give warning in writing to the person or firm submitting the plan before terminating the review. Plan review fees are not refundable when an application is abandoned.
In order to be considered complete, a plan submitted for approval must contain the proposed erosion control plan, the completed application, the statement of financial responsibility and ownership, and the plan review fee. The 30-day review period begins when all of the components of the complete plan are received.
d. The plan required by this section shall contain such architectural and engineering drawings, maps, assumptions, calculations, and narrative statements as are needed to adequately describe the proposed development of the tract and the measures planned to comply with the requirements of this ordinance. The plan shall comply with all applicable State and local regulations for erosion and sediment control. Plan content may vary to meet the needs of specific site requirements.
e. Plan Amendments
Application for amendment of an erosion control plan in written and/or graphic form may be made at any time under the same conditions as the original application. Until such time as said amendment is approved by the Erosion Control Officer, the land-disturbing activities shall not proceed except in accordance with the erosion control plan as originally approved. After approving the plan, if the Erosion Control Officer, either upon review of such plan or on inspection of the job site, determines that a significant risk of accelerated erosion or off-site sedimentation exists, revisions to the plan will be required. Pending the preparation of the revised plan, work shall cease or shall continue under conditions outlined by the Erosion Control Officer.
f. Statement of Ownership and Financial Responsibility
Erosion Control Plans may be disapproved unless accompanied by an authorized "Statement of Ownership and Financial Responsibility". This statement shall be signed by the person financially responsible for the land-disturbing activity or his/her attorney in fact. The statement shall include the mailing and street addresses of the principal place of business of the person financially responsible and of the owner of the land or their registered agents. If not a resident of North Carolina, the applicant must designate a North Carolina agent and include that agent's name and address in the statement for the purpose of receiving notice of compliance or noncompliance with the plan, the Act, this
Ordinance, or rules or orders adopted or issued pursuant to this Ordinance.
g. Review of Other Environmental Documents
Any plan submitted for a land-disturbing activity for which an environmental document (either an assessment or impact statement) is required by the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1, et seq.) shall be deemed incomplete until a complete environmental document is available for review. The Town shall promptly notify the person submitted the plan that the 30-day time limit for review of the plan pursuant to Section 18(c) of this ordinance shall not begin until a complete environmental document is available for review.
h. Consideration of Applicants Past Performance
An Erosion Control Plan may be disapproved upon a finding that an applicant, or any parent or subsidiary corporation if the applicant is a corporation:
1.is conducting or has conducted land-disturbing activity without an approved plan, or has received notice of violation of a plan previously approved by the Commission, or a local government pursuant to the Act and has not complied with the notice within the time specified in the notice;
2.has failed to pay a civil penalty assessed pursuant to the Act or a local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Act which is due and for which no appeal is pending;
3.has been convicted of a misdemeanor pursuant to G.S. 113A-64(b) or any criminal provision of a local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Act; or
4.has failed to substantially comply with State rules or local ordinances and regulations adopted pursuant to the Act.
For purposes of this subsection (h), an applicant's record may be considered for only the two years prior to the application date.
i. Erosion Control Plan Available On Site
A copy of the approved Erosion Control Plan and any amendments and required revisions shall be kept on the job site at all times.
SECTION 18.1 - EROSION CONTROL STANDARDS
a. Requirements, standards, and specification for erosion control plans and erosion control techniques, measures, and devices are contained in the "Orange County Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Manual." Copies of the Manual are available form the Erosion Control Division of the Orange County Planning Department.
b. Corrections, revisions, and amendments to the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Manual shall be made upon recommendation of the Erosion Control Officer and approval by the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
c. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to allow approval of a plan which is inconsistent with the mandatory standards set forth in Section 8 of this Ordinance or any other provision of this Ordinance.
SECTION 19 - APPEALS
Except as provided in Section 19(b) of this ordinance, the appeal of a disapproval or approval with modifications or conditions of approval of a plan shall be governed by the following provisions:
a. The disapproval of, modification of, or conditions of approval attached to any proposed erosion control plan by the Erosion Control Officer shall entitle the person submitting the plan to an appeal of the decision to the Town Manager. If the Town Manager upholds the decision, the person shall be entitled to a public hearing if such person submits written demand for a hearing within 15 days after receipt of written notice of disapproval, modification, or conditions of approval.
1.Hearings held pursuant to this section shall be conducted by the Chapel Hill Planning Board within 30 days after receipt of written demand for such hearing is made by the person submitting the plan.
2.The Planning Board shall make recommendations to the Town Council within 30 days after the date of the hearing on such erosion control plan.
3.The Town Council will render its final decision on any erosion control plan upon which a hearing is requested within 30 days of receipt of the recommendations from the Planning Board.
b. In the event that the Town Council upholds the disapproval, modification, or conditions of approval of a proposed erosion control plan following the earing, the person submitting the erosion control plan shall be entitled to appeal the local government's action to the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission as provided in Section 113A‑61(c) of the General Statutes and Title 15A NCAC 4B.0018(d).
c. Appeal of Erosion Control Plan Disapproval Based on Applicant's Past Performance
In the event that an erosion control plan is disapproved pursuant to Section 18(h) of this ordinance, the Town shall notify the Director of the Division of Land Resources of such disapproval within 10 days. The Town shall advise the applicant and the Director of the Division of Land Resources in writing as to the specific reasons that the plan was disapproved. The applicant may appeal the Town's disapproval of the plan pursuant to Section 18(h) of this ordinance directly to the Commission.
SECTION 20 - COMPLIANCE WITH PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Any person engaged in land-disturbing activities who fails to file a plan in accordance with this Ordinance, or who conducts a land-disturbing activity except in accordance with provisions of an approved plan shall be deemed in violation of this Ordinance.
SECTION 21 - INSPECTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS
a. Site Inspections
Agents, officials, or other qualified persons authorized by the Town will periodically inspect the sites of land-disturbing activity to determine:
1.compliance with the Act, this Ordinance, or rules or orders adopted or issued pursuant to this Ordinance;
2.whether the activity is being conducted in accordance with an approved plan; and
3.whether the measures required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sediment resulting from land-disturbing activity.
Notice of the right to inspect shall be included in the notification of plan approval.
b. Notice of Violation
If, through inspection, it is determined that a person engaged in land-disturbing activity has failed to comply with the Act, this Ordinance, or rules or orders adopted or issued pursuant to this ordinance, or has failed to comply with the approved plan, a notice of violation shall be served upon that person by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or other means reasonably calculated to give actual notice. The notice shall set forth the measures necessary to achieve compliance with the plan, specify a reasonable time period within which such measures must be completed, and warn that failure to correct the violation within the time period will result in the assessment of a civil penalty or other enforcement action. However, no time period for compliance need be given for failure to submit an erosion control plan for approval, or for obstructing, hampering, or interfering with an authorized representative while in the process of carrying out their official duties. If the person engaged in land-disturbing activity fails to comply within the time specified, enforcement action shall be initiated.
In the event service cannot be accomplished by registered or certified mail, it may be accomplished in any manner provided in rule (4)j of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
c. The Erosion Control Officer shall have the power to conduct such investigations as he may reasonably deem necessary to carry out his duties as prescribed in this Ordinance, and for this purpose to enter at reasonable times upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of investigating and inspecting the sites of any land-disturbing activities. No person shall refuse entry or access to any authorized representative or agent of the Town who requests entry for purposes of inspection, and who presents appropriate credentials, nor shall any person obstruct, hamper or interfere with any such representative while in the process of carrying out his official duties.
d. The Erosion Control Officer shall also have the power to require written statements, or the filing of reports under oath, with respect to pertinent questions relating to land-disturbing activities.
e. The Erosion Control Officer shall have the power to revoke grading permits issued by the Erosion Control Division as provided for under Section 17(c) of this Ordinance.
f. Whenever any person is violating this Ordinance or any rule or order adopted or issued pursuant to this Ordinance, or any term, condition, or provisions of any approved erosion control plan, the Erosion Control Officer may, either before or after the institution of any other action or proceeding authorized by this Ordinance, issue a stop work order for the site on which the violation has occurred. Upon issuance of such an order and the posting of same on the site of the violation, all work on the site of the violation shall cease, except those activities necessary to bring the site into compliance with this Ordinance. Notice of the stop work order shall be in writing, directed to the person conducting the land-disturbing activity and shall state the reasons for the issuance of the order, and the conditions under which work may be resumed. Notice shall be given by registered or certified mail.
In the event service cannot be accomplished by registered or certified mail, it may be accomplished in any manner provided in rule 4(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
The person conducting the land-disturbing activity may appeal a stop work order to the Town Council within a period of five days after the order is issued. Notice of appeal shall be given in writing to the Town Council, with a copy to the Erosion Control Officer. The Town Council shall conduct a hearing at their next scheduled meeting at which the appellant and the Erosion Control Officer or inspector shall be permitted to submit relevant evidence, and shall rule on the appeal as expeditiously as possible. Pending the ruling by the Council on an appeal, no further work shall take place in violation of a stop work order.
SECTION 22 - PENALTIES
a. Civil Penalties
1. Assessment of Penalties
Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Ordinance or rules or orders adopted or issued pursuant to this Ordinance, or who initiates or continues a land-disturbing activity for which an erosion control plan is required except in accordance with the terms, conditions, and provisions of an approved plan, shall be subject to a civil penalty of $500 except that the penalty for failure to submit an erosion control plan shall be as provided in a.3. of this section. No penalty shall be assessed until the person alleged to be in violation has been notified of the violation by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or other means reasonably calculated to provide actual notice to the offender. The notice shall describe the violation with reasonable particularity, specify a reasonable time period within which the violation must be corrected, and warn that failure to correct the violation within the time period will result in the assessment of a civil penalty or other enforcement action. However, no time period for compliance need be given for failure to submit an Erosion Control Plan for approval or for obstructing, hampering or interfering with an authorized representative while in the process of carrying out his official duties. Each day of a continuing violation shall constitute a separate violation under Section 22.a.1.
2. Demand for Payment of Penalty
The Town Manager shall make written demand for payment upon the person responsible for the violation, and shall set forth in detail a description of the violation for which the penalty has been invoked. Notice of the assessment shall be by registered or certified mail or other means reasonably calculated to give actual notice. If payment is not received or equitable settlement reached within 30 days after demand for payment is made, the matter shall be referred to the Town or County attorney for institution of a civil action in the name of the Town or County in the appropriate division of the General Courts of Justice for recovery of the penalty.
3.Any person who fails to submit an erosion control plan for approval pursuant to this Ordinance shall be subject to a single, noncontinuing civil penalty of one thousand dollars ($1000). Any person who is subject to a civil penalty under this subdivision may be subject to additional civil penalties for any violation of any other provision of this Ordinance or any rule or order adopted or issued pursuant to this Ordinance by the Town of Chapel Hill.
4.Civil penalties collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be used or disbursed as directed by G.S. 113A‑64(a).
b. Criminal Penalties
Any person who knowingly or willingly violates any provision of this Ordinance or rule or order adopted or issued pursuant to this Ordinance, or who knowingly or willfully initiates or continues a land-disturbing activity for which an erosion control plan is required except in accordance with the terms, conditions, and provisions of an approved plan shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment not to exceed 90 days or by a fine not to exceed $5,000, or by both, at the discretion of the Court.
SECTION 23 - INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
a. Whenever the governing body of the Town or County has reasonable cause to believe that any person is violating or threatening to violate this Ordinance or any rule or order adopted or issued pursuant to this Ordinance, or any term, condition, or provision of an approved erosion control plan, it may, either before or after the institution of any other action or proceeding authorized by this Ordinance, institute a civil action in the name of the Town or County for injunctive relief to restrain the violation or threatened violation. The action shall be brought in the Superior Court of Orange County or Durham County, as applicable.
b. Upon determination by a court that an alleged violation is occurring or is threatened, it shall enter such orders or judgments as are necessary to abate the violation or to prevent the threatened violation. The institution of an action for injunctive relief under this section shall not relieve any party to such proceedings from any civil or criminal penalty prescribed for violations of this Ordinance.
SECTION 24 - SEVERABILITY
If any one or more sections or portions thereof of this Ordinance are held to be invalid or unenforceable, all other sections and portions thereof shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect.
SECTION 25 - EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance will become effective upon adoption by the Town Council of Chapel Hill and the approval of the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
SECTION 26 - REVISIONS TO THIS ORDINANCE
The Town shall review all the Commission's revisions to the Model Ordinance and, within 90 Days of receipt of the recommended revisions, submit draft amendments to the Commission for its consideration and comments. Within 150 days after receipt of the Commissions's comments, the Town will formally consider proposed amendments and to the extent deemed necessary by the Town, incorporate the amendments into the Erosion Control Ordinance.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENT GRANT PROJECT ORDINANCE (91-7-8/O-5)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that, pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following grant project ordinance is hereby amended:
SECTION I
The projects authorized are the Community Development projects as approved by the Council on May 13, 1991 (91-5-13/R-3): funds are as contained in the Funding Approval and Grant Agreement between the Town and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The projects are known more familiarly as the 1991 Entitlement Community Development Grant. The grant activities include rehabilitation of public housing and construction costs for proposed new public housing units.
SECTION II
The Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby directed to proceed with the grant project within the terms of the grant document(s), the rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the budget contained herein.
SECTION III
The following revenues are anticipated to be available to complete this project:
Community Development Grant - 1991 $317,000
Community Development Supplemental Fund - 1990 $ 3,000
Program Income $ 6,000
Total $326,000
SECTION IV
The following amounts are appropriated for the project:
Rehabilitation of Public Housing $127,000
Housing Program $134,000
General Administration $ 65,000
Total $326,000
SECTION V
The Finance Director is hereby directed to maintain within the Grant Project Fund sufficient specific detailed accounting records to provide the accounting to HUD as required by the grant agreement(s) and federal and State regulations.
SECTION IV
Funds may be advanced from the General Fund for the purpose of making payments as due. Reimbursement requests should be made to HUD in an orderly and timely manner.
SECTION VII
The Manager is directed to report annually on the financial status of each project in Section IV and on the total grant revenues received.
SECTION VIII
Copies of this grant project ordinance shall be entered into the minutes of the Council and copies filed within five days of adoption with the Manager, Finance Director and Clerk.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF AN AMENDED HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (91-7-8/R-15)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the Manager to submit an Amended Housing Assistance Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and to provide any additional information HUD may require.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A DRUG ELIMINATION APPLICATION TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (91-7-8/R-16)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the Manager to submit an application to the U.S. Department of Housing (HUD) for a drug elimination grant by July 26, 1991, and to provide such additional information as HUD may require.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DOWNTOWN COMMISSION FOR SERVICES IN 1991-92 (91-7-8/R-17)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council approves and authorizes the Manager to enter into on behalf of the Town a performance agreement with the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Downtown Commission regarding services in 1991-92 including the following points:
The General Fund allocation will not be released until the Council adopts an annual budget for 1991-92. The amount for capital improvements is subject to the appropriation of up to $4,290 of fund balance from past years.
The dollar amount of the contract and monthly payment amounts may be revised to reflect trolley historical tour services and other adjustments to the basic weekday trolley services.
The form of the agreement will be substantially in the form submitted to the Council with the Manager's report of July 8th.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO PROCEED WITH REVISIONS TO THE TOWN'S 1982 SIDEWALK PLAN (91-7-8/R-18)
WHEREAS, the Council believes it is in the interest of the public safety and welfare to provide pedestrian facilities along the public streets of Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS, the Council has provided funds for the construction of sidewalks through the Town's Capital Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, the Town's Sidewalk Plan, adopted in 1982, provides a guide to prioritizing projects for construction and should be updated;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the Town Manager to proceed with revisions to the adopted Town Sidewalk Plan as outlined in the attached memorandum and to bring a report to the Town Council in early 1992.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
AN ORDINANCE TO REROUTE TRAFFIC ON BATTLE LANE, SENLAC ROAD AND HOOPER LANE ON AUGUST 17 AND 18, 1991 (91-7-8/O-7)
WHEREAS, traffic will be extremely congested in the Battle Park neighborhood while students are moving into dormitories on the UNC campus; and
WHEREAS, routing traffic in one direction on Battle Lane, Hooper Lane and Senlac Road will ease congestion and allow traffic to flow more smoothly; and
WHEREAS, the University of North Carolina has requested traffic changes; and
WHEREAS, the University of North Carolina will notify residents of Battle Lane, Hooper Lane and Senlac Road of the proposed traffic direction and will issue passes to residents which will allow them to travel in either direction on Hooper Lane and Senlac Road; and
WHEREAS, the University of North Carolina will provide personnel to direct and monitor traffic;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that on Saturday, August 17, 1991 and Sunday, August 18, 1991 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on both days, vehicular traffic on Battle Lane shall travel only south to north, that vehicular traffic on Hooper Lane will travel only west to east, and that vehicular traffic on Senlac Road will travel only west to east; provided that residents of Hooper Lane and Senlac Road may travel in the opposite direction.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Council further authorizes traffic redirection as described above for future annual orientation periods at the University, subject to the Manager's approval.
This the 8th day of July, 1991.
COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER, TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING AND MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
No report followed the Executive Session.