SUMMARY OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL,

MONDAY, JANUARY 5, 1998 AT 7:00 P.M.

 

Mayor Waldorf called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.   Council Members in attendance were Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavao and Edith Wiggins.  Also in attendance were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos.

 

Mayor Waldorf presented an overview of the Council’s proposed process for filling the vacant Council seat, including the fact that the names of all six applicants would be placed into nomination this evening, with appointment consideration taking place at the Council’s January 12th regular business meeting.  Mayor Waldorf called upon applicants for brief introductory comments.

 

Dianne Bachman noted that she had worked with many of the Council Members on a number of different issues.  Ms. Bachmann said that the primary role of the Council was as a community decision maker.  She stated that the critical decision making elements were:   data collection, context, compliance, clear communication of alternatives and decisions by consensus.   She also stated that the Town’s Comprehensive Plan needed to be robust and complied with by all development applications.  Ms. Bachmann said that her recommendation was for the Council to complement and strengthen its decisionmaking processes.

 

Flicka Bateman said that she had two reasons for wishing to apply for the vacant Council seat:  (1) her role as a citizen activist in efforts such as being Co-Chair of the 1996 Citizen’s Bond Committee, Citizens for Sewers and other groups, and (2) her ability to offer an independent voice, part of the middle ground of citizens seeking balance on all community issues.   Stating that the working populace was currently underrepresented on the Council, Ms. Bateman said she could handle the responsibilities of being a Council Member in spite of having a full-time job, because she could set priorities and had good organizational skills.    Ms. Bateman said she believed that the two key issues facing the Council were growth and relationships with other governmental entities.  She stated that rapid growth might outstretch existing infrastructure capacity including roadways and water and sewer systems.  

 

Ms. Bateman said that the second key issue facing the Council was working together with other local government bodies including the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority, the University of North Carolina, Orange County, the Town of Carrboro and other entities throughout the Triangle area.   Noting that she had been an educational administrator for more than twenty years, Ms. Bateman said it was very important for the Council to have a free and honest exchange of different points of view.   Ms. Bateman said that she had no personal political agenda or debts to pay to anyone.   Ms. Bateman also stated that she could only pledge allegiance to her own conscience and what was fair to all residents of the community.

 

Noting that he had formerly resided in El Salvador where meeting of this evening’s type were unheard of, Loren Hintz said that residents of the Town and the United States were fortunate to have the liberty to work for what they saw as just.   Mr. Hintz said that he had resided in the Town during the early 1980’s, moved away for several years and had moved back to the Town in 1992.    Mr. Hintz said that he had been involved in civic issues and political concerns since the early 1970’s.    Mr. Hintz also said that he had run for the State House District Number 22 in 1990, had held a number of leadership positions and had assisted with the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Sister Cities program and Fiesta del Pueblo activities.   Mr. Hintz noted that for the past fourteen years he had been a teacher in North Carolina.  He stated that challenges facing the Council included focusing on meeting the needs of the increasing Spanish-speaking community, protecting green space, encouraging sustainable principles relative to development and community lifestyles, reducing solid waste volumes and encouraging the use of alternative transit including the provision of more facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists.

 

Noting that she had been a Town Council candidate during the November, 1997 election, Madeline Jefferson said she had spent a considerable amount of time and energy campaigning for the Council seat.   Ms. Jefferson said that rode along with the Police Chief through several areas of the Town, had visited the regional landfill facility on Eubanks Road and had spoken to a wide cross-section of citizens about issues in the Town.   Ms. Jefferson also noted that she had recently visited Ann Arbor, Michigan along with other local leaders.  She also noted that was assisting Elizabeth Boisson with her concerns about establishing a local Night Flight Basketball program and had met with Steve England of the Black Public Works Association to listen to his organization’s concerns.   Ms. Jefferson stated that she had garnered more than 3,000 votes in the recent election and had a deep and abiding commitment to the community.  

 

Referencing issues currently facing the Council, Ms. Jefferson said that stricter restrictions were needed in the Town’s Resource Conservation District.  Ms. Jefferson also said that she wanted to work with the Council on solid waste concerns and developing better relationships with the University and the Department of Transportation.  Ms. Jefferson said that she believed that she had the ability  to develop good relationships with each of the Council Members.

 

Fred Schroeder said he believed that the three primary issues facing the Town in the next few years would be melding and steering growth, the equitable and cost-efficient provision of services and collaboration with other entities in providing services.   Mr. Schroeder said that he was willing to listen very carefully to all arguments presented to the Council on all matters.  He also expressed his belief that community growth was inevitable and attempting to prevent growth in the Town was futile.  Mr. Schroeder stated that although existing neighborhoods should not be used for major thoroughfares, the interconnection of neighborhoods did have some benefits.

Stating that he had resided in the Town for thirty-three years, Mr. Schroeder said that although  he had several strengths to contribute to the Council he also recognized that he had much to learn about the Town’s governance.

 

Jim Ward said that for the last ten years he had served on a number of Town committees, including serving on the Parks and Recreation Commission for six years.   Mr. Ward said during his service on the Commission he had completely prepared for meetings, carefully listened to citizens and other Commission Members and encouraged broad participation in Commission meetings.   Mr. Ward said he was most proud of the Commission’s efforts to allocate the remainder of the Town’s 1989 voter-approved bonds for the new Hargraves Gymnasium facility. 

Mr. Ward said that in 1994, he had been appointed to serve on the UNC Planning Panel and the Horace Williams Work Group.  He noted that in these capacities he had worked closely with several Council Members and University officials.   Mr. Ward stated that solid waste management and growth management were two very important issues currently facing the Council.   He said that the burying waste in landfills was a waste of land.   Mr. Ward also said that it was possible to “grow smart” by tailoring the growth of the community toward sustainability, including provision for office and light industrial developments to give some relief to the Town’s residential tax base.  Mr. Ward said he urged the Council to make the most of redevelopment opportunities in the downtown area and to move ahead with a development agreement for the Horace Williams property.    Noting that he had worked extensively with neighbors, community volunteers, developers, Council Members and others, Mr. Ward said he had the temperament to work for solutions for difficult situations.

 

Council Member Andresen asked the applicants to identify their top two priorities for the Town and how they would achieve these priorities.

 

Ms. Bachman said her two priorities would be:  (1) the review of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and the Development Ordinance and (2) examining the Town’s thoroughfare system in depth.

 

Ms. Bateman said her priorities were:  (1) making Council meetings more productive, by asking questions of Town staff before hand and (2) developing a protocol for unfinished business such as whether or not further efforts should be devoted to an OWASA  sewer service policy for unsewered areas.

 

Loren Hintz said his priorities would be to:  (1) focusing on Town transportation projects not handled by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and (2) the need  for mixed-use zoning in the community.

 

Madeline Jefferson said her priorities would be:  (1) making a landfill siting decision in the near future and (2) minimizing sprawl through growth management tools such as cluster development, attaining more open space and protecting the rural buffer.

 

Fred Schroeder said his top two priorities would be:  (1) growth and (2) disposing of non-recyclable portions of the waste stream, including an examination of how the City of Durham addressed this issue.

 

Jim Ward said his top two priorities would be:   (1) continuing discussions about solid waste management in order to reach some closure on this matter and (2) addressing growth management concerns, including the creation of more mass transit and mixed housing opportunities.   He also cited the need for the Town to continue to work more cooperatively

with the University.

 

 

 

 

Council Member Wiggins inquired about the applicant’s opinions about the Town’s cost of living and impacts on diversity.

 

Ms. Bateman said that the cost of living in the Town was high.   Noting that she wanted to discourage the trend toward homogeneity in the Town by directing more funds to low and moderate-income housing efforts, including efforts to permit the use of inclusionary zoning in the Town.

 

Stating that the cost of living in the Town was high, Mr. Hintz said that he would focus on efforts to make it easier for Town and University and other workers to live within the Town limits.  Mr. Hintz suggested that the Council could possibly look at property tax alternatives, such as having a progressive income tax system.

 

Noting that the cost of living in the Town was rather high, Ms. Jefferson noted that she had supported the housing bonds passed by Town voters in 1996.   Ms. Jefferson also expressed her support for other helpful mechanisms such as inclusionary zoning, land trusts and an impact tax, rather than an impact fee. 

 

Mr. Schroeder said that the standard of living and cost of living were considerably higher than most other areas in North Carolina, which adversely impacted diversity matters.  Mr. Schroeder said  that working with developers to identify more affordable housing opportunities was a very important matter.

 

Mr. Ward said that the Town had a very high cost of living, which tended to create an elitist and homogeneous community.  Mr. Ward said that the Council needed to take advantage of opportunities to work with non-profits, the banking community, developers and others to provide additional affordable housing programs and opportunities.  He also suggested that the Town could provide more subsidies for affordable housing and explore possibilities for inclusionary zoning.

 

Stating that diversity was an important part of the Town’s history, Ms. Bachmann said that affordable housing needs had to be addressed in order to ensure that diversity would be a part of the Town’s future.   Emphasizing the importance of keeping diversity  alive and well in the Town, Ms. Bachmann suggested that the Town undertake a benchmarking of affordable housing programs in other similarly-sized University communities throughout the nation.

 

Council Member Evans inquired which issue or issues could be addressed on a regional/multi-jurisdictional level.

 

Mr. Hintz suggested that interdependency in transit was a critical regional issue.  He suggested that Federal and State funding resources be explored for light rail and other alternative transit systems.

 

Ms. Jefferson also said that transportation appeared to be the most obvious matter for regional cooperation.  Emphasizing the importance of the Council’s supporting light rail, Ms. Jefferson said she wanted to see the Town become a destination point for the Triangle Transit Authority.  She also suggested the possibility of having high-occupancy vehicle lanes on Interstate 40 in the Town and the Triangle area.

 

Mr. Schroeder said he believed that a lot of issues could be dealt with on a regional basis, including transportation, solid waste management, affordable housing, and airport management and placement.

 

Mr. Ward said that the Triangle Transit Authority was a wonderful resource tool for the entire Triangle region.  Mr. Ward also said that it was very important for the Town to be very proactive in the dedication of mass transit corridors.  He also stated that the University was a tremendous partner in terms of mass transit.  Mr. Ward suggested that regional efforts could also be undertaken on matters such as solid waste management and water resources management.

 

Ms. Bachmann said that a number of issues including transportation, solid waste management, creative zoning and affordable housing all had potential opportunities for regional cooperation and problem solving.

 

Noting that she had cited six possible regional cooperation issues in her materials submission to the Council, Flicka Bateman said that two very important issues were:  (1) transportation—working with the University, UNC Hospitals and area businesses to encourage flex-time programs for employees and (2) solid waste management—including the possibility of sending waste out of Orange County on a temporary basis until another mechanism could be put in place.

   

Noting that salaries were the largest part of the Town’s budget each year, Council Member Pavao inquired whether there were any services which the applicants might propose for change or elimination.

 

Ms. Jefferson said that Town residents had an expectation that the Town would provide a very high level of services.  Ms. Jefferson said that she was not convinced of projected savings from changing the Town’s current method of curbside refuse collection.

 

Mr. Schroeder stated that the Town’s existing services were excellent and that Town residents owed a debt of appreciation to the Town Manager and staff.

 

Mr. Ward said that he was not sufficiently aware of Town budget matters to render such a decision.  Mr. Ward also said that he would be willing to look into possible changes to the Town’s refuse collection methods, if they resulted in substantial savings for taxpayers.

 

Stating that the Town offered very good service levels, Ms. Bachmann said she would need to study the services in detail before recommending any changes, alterations or deletions.

 

Stating that citizens had a great deal of access to elected officials and Town staff, Ms. Bateman suggested the possibility of reducing the volume of paper copies by making greater use of available technologies such as the Internet.

 

Mr. Hintz said that some citizens he had spoken to recently did not feel that they had been treated

very well by the Town.   Noting that the Council had recently been attempting to improve salaries for employees in the lowest third, Mr. Hintz said he hoped that the Council would not explore options for privatizing or outsourcing of Town services.   Mr. Hintz also said he believed that the Town could do a better job of maintaining bicycle lanes throughout the Town.

 

Mayor Waldorf inquired what were two or three questions that the applicants would bring to the Council’s budget process.

 

Mr. Schroeder said that the budget process was the heart and essence of the Council’s mission.  Mr. Schroeder also said he hoped that the budget proposal suggested by Town staff would be at the base level of budget development.

 

Stating that he would rely heavily on Town staff on budget matters, Mr. Ward said that health and safety services would be his highest priority.   Mr. Ward also stated that during his six years as a Parks and Recreation Commission member it was generally difficult to get information from the Commission to the Council in time for the Council to possibly change their mind on policy matters.  Mr. Ward also said it was important to get feedback from the public in a timely manner.

 

Ms. Bachmann said she would ask what the Council’s benchmark was with regard to Town employees in public service roles versus public employees in other “Town and Gown” communities in similar roles.   Ms. Bachmann also said she would inquire how to afford a sign enforcement officer position.

 

Ms. Bateman said she would inquire:  (1) whether or not the Town needed to have all of its existing white collar staff, (2) whether the Council was unfairly hitting one sector of the community in terms of taxes and (3) about the possibility of having a Citizen’s Advisory Committee on Finance and Budget matters.

 

Mr. Hintz said that he would urge the Council to decide its priorities and goals up front.  Mr. Hintz also said he would inquire about what he needed to read and study ahead of time about the budget in order to make good decisions.

 

Ms. Jefferson said that she would inquire whether there were any duplication of services among Town departments.  Ms. Jefferson also said that she would inquire whether the Town was as up to date as possible about information.  She also suggested the possibility of streamlining some of the Town’s procedures.

 

Thanking all six applicants for applying for the vacancy, Council Member Capowski said he had no specific questions to ask the candidates at present.

 

Council Member Brown asked the applicants whether or not they would support a limited moratorium on growth in a part of the Town

 

Mr. Ward said that his quick answer was yes.   Stating that the pace of development pressure in the Town was immense, Mr. Ward suggested that the Council undertake a review of the Comprehensive Plan every five to seven years.   He also said that the Comprehensive Plan needed to be updated as it related to mass transit and mixed-use development.

 

Ms. Bachmann said a focus of the Town should be to revisit the Comprehensive Plan.  Stating that moratoriums worked in some places at some times, Ms. Bachmann said that the Town needed to find growth management tools to put the Council in a proactive mode.  Ms. Bachmann also said she did not know whether or not a limited development moratorium was the Town’s

best growth management tool.

 

Ms. Bateman said that she would support  a moratorium so long as the Council was clear about the moratorium’s objectives and duration.  Noting her concern about cumulative impacts, Ms. Bateman said that she would support a time-limited development moratorium.

 

Stating that the comments of the three previous speakers made a lot of sense, Mr. Hintz said that he would philosophically agree with such a moratorium.

 

Ms. Jefferson said that she could not answer “yes” or “no” to this question.  She did state that the Town’s Comprehensive Plan needed to be updated.  She also stated that the Town needed a New Facilities Ordinance and a revised Tree Ordinance.  Ms. Jefferson said that she would need to give some more thought to whether or not the Town needed to have this type of moratorium.

 

Mr. Schroeder said he did not believe that he would favor having a moratorium at this time.  Mr. Schroeder stated that he would favor making revisions to the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Atlas.

 

Council Member Foy inquired about the applicant’s views about the rural buffer.

 

Ms. Bachmann said that she favored the rural buffer concept as a means of not allowing the community to sprawl out into lesser developed areas.  Ms. Bachmann said that rural separation was a very positive way to proceed.

 

Stating that she enjoyed the rural buffer, Ms. Bateman said that she hoped that it would be preserved for wildlife and conservation purposes.

 

Mr. Hintz said that he enjoyed the rural buffer and thought that it was important to keep in place.

He added that mass transit, rail rights-of-way, bicycle ways and other items might need to be incorporated into the rural buffer in the future.  Mr. Hintz also stated that farm land in North

Carolina did not enjoy the same benefits as in many other states.

 

Ms. Jefferson said that she favored protecting the rural buffer from pressures such as landfill siting and the provision of sewer service.

 

Stating that he really believed strongly in the option of choice, Mr. Schroeder said that he favored the concept of having a rural buffer.  Noting that he had some concerns about annexations, Mr. Schroeder said it was important to go down this pathway carefully.

 

Mr. Ward said that he viewed the rural buffer as an effective tool to help the Council set limits on the size of the Town.  He stated that doing away with the rural buffer would potentially open up a Pandora’s box.   Mr. Ward also said that although the rural buffer helped to save trees, it did not help in the protection of forests.  He stated that drawbacks of the rural buffer included the encouragement of attractive sprawl, inviting septic fields and tanks into areas which might otherwise remain undeveloped. 

 

Council Member Evans inquired how the applicants would suggest receiving input from the business community on community decision making processes

 

Ms. Bateman said that the Council’s public process appeared to offer ample opportunities for interaction by the Chamber of Commerce, the Public Private Partnership and other interested persons.

 

Mr. Hintz said that Council public forums offered adequate opportunities for all people to speak, including organizations such as the University and the Chamber of Commerce.

 

Referencing the PPP’s visit to other communities, Ms. Jefferson suggested the possibility of

this group making a follow-up report to interested Town residents.   

 

Mr.  Schroeder said that it was essential to involve the business community in bringing input to the Council.  Mr. Schroeder also said he favored open inclusion of business interests through the Chamber of Commerce and direct contact with business persons.

 

Mr. Ward said that he would want to make sure that the process did no more or less for the business community than for other interests in the community.   Mr. Ward also said he believed that the business community did a fair amount to make its opinions known.

 

Ms. Bachman said that she would support all of the previous suggestions.  She also the possibility of the Council sometimes having a Saturday charette each year with the business community.

 

Council Member Wiggins asked the applicants to identify a principled stand which they would be willing to take as a member of the Council, even if they knew that it might involve a “political price”

 

Mr. Hintz said that he considered himself to be very concerned about protection of  the environment.  He stated that it was likely that there would come a time when there would be a conflict with a stand he had set in the past.

 

Ms. Jefferson said that she did not support the premise that growth paid for itself.  Ms. Jefferson said that growth did not pay the cost of infrastructure.

 

Stating that he would personally describe himself as a “people liberal and fiscal conservative”, Mr. Schroeder said he would be prepared to stand up when someone was not being treated fairly.

 

Mr. Ward said that he was most passionate about environmental issues.   Mr. Ward also said that

he had considerable experience during the past ten years in working with non-environmentalists.  Mr. Ward stated that he had a valuable experience at the PPP Conference in Ann Arbor, having found business persons to be very receptive about environmental matters in general.

 

Ms. Bachmann said it was very important to get high quality design of development projects.  She also said that it was important to review the Town’s Comprehensive Plan as soon as possible.

 

Ms. Bateman said that she supported not running traffic through neighborhoods.  She also expressed her openness to making exceptions regarding such a policy.

 

Referencing the protection of existing neighborhoods, Council Member Andresen inquired about how the Council could ensure that the livability of existing neighborhoods could be preserved

 

Ms. Jefferson said that it was important to consider surrounding neighborhoods, including potential impacts on traffic, the environment and property values.  Ms. Jefferson also said she hoped that the Town would do its own studies on these matters and think about tradeoffs regarding what was best for the entire community.

 

Stating that change was always an unsettling process,  Mr. Schroeder said that he urged the Council to keep the protection of neighborhoods foremost in their minds.

 

Mr. Ward said it was imperative that neighborhood quality of life be at the very top of the Council’s important community values.   He stated that the most disruptive contributor to neighborhood ambiance was more traffic.  

 

Ms. Bachman said that it was very important that the Council be extremely sensitive and try to make the most positive decision with neighborhood concerns at the forefront.

    

Noting that she had worked on a Town subcommittee regarding the protection of existing neighborhoods, Ms. Bateman said that she would like to continue these efforts with buffering and consistent application of  the Noise Ordinance.  Ms. Bateman said she encouraged the Council to keep affordable neighborhoods affordable.

 

Mr. Hintz said that there was a fundamental need to change attitudes about automobile usage.  He said that traffic concerns were real and needed to be addressed side by side with neighborhood protection concerns.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO NOMINATE ALL SIX COUNCIL APPLICANTS FOR FUTURE APPOINTMENT CONSIDERATION.  THE  MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

 

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

 

A RESOLUTION RESCHEDULING THE TOWN COUNCIL’S JANUARY 21ST PUBLIC HEARING (98-1-5/R-1)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council reschedules the public hearing originally planned for Wednesday, January 21st at 7:00 p.m. to Thursday, January 22nd at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Council Chambers at 306 North Columbia Street.

 

This the 5th day of January, 1998.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO MOVE INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION.  THE MOTION WAS  ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

 

The regular meeting stood adjourned at 9:22 p.m.   The closed session concluded at 10:51 p.m.  No public report followed the closed session.



CLOSED SESSION;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;   ALL EIGHT CMS, WCH, SL, FM, RK, PR

 

RDK:   MEMO SENT OUT FRIDAY;; STATUS OF MEADOWMONT MATTER BEFORE THE COUNCIL;;   BRING BEFORE COUNCIL AT JANUARY 12TH MEETING;;   GIVEN COUNCIL OPINION ON THIS MATTER—GO THROUGH REASONING PROCESS: 

IN JULY, COUNCIL APPROVE FIVE SPECIAL USE PERMITS—TWO SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW;;  PETITIONERS SOUGHT REVIEW OF VILLAGE CENTER AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUPS—VALIDITY OF DECISIONS MADE BY THE COUNCIL—SCOPE OF REVIEW LIMITED TO FIVE MATTERS:  (GET FROM RDK)—OF FIVE ISSUES, SOME RAISED IN PETITION;;  ALL ISSUES RAISED WERE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT—MUST BE RAISED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF DECISION—NO OTHER PARTIES BROUGHT ISSUES;;  COURT HAD BEFORE IT ALL OF THE NECESSARY MATTERS;;  THREE PERMITS NOT CHALLENGED REMAIN VALID—NO FURTHER ISSUES CAN BE RAISED FOR THESE SUPS;;  VILLAGE CENTER—ALL CHALLENGES RAISED WERE REJECTED BY THE COURT;;   AS TO INFRASTRUCTURE SPECIAL USE PERMIT—ONE FINDING—NOT COMPETENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ON THIS ISSUE—COURT REMANDED THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT;;   PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE;;   COURT REJECTED CHALLENGE ON WHETHER OR AAUTHORITYTO MANAGER WAS APPROPRIATE;; ONE FINDING---PROPERTY VALUES—COURT REMANDED PERMIT FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION;;   AS TO THIS QUESTION—MAINTAIN OR ENHANCE PROPERTY VALUES CONTIGUOUS—COUNCIL HEAR EVIDENCE ON THIS MATTER;;   IF COUNCIL FINDS TO CONTRARY, COULD DENY PERMIT ON THIS BASIS;;   INCLUDES THOSE WHICH COURT  FOUND TO BE VALID AND INVALID;;    NOT A VALID CHALLENGE—BECOMES LAW AS TO ISSUE;;  LAW OF THE CASE—STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS—WITHIN THIRTY DAYS—ANY PART WITH STANDING CAN BRING CHALLENGE TO COUNCIL DECISION;;  NO OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY THESE OR OTHER PETITIONERS;;   IF YOU ALLOW—THAT REOPENS EVERYTHING—LIKE SAYING IT COULD ALL BE REOPENED;;   ONE IMPORTANT CAVEAT—IF SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO APPLICATION—IT WOULD REOPEN SPECIAL USE PERMIT;;   REMEDIATION—NOTICE TO PARTIES;;  IF APPLICANT CHOSE TO MODIFY APPLICATION—ALL WOULD BE OPEN FOR NEW EVIDENCE AND RECONSIDERATION;;;;;;;;   ONLY MAINTAINING OR ENHANCING PROPERTY VALUES OR PUBLIC NECESSITY;;;;;;  NEXT STEP—PUT RESOLUTION ON JANUARY 12TH AGENDA—RECOMMEND A DATE IN FEBRUARY;;  

 

JA:   POTENTIAL REMEDIATION—ANY CHANGE AT ALL—MODIFICATION—SEE AS INCONSISTENT WITH PRIOR GUIDANCE TO THE COUNCIL ON THIS MATTER;;  CAN’T QUITE FOLLOW LOGIC;; RDK—COURT ORDER LIMITS WHAT WE CAN DO;;  IF WANTED TO MEDIATE—REQUIRE GOING THROUGH PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS;;;   ONLY CONSIDER FINDING WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY VALUES

 

P EVANS—LEGAL DEFINITION OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY?    WHO’S RESPONSIBILITY IS IT TO PROVE (BURDEN OF PROOF)—COUNCIL, APPLICANT, ETC.?    RDK—CERTAINLY NOT TOWN’S;;  TERM CONTIGUOUS IS NOT FOUND;;  SOME PETITIONERS FOUND TO BE CONTIGUOUS TO PROPOSED MEADOWMONT DEVELOPMENT;;   P EVANS—IF COURT FOUND THAT SOME PEOPLE WITH CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY;;  J CAP—AT LEAST TWO PROPERTY OWNERS CONTIGUOUS TO MEADOWMONT DEVELOPMENT;;

 

J BROWN:   WHERE IS THIS LIMITED IN THE WAY THAT YOU SAY IT IS LIMITED?

RDK:    DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY SAY IN ONE OR TWO SENTENCES;; IN MY ANALYSIS AND OPINION;; ORDER SAYS REMANDED;;  MATTER IS WHETHER OR NOT WILL MAINTAIN OR ENHANCE PROPERTY VALUES;;  BASED ON ENTIRE READING OF ORDER;;    JA:   IS THERE ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION HERE?   RDK:  DON’T BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE LEGALLY CORRECT;;    FOY:  DID YOU FIND EXAMPLES OF SOMEONE IN OUR SAME POSITION?   RDK:   REMANDS SENT FOR RECONSIDERATION;; BASED  ON NC LAW AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PRINCIPLES;   FOY:  DO WE HAVE A LIVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT?   RDK:  COURT DID NOT INVALIDATE SPECIAL USE PERMIT—COURT REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS;;  APPLICATION IS PENDING BEFORE THE COUNCIL;;    BROWN:  GRANTING OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY COUNCIL IS REVERSED;;  COULD LEAD TO SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US;;  RDK:  DON’T BELIEVE THAT THIS IS CORRECT INTERPRETATION;;

 

P EVANS:  WHAT IS LEGAL DEFINITION OF REVERSED?     RDK:  HAS BEEN VACATED;;    PUBLIC HEARING—FINDING REGARDING PROPERTY VALUE;;

 

J CAPOWSKI:   ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS LAST SUMMER—BONAFIDE EVIDENCE PROPERTY VALUES WOULD GO DOWN;;   RDK:   JUDGE DID NOT CONCUR IN ORDER;;  NO COMPETENT EVIDENCE REGARDING PROPERTY VALUES GOING DOWN;;     J CAPOWSKI:  PROPERTY VALUES ON PINEHURST DRIVE—WOULD GO DOWN;;  EVIDENCE PRESENTED LAST SUMMER—PROPERTY VALUES WILL GO DOWN;;   REQUIRED TO MAKE FINDING THAT PROPERTY VALUES WILL BE MAINTAINED OR ENHANCED;;    RDK:   GOOD FAITH ARGUMENTS BASED ON EVIDENCE PRESENTED;;   NEVER FOUND THAT EVIDENCE OFFERED WAS COMPETENT, MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL;;   COURT SAYS IN EFFECT—PAUCITY OF EVIDENCE ON THIS SUBJECT (PROPERTY VALUES);;  NO COMPETENT EVIDENCE ON THIS ISSUE AT ALL;;  J CAP:  WHAT BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE?     RDK:   COURT DID NOT ACCEPT;;  COUNCIL DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS TO CONCLUDE THAT PROPERTY VALUES WOULD BE MAINTAINED OR ENHANCED—PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, INFRASTRUCTURE, SCHOOL SITE, ETC.;;   CONSIDERATION OF ALL ASPECTS OF DEVELOPMENT;;    WCH—TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS—HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT TRAFFIC ENGINEERS AND OTHERS SAY;;   NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE DECISION EITHER WAY IN TERMS OF COMPETENT EVIDENCE

 

E WIGGINS—IF GO BACK TO PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS;; WHO’S RESPONSIBILITY TO BRING EVIDENCE?    RDK:  COMPETENT MATERIAL EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE TO BE PRESENTED BY APPLICANT;;   E WIGGINS:  DON’T WE SHARE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PINEHURST DRIVE?    RDK:  EVIDENCE HAS TO DO WITH OVERALL DEVELOPMENT;;  COUNCIL SHOULD NOT BE ASSUMING RESPONSIBILITY FOR GATHERING THE EVIDENCE;;   WALDORF:  DEVELOPER CAN’T AFFORD TO BE FLIP ABOUT MATTER;;    E WIGGINS:   WE WANT PINEHURST CONNECTOR OPENED;;  FOY:  ARE WE LIMITED TO HAVING HIM COME WITH EVIDENCE AND CAN WE LOOK AT ROAD ASPECT AS PROBLEM WITH REGARD TO PROPERTY VALUES IN ORDER TO MITIGATE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON PROPERTY VALUESS;;    RDK:  ALL OTHER FINDINGS MADE AND NOT CHALLENGED;;   IF APPLICANT MODIFIES PERMIT—OPENS UP SUP FOR RECONSIDERATION;;   APPLICANT CAN CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT HE WANTS TO DO THIS;;   PENDING APPLICATION CAN BE MODIFIED BY THE APPLICANT;; HEARING HAS NOT BEEN CLOSED PROCEDURALLY;;   J CAP:  ARE WE ALLOWED TO CHANGE ANY CONDITIONS?   RDK:  NOT WITHOUT APPLICANT’S CONSENT;; IF HE CONCURRED, COULD RECONSIDER ALL;;    FOY:  IF HAVE ANOTHER HEARING ON THIS;;  NO OTHER COMPETENT EVIDENCE PRESENTED;;   J CAP:  NEIGHBORS WITH AGENTS—PROPERTY VALUES GO DOWN, APPLICATNS—REMAIN SAME OR GO UP;;  LP—MAKE DETERMINATION ON WHAT WE HEAR;;

 

J BROWN:  GO BACK TO MEANING ON PAGE FIVE AND TOP OF PAGE SIX;;  RDK:   DESCRIBING PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS—PAGE FIVE;;   TOP OF PAGE SIX:   PAUCITY OF EVIDENCE—ONLY EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO OUR POSITION;;   J BROWN:  COULD BE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS;;  RDK:  GIVING PROFESSIONAL OPINION—COMPLY WITH LAW;;   ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO THE COUNCIL;;   FOY:  COULD BE OTHER INTERPRETATIONS;;  RDK:  ADVISE IS WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE LEGALLY CORRECT INTERPRETATION;;   TRYING TO TELL HOW TO FOLLOW THE LAW;;    FOY:   DO WE HAVE MORE LATITUDE?   WOULD LIKE TO KNOW OUR OPTIONS NOW?    RDK:  OPTION NOW IS TO REOPEN THE HEARING;;  R WALDORF—IN RDK’S OPINION, NO SECOND INTERPRETATION;;   RDK:  OTHER PARTIES TO THIS LAWSUIT—CAN GIVE AN INTERPRETATION AND SEEK AN OPINION FROM OTHER LEGAL COUNSEL;;  

 

J CAP—MEMO ON PAGE THREE;;   EQUALLY REASONABLE TO REQUIRE A NEW PUBLIC HEARING OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT;;   EQUITY ISSUES FOR PINEHURST CONNECTOR;;   RDK:  COURT REMANDED TO COUNCIL FOR RECEIVING PUBLIC COMMENT;;    FOY:  CAN YOU TAKE EVIDENCE ON PROPRTY ON OTHER STREETS/   PE:  SURE;;   RDK:  TEST IS WHETHER OR NOT DEVELOPMENT WILL MAINTAIN OR ENHANCE PROPERTY VALUES;;    COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE;;  TEST IN THE ORDINANCE IS THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT;;    J CAP—PROPERTIES TOUCHING PROPOSED MEADOWMONT?    RDK:  NOT SPECIFICALLY DEFINED;; COURT DID NOT ADDRESS OR REACH THIS ISSUE;;    BEST ARGUMENT IS MOST LIKELY PUBLIC SAFETY RATHER THAN PROPERTY VALUES;;  PRESENT ALL ARGUMENTS TO DEFEND COUNCIL DECISION;; 

 

E WIGGINS:    WHERE GOING?   R WALDORF:  ATTORNEY IS RECOMMENDING THAT COUNCIL DIRECT COUNCIL TO REOPEN  HEARING ON THIS MATTER (PROPERTY VALUES);;   JA:  WHAT TIME LIMITS IN TERMS OF RESPONDING?   RDK:   PROPOSE PUTTING MEMO ON 1/12 AGENDA;;  NOTHING SPECIFIC IN COURT ORDER ABOUT DATES;;  PROPOSE RECONVENING HEARING ON JANUARY 12TH—POSSIBLY FEBRUARY 2ND;;    WCH:  COURT IS NOT SAYING MUST ACT BY A CRTAIN DATE;;   UNLIKELY THAT COURT WOULD DO SOMETHING UNLESS SOMEONE COMPLAINED ABOUT TIMELINESS;;  

 

JOYCE BROWN—WHEN IS DATE FOR APPEAL OF THIS DECISION?    RDK:   JANAURY 18TH;;   JOYCE BROWN:  AT LEAST WAIT UNTIL AFTER THIS DATE;;;   WHAT DOES TIMELY MEAN?   RDK:  DEPENDS ON WHAT IT IS YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT;;   COUNCIL WELL ADVISED TO TAKE ACTION BY THE END OF JANUARY;;   J BROWN:  WOULD BEHOOVE US TO THINK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE;;   LP:  SCHOOL BOARD IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT SCHOOL SITING ON MEADOWMONT PROPERTY;; MIGHT WANT TO ASK THEM WHAT THEIR TIME FRAME IS;;  

 

JOE CAP:   SYMPATHETIC TO SCHOOL’S POSITION;;  POSSIBLY GET ANOTHER LEGAL OPINION; WAIT TO SEE IF APPEAL MADE;;   NINTH MEMBER APPOINTED;

WANT SOME TIME TO THINK—ACTIVE DISCUSSION TONIGHT;;

 

FOY:  WONDERED WHAT PROCEDURE IS;;   RDK:   INSTRUCTIONS TO MANAGER AND ATTORNEY—NOT PUT ON 1/12 AGENDA;;   

 

P EVANS:  IF DELAY TO GET ADDITIONAL LEGAL ADVICE;;   RDK:  COUNCIL COULD VOTE TO GET A SECOND OPINION;;    JA:  HELPFUL TO MAKE LIST OF QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED;;     E WIGGINS:   CAN WE ASK JUDGE WHAT THE ORDER MEANS?    RDK:  THIS JUDGE IS NO LONGER A JUDGE;;   COULD FILE A MOTION AND ASK JUDGE FOR A CLARIFICATION;; FIRST OF ALL, DON’T THINK THAT IT IS NECESSARY;;   CONSTITUTIONAL:   COURTS DON’T GIVE ADVISORY OPINIONS;;   DON’T THINK NEEDS AN EXPLANATION;;   EW:  THINK ATTORNEY’S ADVISE IS RIGHT ADVICE;;

 

PE:  NO PROBLEM WITH RDK’S ADVICE EITHER;;  ALWAYS WANTING A SECOND OPINION WITH A DIAGNOSIS;;   DON’T SEE ANY LOOPHOLES OR AMBIGUITY IN HERE;;  

 

WALDORF:  COMFORTABLE WITH RDK’S ADVICE;;   FOY:  WOULD LIKE TIME TO THINK ABOUT WHERE WE ARE;;     R WALDORF:   REMAINS A CONFIDENTIAL MATTER;;   RDK:  QUASI-JUDICIAL NATURE OF PROCEEDING;;   MIGHT COMPROMISE INTEGRITY OF OVERALL PROCESS;;   WCH:  DEVELOPER IS NOT HAVING TO JUDGE TESTIMONY, ETC.

 

WALDORF:  NOT GOING TO PUT ON AGENDA FOR 1/12;; DOES THIS GROUP WISH TO ASK FOR ANOTHER OPINION?    POSSIBLY TAKE UP AGAIN ON 1/12—HAVE ANOTHER CLOSED SESSION?    J CAP—WAIT UNTIL 1/20;;  RDK—NO NEED FOR COUNCIL TO TALK ABOUT RESCHEDULING UNTIL KNOW THAT MATTER IS BACK BEFORE US;;  

 

R WALDORF:   DISCUSSION HERE TONIGHT AND MEMO—LEGALLY PROTECTED INFORMATION?    RDK:  CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS;;   R WALDORF:  MAY OR MAY NOT DISCUSS MEMO, ETC. OUTSIDE OF THIS ROOM?   RDK:    HOPE THAT WOULD TAKE ADVICE ABOUT NOT DISCUSSING THIS MATTER OUTSIDE OF THIS ROOM;; NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ANYTHING DISCUSSED TO BE TAKEN OUTSIDE OF THIS ROOM;;    COMPROMISES INTEGRITY OF GENERAL HEARING PROCESS;

 

J BROWN—LEGAL DOCUMENT IN PUBLIC DOMAIN;;   RDK:  ORDER HAS REMANDED MATTER TO THE COUNCIL;; QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER—COUNCIL MEMBERS PREJUDGED EVIDENCE—COMPROMISES THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS;; BIAS AGAINST AN APPLICANT—VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS;;  WCH:  COULD INVALIDATE VOTES OF COUNCIL;;  RDK TRYING TO OFFER BEST ADVICE AND KEEP OUT OF A POTENTIALLY DIFFICULT POSITION;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;    FOY:   WE COULD APPEAL THIS ORDER;;   THINK WE SHOULD FORMALLY DECIDE NOT TO;;    RDK:  COUNCIL IS CONTINUING TO STUDY MATTER;;; COUNCIL DOES NOT INTEND TO TAKE APPEAL FROM ANY PART OF ORDER;;;;;;;;    10:51 P.M.