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

OF CHAPEL HILL, MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1993 AT 7:30 P.M.

Mayor Broun called the meeting to order. Council Members in attendance were Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Mark Chilton, Joe Herzenberg, Barbara Powell, Alan Rimer (arrived at 7:58 p.m.) and Arthur Werner. Also in attendance were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Planning Director Roger Waldon and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos.

Mayor Broun called forward Stephen Jackson to present a proclamation of appreciation to ham radio operators for their assistance during a recent extended telephone outage emergency. Mayor Broun expressed the Council's appreciation to the ham radio operators for their vital assistance.

Item 3 Petitions

Noting the length of the evening's agenda, Mayor Broun requested that all speakers be as efficient as possible when making their remarks.

Jeff Burkart, a local locksmith, said that Town police officers did not like obtaining entry to inadvertently locked cars. Mr. Burkart said officers were not properly equipped to provide this service. He requested that the Council consider reversing the Town's policy concerning the opening of locked car doors.

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI, TO RECEIVE AND REFER MR. BURKART'S PETITION.

Council Member Andresen inquired about motorist's options if they were locked out of their car late at night. Mr. Burkart said the primary options were to call a locksmith or tow truck service.

THE MOTION TO REFER WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Helen Urquhart presented a petition to the Council outlining property valuation concerns relative to the University's boiler plant. Noting that she had also presented the petition to the Orange County Board of Commissioners, Ms. Urquhart said she realized that the Council could not affect property valuation decisions.

Council Member Capowski inquired whether property values near the University had increased disproportionately in the latest property valuation. Ms. Urquhart said she was confident that this was correct. Noting the scope of the County's tax valuation appeal process, Council Member Andresen suggested that the Council consider receiving rather than referring Ms. Urquhart's petition. Council Member Werner said he was interested in knowing whether or not assessors had taken proximity of properties to the power plant when making assessments. Ms. Urquhart stated that there did not appear to be any consistency in determining property assessments. Council Member Andresen noted that the Orange County Board of Commissioners, rather than the Council, could directly address Ms. Urquhart's concerns.

COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN TO RECEIVE AND REFER MS. URQUHART'S PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Council Member Werner requested that the staff's report on stormwater management be referred to the Stormwater Management Committee. He also noted the need to reevaluate the committee's mission. Mayor Broun asked whether all Council Members needed to be present to act on the request. Mr. Karpinos said yes. Council Member Brown inquired when the committee would make a follow-up report. Council Member Werner said a report would be made at the August 23rd meeting.

Noting the length of the evening's agenda, Council Member Andresen suggested that the Council should not feel pressured to complete all items this evening. She suggested that the Council might want to consider the possibility of withdrawing its water and sewer sales tax exemption being considered by the Local Government Commission. Mayor Broun said this was an appropriate item for additional discussion. Council Member Werner said it was likely that the Town's exemption request would not be granted. Mayor Broun suggested that the Council reserve funds irrespective of the Local Government Commission's decision. Council Member Andresen stated that the Local Government Commission did not like to get involved in telling local communities how to spend tax revenues. Mayor Broun suggested that the Council discuss this matter further when discussing the proposed budget. Mr. Horton noted that item 'l' had been deleted from this evening's consent agenda.

Item 4 Boards & Commissions

Mayor Broun noted that there was currently one vacancy on the OWASA Board of Directors. Council Member Andresen suggested that the Council might want to interview applicants for the vacancy. Mayor Broun inquired whether it would be possible to complete this process by July 6th.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO NOMINATE ALL ELEVEN APPLICANTS.

Council Member Powell inquired about the nature of questions that committee members would ask board applicants. Council Member Andresen said the committee could share a list of the questions with Council Members. Council Member Chilton noted that some of the applicants had been previously interviewed.

THE MOTION TO NOMINATE ALL ELEVEN APPLICANTS WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

NANCY GABRIEL, JOAN PAGE AND DENNIS SANCHEZ WERE APPOINTED TO THE APPEARANCE COMMISSION. ORIGINAL VOTING BALLOTS ARE ON FILE IN THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE.

DALE REED AND TERRI SWANSON WERE APPOINTED TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION. ORIGINAL VOTING BALLOTS ARE ON FILE IN THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE.

Council Member Powell expressed concern that the Planning's Board composition did not accurately reflect the community's sex and race make-up. Council Member Andresen suggested that the Council appoint Kristin Reiner to the Planning Board. Noting that Ms. Reiner and Gabriel Godwin were the only applicants to the Housing and Community Development Advisory Board. Mayor Broun expressed his support for the appointment of Pat Evans to the Planning Board. He also expressed support for Council Member Powell's observation about the need to make the board more diverse.

PAT EVANS WAS APPOINTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD. ORIGINAL VOTING BALLOTS ARE ON FILE IN THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE.

Noting that there were only two applicants for three vacancies on the Housing and Community Development Board, Council Member Chilton suggested deferring appointments until August 23rd.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER POWELL, TO DEFER APPOINTMENTS TO THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD UNTIL AUGUST 23RD. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item 5 Proposed 1993-1994 Budget & Related Matters

Mr. Horton provided a brief overview of the proposed budget. He noted that an alternate interim budget ordinance had also been prepared by the staff. Mr. Horton said the proposed salary adjustment for Town employees would take effect on September 1st, rather than August 1st, as originally proposed. He added that the range of adjustments would range from 4.75% for lower-paid employees to 3% for highest-paid employees, including a maximum 1% for merit. Mr. Horton reviewed proposed fee adjustments, a one-time fund balance transfer and program additions. Mr. Horton stated that the adoption of Ordinance 1a was recommended.

Mickey Ewell, Chairman of TaxWatch, suggested that the Council consider dedicating one Town employee to the position of Budget Officer to supplement the Finance Director position. Mr. Ewell said TaxWatch felt it was important that the Town have a Budget Director in an effort to bring the best possible government to the Town.

James Goldstein said although he was impressed with the budget process, he did not agree with the Manager's recommended budget, especially the proposed increase in travel and training from $101,000 to $135,000. Mr. Goldstein also noted that the total annual cost for two proposed narcotics investigators would be $77,000, rather than the $58,000 included in the budget to cover only nine months. He suggested that the Council consider purchasing smaller buses rather than twenty-eight full-size buses. Noting that TaxWatch had previously recommended combining the Town's Engineering and Public Works Departments, Mr. Goldstein suggested that the Council request that the staff bring back a proposed budget on July 6th with reductions totalling 4% of the budget.

Flicka Bateman said she realized that elected leaders wrestled with a variety of group concerns and anxieties in their daily decision-making processes. She urged the Council to adopt a budget which would keep the Town healthy, safe and viable.

Mayor Broun proposed that the Council adopt a budget with a $324,000 reserve regardless of whether or not the Local Government Commission granted the Town an exemption. He added that if an exemption were granted, the Council could decide how to use the reserve funds. Council Member Andresen said the main reason the Division of Environmental Management was not recommending the Town's exemption request was because of public health-related concerns. Noting her support for the exemption, she added that the Council was doing everything it possibly could to address these problems and concerns. Council Member Andresen noted that funds borrowed from the debt service fund would need to be replaced in the future. She expressed frustration that the Division of Environmental Management would not rule favorably on the Town's exemption request in light of its efforts to address sewer service problems. Council Member Andresen suggested that the Council consider withdrawing its exemption request as a means of demonstrating to state officials that the Town was working to resolve sewer service problems. She stated that the Town's chances for receiving an exemption during the next two years might be enhanced by following this approach.

Council Member Werner said he agreed with the majority of Council Member Andresen's observations. He said having additional discussions with Division of Environmental Management officials and neighborhood residents was a good idea. Council Member Werner stated that withdrawing the request might make it more difficult to receive exemptions in future years. He said it was possible that the Town would not receive an exemption until all homes had been hooked up with sewer service. Council Member Werner urged the Council to preserve its flexibility in this matter. Council Member Capowski said the Council would probably not receive its exemption even with a strong legal argument. Mayor Broun noted the importance of taking care of existing public health problems relative to sewer service. He added that the Town might need to spend additional funds to address sewer service problems during the next few years. He expressed concern that withdrawing the exemption request might set a dangerous precedent.

Council Member Andresen said she understood Council Member Werner's points. She suggested that the Council consider the Division of Environmental Management about efforts to address sewer service problems. Mayor Broun noted that the Town might not receive its exemption request. Council Member Werner suggested that the Council discuss possible ways to expend the $324,000 in reserve funds in the event that the Council's exemption request were approved. Council Member Andresen noted that the Council did not meet until after the Local Government Commission's meeting. Council Member Rimer said the Council could discuss the possible expenditure of the funds at a later date. Council Member Brown emphasized the importance of maintaining the Council's flexibility on the sewer service funding situation. Council Member Capowski suggested that the Council send representatives to the Local Government Commission meeting on July 6th.

Council Member Rimer requested that Mr. Horton comment on TaxWatch's suggestion concerning the concept of Budget Director. Mr. Horton said although the concept had great merit, there were higher priority budget-related items. He suggested that the Town might be better served by a Budget Analyst, rather than Budget Director, position. Council Member Brown inquired about the possibility of utilizing a current staff member for the analyst position rather than hiring from outside. Mr. Horton said no one in the department had this type of expertise. Mayor Broun said the idea merited further discussion in the future. Mr. Horton stated that the situation could be examined as part of the overall organizational review.

Council Member Andresen inquired whether the Town had sufficient internal expertise to hire narcotics investigators from within. Mr. Horton said he had no doubt that there was sufficient internal expertise. Noting the importance of training staff, especially at the Library and in the Police Department, Council Member Andresen requested additional information concerning dues and subscriptions. Mr. Horton said staff could provide additional detail on this matter. He added that most additional training costs were related to public safety matters.

Council Member Andresen said that the Town's overall benefits plan had been enacted at a time when the Town was in a better financial position. She suggested that the Council consider reducing the Town's benefits package by one percent. Council Member Brown inquired about the impact of enacting a 4.75% to 2% pay increase effective on September 1st. Mr. Horton said the plan would save about one-quarter cent on the tax rate compared to a 4.75% to 3% increase taking effect on the same date. Mr. Horton stated that the Town provided a good overall benefits package that is in the middle of the range of those offered by our competitors. Mr. Horton said he did not recommend making changes in employee retirement benefit packages.

Council Member Werner said he did not favor reducing the Town's contribution to employee's 401-(k) plans. Council Member Capowski said the Town's 5% contribution to 401-(k) plans was excessive. Council Member Capowski said he did not favor maintaining the current 401-(k) contribution and the proposed 4.75% to 3% salary adjustment. Mayor Broun said the proposed increase package was not a particularly generous one. He emphasized the importance of examining the overall benefits package. Mayor Broun said he thought the Town's benefits package was an average one. He also emphasized the importance of maintaining an adequate benefits package for employees.

Council Member Rimer expressed his concurrence with Council Member Werner's and Mayor Broun's observations concerning benefits and pay adjustments. Council Member Rimer said he opposed a reduction in the Town's 401-(k) plan contribution for employees. Noting that most communities did not contribute 5% to a 401-(k) employees plan, Council Member Andresen said there was room for a difference of opinion on the matter.

Council Member Chilton said retirement benefits were a very important part of overall compensation packages for Town employees. He suggested one possible approach was to offer a lower pay increase.

Council Member Werner inquired about the rationale for maintaining the ash tipping fee at $15 per ton. Mr. Horton said it would be difficult to recommend increasing the fee purely on a cost basis. Council Member Werner inquired about possible cost impacts when the University began to use alternate ash disposal arrangements. He asked whether the impact would be cost neutral to the landfill fund. Mr. Horton said this was correct since the land not used for ash disposal could be used for other purposes. Mr. Horton added that he did not know whether there would be an actual reduction in the landfill budget. Council Member Brown inquired about incentives for the University to seek disposal alternatives. Mr. Horton said this matter would need to be negotiated with all three governing bodies of the Landfill Owners Group.

Council Member Andresen inquired about the staff's thinking about future capital improvement expenses. Mr. Horton said an emphasis was being placed on maintaining existing assets, such as facilities at Hargraves Park. Council Member Rimer inquired about the possibility of attach priorities to unfunded capital projects. Mr. Horton said it was possible for staff to suggest priorities. Council Member Werner noted that this approach had been attempted in the past, with mixed results.

Council Member Capowski suggested bring the matter of salaries and compensation to closure by providing for a 4.75% to 3% salary increase while reducing the Town's contribution to the 401-(k) plan.

Council Member Brown requested an overview of proposed changes in position classifications. Mr. Horton noted that an extensive overview of the Town's classification plan was conducted every four years. He said the principal element of this year's proposed classification plan was to adjust pay ranges by 3.75% effective September 1st.

COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 1A.

COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN, TO ADOPT A PAY PLAN WITH A SALARY ADJUSTMENT OF 4.75% FOR LOWER-PAID EMPLOYEES TO 3% FOR HIGHER-PAID EMPLOYEES, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1ST, AND REDUCING THE TOWN'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE 401-(K) PLAN BY ONE PERCENT, TO FOUR PERCENT. THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 2-7, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS ANDRESEN AND CAPOWSKI VOTING AYE.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI, TO ADOPT A PAY PLAN WITH A SALARY ADJUSTMENT OF 4.75% FOR LOWER-PAID EMPLOYEES TO 2% FOR HIGHER-PAID EMPLOYEES, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1ST. THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 3-6, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS ANDRESEN, BROWN AND CAPOWSKI VOTING AYE.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO DELETE TWO REAR-LOADING SANITATION TRUCKS FROM THE PROPOSED BUDGET.

Noting the overall importance of reducing the Town's tax burden, Council Member Brown said it might be premature to purchase rear-loading refuse collection trucks. Mr. Horton said he believed that the useful life of existing rear-loading sanitation trucks would be expended this year, making it difficult to maintain the service schedule without replacement equipment. Council Member Capowski inquired what types of trucks would be needed if the Town adopted a volume-based refuse collection system. Mr. Horton said if fewer sanitation trucks were needed, the equipment could be sold for its value. Council Member Rimer said additional information on future collection methods would be available in the near future. Council Member Capowski emphasized the importance of not taxing citizens for equipment which might not be needed in the future. Mr. Horton said he sincerely believed that the equipment would be needed in the future.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL PURCHASE ONE INSTEAD OF TWO REFUSE COLLECTION TRUCKS.

Mr. Horton said he could not support such a recommendation without a professional analysis.

THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

Council Member Werner inquired what would happen to $150,000 if the sanitation trucks were not purchased. Mr. Horton said the funds would go into the Town's fund balance. Council Member Werner inquired about the status of the Town's fund balance. Mr. Horton stated that the Town was in the middle of the recommended range for fund balances. He added that the Town had been building its fund balance over the past decade.

Mayor Broun urged the Council to trust the Manager's professional judgement concerning the need for two additional sanitation trucks. Noting that the Council had held a number of discussions concerning solid waste matters, Council Member Brown said she thought this evening was the appropriate time to discuss the sanitation truck matter. Council Member Andresen expressed her concurrence with Mayor's Broun observation about the Manager's professional recommendation.

THE MOTION TO DELETE TWO REAR-LOADING SANITATION TRUCKS FROM THE PROPOSED BUDGET FAILED BY A VOTE OF 3-6, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN, CHILTON AND HERZENBERG VOTING AYE.

Council Member Chilton inquired about Town dues for the Public-Private Partnership (PPP). Mr. Horton said the Town had not been assessed dues in 1992. Council Member Chilton suggested putting the Town's PPP a contingency fund in the event that dues were assessed in 1993. Mr. Horton said staff could accommodate this administratively.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO REDUCE THE COUNCIL'S CATERING BUDGET FROM $2,000 TO $1,000.

Council Member Werner said he favored maintaining the current catering budget to accommodate needs for early evening meetings. Mayor Broun suggested leaving the funding in the budget while being as prudent as possible.

THE MOTION TO REDUCE CATERING FUNDING FROM $2,000 TO $1,000 FAILED BY A VOTE OF 3-6, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN, CHILTON AND HERZENBERG VOTING AYE.

ORDINANCE 1A AS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR AND ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 7-2, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS ANDRESEN AND BROWN VOTING NO.

AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1993 (93-6-28/O-1a)

ARTICLE I

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, the following appropriations are hereby made:

Total Total

Department Division Division Department

GENERAL FUND

Mayor/Council 157,104

Town Manager Administration 492,856

Information Services/

Town Clerk 263,027 755,883

Personnel 401,005

Finance 604,219

Legal 129,906

Planning 621,838

Inspections 315,647

Engineering 513,271

Public Works Administration 203,359

Field Operations

Administration 55,765

Landscaping 447,925

Traffic 447,561

Construction 398,293

Streets 905,091

Internal Services 1,129,013

Sanitation 2,025,022 5,612,029

Police Support Services 1,334,528

Patrol 2,933,020

Investigations 655,327 4,922,875

Fire Administration 234,464

Suppression 1,766,877

Prevention 119,117 2,120,458

Parks and Recreation Administration 222,777

General Recreation 864,899

Parks Maintenance 538,757 1,626,433

Library 1,173,211

Non-Departmental 2,576,471

General Fund Total 21,530,350

Total Total

Department Division Division Department

Other Funds

Public Housing Fund 996,538

Debt Service Fund 2,048,637

Solid Waste Disposal Fund 3,534,427

On-Street Parking Fund 446,000

Parking Facilities Bond Fund 1,005,283

Transportation Fund Administration 506,935

Operations 3,462,735

Maintenance 778,067

Non-Departmental 144,840

Transportation Fund Total 4,891,677

Housing Loan Trust Fund 68,600

Library Gift Fund 17,000

Capital Reserve Fund 590,000

Capital Improvements Fund 789,150

Downtown Service District Fund 41,500

TOTAL - ALL FUNDS 35,959,162

ARTICLE II

It is estimated that the following revenues will be available during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1993 and ending June 30, 1994 to meet the foregoing appropriations. It is determined that where estimated revenues are higher than the previous year, the increases were warranted.

General Fund Property Taxes 10,746,000

Other Local Taxes 315,000

Licenses and Permits 451,300

Fines and Forfeitures 92,175

State-Shared Revenues 7,115,235

Grants 315,642

Service Charges 724,003

Other 28,500

Revenue from Money and Property 375,750

Interfund Transfers 675,745

Fund Balance Appropriated 691,000

General Fund Total 21,530,350

Fund Total

Public Housing Fund 996,538

Debt Service Fund 2,048,637

Solid Waste Disposal Fund 3,534,427

On-Street Parking Fund 446,000

Parking Facilities Bond Fund 1,005,283

Transportation Fund 4,891,677

Housing Loan Trust Fund 68,600

Library Gift Fund 17,000

Capital Reserve Fund 590,000

Capital Improvements Fund 789,150

Downtown Service District Fund 41,500

TOTAL - ALL FUNDS 35,959,162

ARTICLE III

There is hereby levied the following tax on each one hundred dollars ($100) valuation of taxable property, located within the Town of Chapel Hill, as listed for taxes as of January 1, 1993 for the purpose of raising revenue from property tax as set forth in the foregoing estimates of revenues, and in order to finance the foregoing appropriations.

General Fund

(for the payment of expenses

of the Town of Chapel Hill) $0.543/100

Transportation Fund

(for the payment of expenses related to

transportation approved by referendum) $0.048/$100

TOTAL $0.591/$100

ARTICLE IV

There is hereby levied the following tax on each one hundred dollars ($100) valuation of taxable property located in the Downtown Revitalization Municipal Service District established by the Town Council's resolution of June 12, 1989:

Downtown Service District Fund $0.062/$100

This the 28th day of June, 1993.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER, TO AMEND THE TARHEEL EXPRESS FEE SCHEDULE TO CONTINUE THE YOUTH DISCOUNT. THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 4-5, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS CHILTON, POWELL, RIMER AND WERNER VOTING AYE.

COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING USER FEE POLICIES AND SCHEDULES FOR VARIOUS TOWN DEPARTMENTS (93-6-28/R-1)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following user fee policies and schedules effective July 1, 1993 as recommended in the Manager's Recommended Budget and accompanying documents:

Town Council Agenda Packet Fees

Development Review User Fees

Inspections User Fee Policy

Building Inspections Permit Fees, General Policy and Schedule

of Building Permit Fees

Engineering Department's Inspection Fee Policy

Municipal Cemetery Fee Schedule

Sanitation User Fee Policy

Landfill Fee Schedule

Street Cut Policy

Police Department Towing and Fee Schedule

Fire Department Permit Fee Policy

Parks and Recreation User Fee Policy

Chapel Hill Public Library Fines and Fees Policies and

Schedules

Transportation User Fees Policies and Schedules

Municipal Parking User Fee Rates and Schedules

This the 28th day of June, 1993.

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1993-1998 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (93-6-28/R-2)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it hereby approves the Manager's 1993-1998 Recommended Capital Improvements Program contained in the memorandum dated June 28, 1993 with the following projects to be included in the Operating Budget ordinance for 1993-1994:

1993-94 1993-94

Projects Reappropriation New Appropriations

Cemetery Beautification $24,240 $0

Downtown Improvements $19,210 $0

Stormwater Management $81,540 $0

Energy Efficient Projects $0 $80,000

Extraordinary Maintenance $0 $30,000

Geographic Information

System $20,000 $0

Greenways $34,000 $50,000

Small Recreation Improve-

ments $30,000 $16,000

Emergency Generators $0 $20,000

Fire Hydrants $230,000 $0

Bikeways $21,160 $0

Roadway and Intersection

Improvements $15,000 $0

Sidewalks $42,000 $10,000

Traffic System Signal

Upgrade $31,000 $35,000

CAPITAL FUNDING TOTAL $548,150 $241,000

GRAND TOTAL $789,150

This the 28th day of June, 1993.

COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER POWELL, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 3. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF APPLICATIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FOR GRANTS UNDER THE URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1964, AS AMENDED (93-6-28/R-3)

WHEREAS, the Federal and State Secretaries of Transportation are authorized to make grants for mass transportation program of projects; and

WHEREAS, the contract for financial assistance will impose certain obligations upon the applicant, including the provision by it of the local share of project costs; and

WHEREAS, it is required by the U.S. Department of Transportation in accord with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, that in connection with the filing of applications for assistance under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, the applicant files an assurance that it will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the U.S. Department of Transportation requirements thereunder; and

WHEREAS, it is the goal of the applicant that minority business enterprise be utilized to the fullest extent possible in connection with these projects, and that definitive procedures shall be established and administered to ensure that minority businesses shall have the maximum feasible opportunity to compete for contracts when procuring construction contracts, supplies, equipment contracts, or consultant and other services;

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

1. That the Town Manager is authorized to execute and file applications on behalf of the Town of Chapel Hill with the U.S. Department of Transportation and the North Carolina Department of Transportation, to aid in the financing of operating, capital and planning assistance projects pursuant to Section 3, 8 and 9 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended.

2. That the Town Manager is authorized to execute and file with such applications an assurance or any other document required by the U.S. Department of Transportation effectuating the purposes of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

3. That the Town Manager is authorized to furnish such additional information as the U.S. Department of Transportation and North Carolina Department of Transportation may require in connection with the applications for the program of projects and budget.

4. That the Town Manager is authorized to set forth and execute affirmative minority business policies in connection with the project's procurement needs.

5. That the Town Manager is authorized to execute grant agreements on behalf of the Town of Chapel Hill with the U.S. Department of Transportation and N.C. Department of Transportation for aid in the financing of the operating, capital, and planning assistance program of projects.

This the 28th day of June, 1993.

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

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, THE TOWN OF CARRBORO, THE TRIANGLE TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND THE DOWNTOWN COMMISSION IN 1993‑94 (93‑6‑28/R‑4)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves, and authorizes the Town Manager to execute on behalf of the Town, and in accord with adopted Memorandum of Understandings for transit services, contracts with the University of North Carolina, the Triangle Transit Authority and the Downtown Commission for the Town to provide them public transportation services, provided said contracts not increase the costs of the Town of Chapel Hill transit services and are substantially in accord with the adopted budget of the Town of Chapel Hill.

This the 28th day of June, 1993.

The Council took a break at 9:55 p.m. and reconvened at 10:02 p.m.

Mayor Broun suggested that the Council attempt to complete the proposed agenda this evening or at least discuss each of the items. Council Member Andresen suggested deleting some items from the agenda for discussion at a future meeting.

Item 6 Watershed Protection Development Ordinance Text Amendment

Planning Director Roger Waldon provided an overview of the proposed text amendment and reviewed key issues addressed in the staff's follow-up memorandum. Mayor Broun inquired whether staff had reviewed possible exemption requests arising from the proposed boundary line for the proposed protection area. Mr. Waldon said staff had examined the entire boundary line and did not find any problem areas.

Council Member Andresen requested a clarification of the definition of vested rights. Mr. Karpinos briefly reviewed vested rights provisions pertaining to the proposed text amendment. He added that vested rights ran with the land, rather than planned developments. Council Member Capowski asked whether developers had to have a permit to establish vested rights. Mr. Karpinos said governmental development approval was needed to have vested rights.

Tom Heffner thanked the Town staff for attempting to address the matter of single ownership of multiple lots pertaining to the proposed text amendment. He petitioned the Council to have the Division of Environmental Management clarify its watershed protection regulations. Council Member Andresen said she did not favor the Council taking this type of action on vested rights matters.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 4, AS AMENDED CONCERNING SECTION 10.3.2.

Council Member Werner suggested that the Council could possibly deal with Mr. Heffner's concerns in the future. Council Member Andresen inquired whether the higher impervious coverage limit for low-density development would possibly cause large-scale stormwater management problems in the future. Council Member Werner said no, noting that the 12% impervious coverage limit would make it impossible to build in many areas. Council Member Andresen inquired about the impact of a 50% high-density impervious coverage limit on water quality. Council Member Werner noted that most situations would be primarily controlled using zoning. Council Member Rimer said he thought the proposed amendments would provide reasonable protection to area watersheds.

Council Member Capowski requested a clarification by staff of redevelopment and expansion provisions. Mr. Waldon provided an overview of these requirements.

ORDINANCE 4, AS AMENDED, WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO CREATE A WATERSHED PROTECTION DISTRICT AND TO AMEND ARTICLE 9, WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREAS (93-6-28/O-4)

WHEREAS, the General Assembly of North Carolina has adopted the Water Supply Watershed Protection Act (G.S. 143-214.5), and the State of North Carolina has required that cities over 5,000 population submit an adopted local ordinance by July 1, 1993;

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the proposed amendments to the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance creating a Watershed Protection District, and amending the existing Article 9, Water Quality Critical Areas; and

WHEREAS, the Council finds that the amendments are 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 as follows:

SECTION I

AMEND and RENUMBER Article 2 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance to insert the following definitions:

2.9.3 Best Management Practice (BMP) - A structural or nonstructural management-based practice used singularly or in combination to reduce non-point source pollution inputs to receiving waters in order to achieve water quality protection goals.

RENUMBER Subsection 2.142.1 to 2.142.2 and RENUMBER Subsection 2.143 to 2.142.1.

2.143 Watershed Buffer - A natural or vegetated area through which stormwater runoff flows in a diffuse manner so that the runoff does not become channelized and which provides for infiltration of the runoff and filtering of pollutants. The buffer is measured landward from the normal pool elevation of impounded structures and from the bank of each side of streams or rivers.

2.13.1 Built-upon area - That portion of a development project that is covered by impervious or partially impervious surfaces including buildings, pavement, gravel roads, recreation facilities (e.g. tennis courts), etc. (Note: wooden slatted decks and the water area of a swimming pool are considered pervious)

ADD the following sentence to the end of Subsection 2.32:

Development shall also include any land disturbing activity on improved or unimproved real estate that changes the amount of impervious or partially impervious surfaces on a parcel, or that otherwise decreases the natural infiltration of precipitation into the soil.

2.42.1 Engineered Stormwater Controls - A structural best management practice (BMP) used to reduce non-point source pollution to receiving waters in order to achieve water quality protection.

RENUMBER Subsection 2.52.1 to 2.52.2.

2.52.1 Hazardous Materials - Those materials listed in the most current Consolidated List of Chemicals covered by Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), Title III.

RENUMBER Subsection 2.55.1 to 2.55.2.

2.55.1 High Density Option - One of two approaches available for development in watershed overlay districts. Generally, the high density option relies on density limits and engineered stormwater controls to minimize the risk of water pollution.

2.58.1 Impervious Surface - A surface composed of any material that impedes or prevents natural infiltration of water into the soil.

2.74 Low Density Option - One of two approaches available for development in watershed overlay districts. Generally, the low density option relies on non-structural means, specifically density limits, to minimize risk of water pollution.

RENUMBER Subsection 2.84.1 to 2.84.2

2.84.1 Non-point Source Pollution - Pollution that enters waters mainly as a result of precipitation and subsequent collective runoff from lands that have been disturbed by man's development activities and includes all sources of water pollution which are not required to have a permit in accordance with G.S. 142-215.1(c).

2.123.2 Stream Buffer - A natural or vegetated area adjacent to watercourses through which stormwater runoff flows in a diffuse manner, so that runoff does not become channelized and that provides for the infiltration of runoff and filtering of pollutants.

SECTION II

AMEND Subsection 3.1.10 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance to read as follows:

3.1.10 Overlaying Districts

It is the intent of this chapter to provide for Airport Hazard (AH) Districts, Historic Districts, Special Appearance Districts, Resource Conservation Districts, Water Quality Districts, and Watershed Protection Districts, which shall overlay the zoning districts enumerated in Section 3.1.1 through 3.1.10 above, and which shall provide for special review of development within such overlay districts in accords with the intents, procedures, and standards established for the districts in Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

SECTION III

AMEND the Water Quality Critical Area District (Article 9) of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance to read as follows:

ARTICLE 9 WATER QUALITY DISTRICT

9.1 Intent

The Water Quality District is intended to be applied in a portion of the New Hope watershed draining to Jordan Lake in order to ensure long‑term water quality of the Jordan Lake Reservoir, to protect possible future sources of drinking water for the Town and surrounding localities, and to control pollution sources affecting water quality.

The District is intended to implement general guidelines endorsed by the Triangle J Council of Governments for the Falls and Jordan Lake reservoirs on April 25, 1984, in the category of "Limited Industrial Areas" used in those guidelines.

In the interpretation and application of this Article, all provisions shall be: (a) considered as minimum requirements, (b) strictly construed in favor of the public interest and community benefit, and (c) deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers provided by Town ordinance or State statute.

9.2 Definitions

Definitions of terms used in this Article, where not otherwise defined in this Article, are contained in Article 2.

9.3 Establishment of Water Quality District

The Water Quality District is established for certain lands within the New Hope watershed as a District that overlays other zoning districts established in Article 12. The area shall be defined as an area extending one‑half mile from the Corps of Engineers property line. In addition, all development within the Water Quality District shall comply with the requirements of any additional overlay districts and the underlying zoning district.

9.4 Development in Water Quality District

This Article shall apply to development and land‑disturbing activities within the District after the effective date (May 9, 1988) of this Article unless allowed pursuant to a variance authorized by this Article and approved by the Board of Adjustment.

This Article shall not apply to the continued use, operation or maintenance of any development existing, or for which construction had substantially begun, or for which preliminary plat approval, site plan approval, or special use permit approval has been received on or before (May 9, 1988). With respect to the requirements of this Article, such development shall not be considered as nonconforming within the meaning of Article 22 of this Chapter.

This article shall not apply to single family or two-family development constructed or to be constructed on existing lots created prior to July 1, 1993. For all other existing development within the Water Quality District, the expansion, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or renovation of a development existing on or before July 1, 1993 is prohibited unless:

1) the expansion, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or renovation is permitted by Section 9.5 and meets the standards of Section 9.6 and 9.7; or

2) the expansion, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or renovation is permitted by a variance authorized by this Article and approved by the Board of Adjustment; or

3) the expansion, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or renovation results in no greater than a 10% increase in the allowable impervious surface requirements of Section 9.6.

9.5 Permitted Uses

In addition to the requirements or permitted uses indicated in the underlying zoning district, or any applicable overlay zone, the following restrictions shall apply to the Water Quality District.

9.5.1 Residential

No additional restrictions will be placed on the type of residential land use permitted within the District.

9.5.2 Industries/Businesses

No industries or businesses that produce, store, or use reportable quantities of hazardous materials, as defined by EPA's most recently promulgated Hazardous Substances or Priority Pollutants lists, are allowed in the Water Quality Critical Area District.

9.5.3 Toxic or Hazardous Waste Disposal

No facilities which recycle or dispose of toxic or hazardous wastes may be located within the Water Quality Critical Area District.

9.5.4 Underground Fuel or Chemical Tanks

No underground fuel or chemical storage tanks shall be permitted. For the purposes of this section, underground refers to the burial of such tank below the surface of the ground or the covering of them by a berm built above grade.

Spill containment measures must be taken for any fuel or chemical tank.

9.6 Intensity Regulations

9.6.1 Land Use Intensity Regulations

The intensity regulations are those generally applicable to the underlying zoning district, or any applicable overlay zone.

9.6.2 Additional Intensity Regulations

In order to prevent an excessive amount of stormwater runoff from damaging the water quality of the reservoirs, it is desirable to encourage as much infiltration as possible of runoff from hard surfaces onto land areas which can absorb and filter runoff. For the purpose of this section, an impervious surface is defined as surface composed of any material that impedes or prevents natural infiltration of water into the soil. Impervious surfaces may include but are not limited to: roofs, streets, parking areas, tennis courts, driveways, patios, sidewalks, and any concrete, asphalt, or compacted gravel surface.

Any development in the Water Quality District shall be subject to limitations on the amount of impervious surface as defined in Article 10.

9.7 Sanitary Sewer Service Standards for Development in the Water Quality District

The purpose of these standards is to prevent discharges of untreated or inadequately treated wastewater into the water supply. The following standards shall apply to any portion of a development or, as appropriate, to any land disturbance, within the District:

9.7.1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities

No privately owned discharging wastewater treatment facilities shall be allowed within the Water Quality District, and no expansions of existing private discharging wastewater treatment facilities shall be allowed.

9.7.2 Pretreatment Plants

Pretreatment facilities to prepare wastewater for discharge into the public wastewater collection or treatment system shall be allowed in the District.

9.7.3 Private Surface Discharge Facilities

After a three‑year time period from the date public sewer becomes available to an area (extended to or adjacent to property), no person shall continue to operate or use a private surface discharge sewage treatment system or individual septic system within the Water Quality District.

9.8 Variance from Board of Adjustment

9.8.1 Application

An owner of property who alleges that the provisions of this Article leave no legally reasonable use of the property may apply to the Board of Adjustment for a variance. An application for a variance shall be filed with the Town Manager in accord with the provisions of Subsection 24.4.1. In addition to the materials required by that subsection, the application must also comply with applicable submittal requirements.

On receipt of a complete application, the Town Manager shall cause an analysis to be made by appropriate Town staff based on the findings required in Subsection 9.8.2. Within a reasonable period of time, the Town Manager shall submit the application and a report of his or her analysis to the Board of Adjustment.

9.8.2 Required Findings

a) The review of the Board of Adjustment shall extend to the entire zoning lot that includes area within the District.

The Board of Adjustment shall grant a variance, subject to the provisions of this Article, if it finds:

1) That the provisions of this Article leave an owner no legally reasonable use of the zoning lot; and

2) That a failure to grant the variance would result in extreme hardship; and

(a) That the hardship complained of is one suffered by the applicant rather than by neighbors or the general public;

(b) That the hardship relates to the applicant's property rather than to personal circumstances;

(c) That the hardship is peculiar to the applicant's property, rather than a hardship shared by the neighborhood or resulting from the existence of nonconforming situations in the vicinity;

(d) That the hardship is not the result of the applicant's own actions; and

3) That the variance will not substantially interfere with or injure the rights of others whose property would be affected by granting of the variance; and

4) That the variance will not result in a violation of the provisions of Article 22 by allowing the enlargement, expansion, extension, or the greater permanence or intensity of a nonconforming use or feature.

In making such findings, the Board of Adjustment shall consider the uses available to the owner in the underlying zoning district.

b) The Board of Adjustment shall grant the minimum variance necessary to afford appropriate relief under this section. The Board may attach such reasonable conditions to the grant of a variance as it deems necessary to achieve the purposes of this Article.

c) The Board of Adjustment shall not grant any variance if it finds that such a variance would:

1) result in significantly increased velocity of flow or deposit of sediment; or

2) result in significantly increased erosion, significant additional threats to public safety; or

3) result in significant threats to water quality.

9.8.3 Burden of Proof

Any owner of property applying to the Board of Adjustment for a variance from the provisions of this Article shall have the burden of establishing that such variance should be granted by the Board.

9.8.4 Referral

The Board of Adjustment, before taking final action on an application for a variance, may refer such application to Town advisory boards or commissions.

9.8.5 Review Criteria In reviewing applications for variances pursuant to this Article, the Board of Adjustment shall consider all technical evaluations, all relevant factors, other provisions of statute or ordinance, and:

a) the danger to life and property due to flooding, sedimentation, and/or erosion damage at the site;

b) the importance of the services provided by the proposed development to the community;

c) the availability of alternative locations for the proposed use;

d) the compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development within the vicinity;

e) the relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and the stormwater management plan for that area;

f) the danger that issuance of the variance will set a precedent for future development which cumulatively may increase threats to ensuring the water quality of Jordan Lake Reservoir;

g) the effect to water quality of Jordan Lake Reservoir; and

h) the degree to which drainage conditions in the vicinity would be improved by the proposed development.

9.9 Correction of Violations

The owner of any land within the Water Quality District shall be presumed responsible for any violation of this Article committed on his or her property. The owner of any land within the Water Quality District shall be responsible for correcting any activity undertaken therein in violation of this Article. In addition, any other person found in violation of this Article shall be liable as provided by law. The Town may institute any appropriate action to restrain or prevent any violation of this ordinance or to require any person who has committed any such violation to correct the violation or restore the conditions existing before the violation. The Town Manager shall enforce this article as provided for in Article 23.

9.10 Other Approvals Required

No permit or approval required to be issued by the Town under the provisions of this Article shall be valid until all other permits or variances for the same proposal required by any other ordinance of the Town or statute of the State of North Carolina or United States have been received from those agencies from which such permits or variances are required.

9.11 Records and Filings

The Town Manager shall maintain records of all development permits, approvals, or variances regarding development within the Water Quality District. Such records shall include all actions on applications for such permits, approvals, or variances, as well as any conditions attached thereto.

The Town Manager shall notify any applicant in writing of the decision on any application for any permit, approval, or variance with respect to property within the Water Quality District and shall file a copy of it with the Town's Planning Department.

The applicant shall record any variance with the Orange County Register of Deeds within sixty (60) days after written notice of approval of such variance by the Board of Adjustment.

SECTION IV

Create a new Article 10, Watershed Protection District to read as follows:

ARTICLE 10

10.1 Intent

The Watershed Protection District (herein sometimes WPD) is intended to be applied to a portion of the New Hope Watershed draining to Jordan Lake in order to ensure long-term water quality of the Jordan Lake Reservoir, to protect possible future sources of drinking water for the Town and surrounding localities, and to control pollution sources affecting water quality.

Watershed protection regulations are applied by the Town of Chapel Hill pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 143, Article 21, Watershed Protection Rules, and implementing regulations of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, or its successor statutes and regulations.

10.2 Establishment of Watershed Protection District

The Watershed Protection District is established for certain lands within the New Hope Watershed as a District that overlays other zoning districts established in Article 12. All development within the Watershed Protection District shall comply with the requirements of this Article. In addition, all development within the Watershed Protection District shall comply with the requirements of any additional overlay districts and the underlying zoning district.

The area of the District shall be defined generally as an area extending five (5) miles from the normal pool elevation of the Jordan Lake Reservoir, or to the ridge line of the Watershed, whichever is less.

The specific location of the Watershed Protection District shall be set by ridge lines, identifiable physical features such as highways, or property lines, and shall be shown on the official Zoning Atlas.

10.3 Development in the Watershed Protection District

This article shall apply to development and land-disturbing activities within the WPD after the effective date (July 1, 1993) of this Article unless exempted by this Section, or permitted by Section 10.4, or allowed pursuant to a variance authorized by this Article and approved by the Board of Adjustment.

10.3.1 Application of Watershed Protection District to Development Existing on July 1, 1993.

This Article shall not apply to the continued use, operation or maintenance of any development existing, or for which construction had substantially begun, on or before July 1, 1993. In addition, the Article shall not apply to existing development which has established a vested right under North Carolina zoning law as of July 1, 1993, based on the following criteria:

a) substantial expenditure of resources (time, labor, money) based on a good faith reliance upon having received a valid approval to proceed with the project;

b) having an outstanding valid building permit; or

c) having expended substantial resources (time, labor, money) and having an approved Site Specific Development Plan pursuant to Section 20.4 of the Development Ordinance.

With respect to the requirements of this Article, such development shall not be considered as nonconforming within the meaning of Article 22 of this Chapter.

Multiple lots under single ownership as of July 1, 1993 are not subject to the provisions of this ordinance if vested rights have been established in accordance with North Carolina law. If no vested rights are established, then owners must comply with the provisions of this ordinance. Compliance may include requiring the recombination of lots.

10.3.2 Application to Existing Single Family and Two-Family Development

This Article shall not apply to single family and two-family development constructed or to be constructed on existing lots created prior to July 1, 1993. This exemption is not applicable to multiple lots under single ownership.

10.3.3 Application of the Watershed Protection District to the Redevelopment or Expansion of Development

Redevelopment is allowed under the provisions of this Article if the redevelopment activity does not have a net increase of built-upon area or provides equal or greater stormwater control than the previous development, except that there are no restrictions on lawfully established single family and two-family residential redevelopment.

Expansions to existing development as of July 1, 1993 must meet the requirements of this Article; however, the built-upon area of existing development is not required to be included in density and impervious surface area calculations, and there are no restrictions on expansion of lawfully established single family and two-family development.

10.4 Permitted Uses Within the Watershed Protection District

The requirements or permitted uses indicated in the underlying zoning district, or any applicable overlay zone, apply in the Watershed Protection District, provided the standards of Sections 10.5, and 10.7 are met.

10.5 Intensity Regulations

10.5.1 Land Use Intensity Regulations

The intensity regulations are those generally applicable to the underlying zoning district, or any applicable overlay zone, except as modified below.

10.5.2 Additional Intensity Regulations

In order to prevent an excessive amount of stormwater runoff from damaging the water quality of reservoirs, it is desirable to require as much infiltration as possible of runoff from hard surfaces onto land areas which can absorb and filter runoff.

Any development in the Watershed Protection District shall be subject to one of two options, or a combination of options, to control non-point source and stormwater pollution:

a) Low Density Option

Development activities shall not exceed two (2) dwelling units per acre (gross land area) or twenty-four percent (24%) built-upon area (impervious surface area) of gross land area.

b) High Density Option

Development activities which exceed the Low Density Option requirements must control the runoff from the first inch of rainfall. In addition, the built-upon area may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of gross land area.

All development under the High Density Option must meet the applicable performance standards of Section 10.7.

10.6 Stream Buffer Requirements

All development shall comply with the provisions of Article 5, Resource Conservation District. In addition, the following standards for stream buffers shall apply to all perennial streams in the Watershed Protection District, in the event the Resource Conservation District is less restrictive than the following:

a) For developments choosing the Low-Density Option, the required stream buffer is thirty (30) feet.

b) For developments choosing the High-Density Option, the required stream buffer is one hundred (100) feet.

c) For all developments, no new development is allowed within the stream buffer area; water dependent structures, and public projects such as road crossings and greenways may be allowed where no practicable alternative exists; these activities shall minimize built-upon area, divert runoff away from surface waters and maximize the use of Best Management Practices.

All stream buffers shall be a natural or vegetated area through which stormwater runoff flows in a diffuse manner so that the runoff does not become channelized and which provides for infiltration of the runoff and filtering of pollutants. If clearing, grading, or other land-disturbing activities have occurred and have reduced the effectiveness of the buffer, the buffer shall be replanted in accordance with a Landscape Plan to be approved by the Town Manager.

A stream buffer shall be measured landward from the normal pool elevation of impounded structures and from the bank of each side of perennial streams or rivers.

10.7 Performance Standards

The following standards and criteria shall apply to any portion of a development or, as appropriate, to any land disturbance within the Watershed Protection District.

10.7.1 Hazardous Materials

Any proposed development which uses and stores hazardous materials shall prepare an Emergency Contingency Plan as part of its development application. The Emergency Contingency Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), or Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, as amended. The Plan shall identify buildings and the locations of points of storage and use of hazardous materials and shall be updated annually. The Plan shall be approved by the Town Manager.

Any container or tank used to store hazardous materials shall be equipped with leak detection devices and shall be double-walled or have other secondary containment features to be approved by the Town Manager.

Points of storage or use of hazardous materials shall be protected by a corrosion-resistant dike, sized to handle the maximum amount of hazardous material to be stored or used.

All floor drains that could collect hazardous materials shall be connected to a corrosion resistant tank or catch basin sized to handle the maximum amount of hazardous material to be stored or used. These floor drains shall not be open to the site's natural drainage system.

10.7.2 Solid Waste Minimization

All development shall submit a plan to be approved by the Town Manager which minimizes solid waste and promotes the recycling of materials in accordance with Section 14.11 of the Development Ordinance.

10.7.3 Ownership, Design, and Maintenance of Engineered Stormwater Controls

Unless otherwise approved, ownership of the engineered stormwater controls shall remain with the property owner or a property owner's association.

Engineered stormwater controls shall be designed and constructed in accordance with standards and specifications established by the Town Manager, and designed to control the first one inch of stormwater using wet detention ponds.

The property owner shall post a performance bond or other surety instrument satisfactory to the Town Manager, in an amount approved by the Town Manager to assure maintenance, repair, or reconstruction necessary for adequate performance of the engineered stormwater controls.

The establishment of a stormwater utility by the Town of Chapel Hill shall be deemed adequate financial assurance.

10.7.4 Construction Standards

The construction of new roads, bridges, residential and non-residential development shall minimize built-upon area, divert stormwater away from surface water supply waters as much as possible, and employ Best Management Practices to minimize water quality impacts.

10.7.5 Cluster Provisions

The clustering of development in accordance with Section 17.8 of the Development Ordinance is encouraged, subject to the following additional standards:

a) Overall density of the project meets the associated density or stormwater control requirements of Section 10.5;

b) Built-upon areas are designed and sited to minimize stormwater runoff impact to the receiving waters and minimize concentrated stormwater flow; and

c) The remainder of the tract shall remain in a vegetated or natural state.

10.8 Variances from the Board of Adjustment

10.8.1 Application

An owner of property who alleges that the provisions of this Article leave no legally reasonable use of the property may apply for a variance.

This Article is established pursuant to North Carolina General Statuettes Chapter 143, Article 21, and implementing regulations of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (Administrative Code Section 15 NCAC 28, .0100, .0200, and .0300), hereafter referred to as "State Watershed Regulations". A request for a variance from any requirement of this Article that does not violate any provision in State Watershed Regulations as amended, may be considered by the Board of Adjustment of the Town of Chapel Hill.

A request for a variance from any requirement of this Article that violates any provision in State Watershed Regulations as amended, shall be first heard and approved by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission before being considered by the Board of Adjustment.

An application for a variance from the Board of Adjustment shall be filed with the Town Manager in accord with the provisions of Subsection 24.4.1. In addition to materials required by that subsection, the application must also comply with applicable submittal requirements.

On receipt of a complete application, the Town Manager shall cause an analysis to be made by appropriate Town staff based on the findings required in Subsection 10.8.2. Within a reasonable period of time, the Town Manager shall submit the application and a report of his or her analysis to the Board of Adjustment.

10.8.2 Required Findings