P R O C E E D I N G S

MAYOR WALDORF: Good evening. This public hearing of the Chapel Hill Town Council will come to order. I apologize for the slight delay in starting. The council had a budget work session starting at 5 o'clock, and we finished at five of 7:00 and it took us a few minutes to get all the furniture rearranged.

This hearing tonight is a continuation of the reconvening of the public hearing on the Meadowmont Infrastructure Special Use Permit, which we were directed to have by Judge Battle's court order.

I'd like to, again, very briefly go through the procedures that we're following, just in case there are folks here tonight who were not here last Monday night when we began the hearing.

Anyone who wants to speak, of course, needs to go over to the clerk and be sworn. If you did that last week, you don't need to do that again.

Evidence does not need to be repeated. If it's already been submitted, either last Wednesday night or during the original special use permit hearing, it does not have to be submitted again.

Tonight the order of presentation will begin with the folks who were here last week, who signed up to speak last week, but whom we did not get to. So we'll start with those folks and then move on to others who've arrived tonight and signed up tonight.

There is no time limit on testimony. We're going to be lenient on this. But we do encourage witnesses to be concise. There is the right to cross-examine. If you wish to ask a question of anyone who's testified, you may do so. After each person speaks, I'll say, "Is there anyone who wishes to ask a question of this witness." It's preferable if there are groups of people if you can designate a spokesperson to ask those questions.

And at the conclusion of this hearing I presume that we'll recess it and refer it to a date certain in the future to come back with a report on this project.

So having said that, let me just ask the manager, if he would, to again briefly state the scope of this hearing for anyone who's here tonight and wasn't here last week.

MR. HORTON: We'll ask Roger Waldon to make just a brief presentation providing that background.

MR. WALDON: Thank you. In this public hearing we are considering the Meadowmont Infrastructure Special Use Permit. The permit was approved by the council in July and then, as has been mentioned, upon the direction of the Court, this hearing has been reconvened for the purposes of submitting evidence and for the council to consider regarding the finding that is in the‑-that is required to be made by the council for a special use permit, which reads that "No special use permit shall be approved by the council unless a finding is made that the use or development is located, designed and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property."

The Infrastructure Special Use Permit covers approximately 182 acres of the Meadowmont site. It includes streets, storm water management systems, water and sewer systems and so on and would create 405 residential building lots and several commercial and office lots.

And we have all the files here. And if there are questions, we'll look something up for you.

MAYOR WALDORF: All right. Thank you very much, Roger.

The person who is first on the list from last week is Richard Franck, and after him is Rachel Willis.

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD FRANCK

MR. FRANCK: Thank you. I didn't realize I was first. Let me find my notes.

One of the items that has been overlooked in the reconvening of this public hearing, I believe, is the Triangle Transit Authority's plans for a regional rail system, which would go through the Meadowmont property and in fact have a transit stop in the village center area of Meadowmont.

And because I think this long-term interest in the possibilities of rail transit and what the rail corridor can do for us are so important, I've done a little bit of research looking around for the effect that that rail corridor would have on the property values surrounding Meadowmont.

And I've got one copy, which I'm sure the manager will make copies for you, of a study done. The lead author is Dr. John Landis, associate professor of city and regional planning at the University of California Berkeley.

It considers the relationship between rail transit investments and single-family home prices, among other things. And it looked at five rail systems in California.

The results of the study were put in an unusual framework, but I can explain that to you briefly. If you take two houses that are of equal value, one some distance from a rail station and another a greater distance from a rail station and compare the value of those houses after‑-sometime after the rail station has been built and the trains are operating and then divide that by the distance between the two houses, you'll come up with a price per foot, or in the study they used it was a meter, price differential, that was the price that the rail system increased or decreased the value of the houses in question.

And the numbers that they came up with for these five systems were in the range of two dollars ($2) per meter for the Bay Area Rapid Transit System in the San Francisco area, up to two dollars and seventy-two cents ($2.72).

Some, actually, were in the‑-different counties in the Bay Area were higher than that, three dollars and forty cents ($3.40) per meter. And in San Diego where they have a trolley system, two dollars and seventy-two cents ($2.72) per meter.

The results varied, depending on the transit system and how good it was, how many people were riding it. But in every case where there was a transit system that was meeting the needs, the rails‑-being located near a rail station had a significant, positive effect on the value of residential properties, the value of single-family homes near the rail system. And this is all detailed in the information that I'll pass around to you.

I just wanted to put a little bit of context on this. Oh, and I should also mention that they controlled for other factors that might have influenced the prices. And they found that the issues like the rail station, how close it was‑-how close it was to a freeway, how close it was to a freeway on- ramp accounted for 75 percent or more of the variation in the home prices. So it was a very significant factor.

So if we take two houses in Chapel Hill and assuming that these results would have some applicability, then the exact numbers might be different. But from what I've read in the study, I think the concept would go.

We took two houses, one that was, say, a half a mile from the train station at Meadowmont and one that was two miles‑-or two an a half miles away from the train station at Meadowmont.

If those houses were equally priced today after the rail system was operating, we could expect a difference in the prices of those two houses of eighty-seven hundred dollars ($8,700). The house that was closer to the rail station would be over eight thousand dollars higher value than the one that was further away.

And these results were significant across ranges of‑-all ranges of housing sizes. So it didn't matter whether the houses were large or small.

So I think it is important to recognize the value that a rail system can have on the prices of residential housing‑-and in addition to all the other values, obviously, that the rail system is going to bring.

And Rachel Willis will tell you a little bit about other factors associated with that rail system and why it's important in relation to Meadowmont.

MAYOR WALDORF: Just a second, Richard. Let me see‑-does anyone have any questions of Mr. Franck?

Yes, Susan. We're going to need you to come up to the microphone so that your voice can be picked up. And if you'd state your name, please, for the reporter.

MS. FULTON: Since the issue at hand is how traffic‑-the volume of traffic affects the property and not whether or not there's a rail station there, what statistics, if any, do you have regarding a reduction in that traffic of a light rail system?

I believe there were several studies that I heard the council refer to and that I read that shows that a rail system in place only reduces the volume of traffic by approximately 2 percent. Is that what your studies show?

MR. FRANCK: Well, I don't believe the issue before the council is whether or not‑-has anything to do with the traffic volume. I mean, the issue before the council is the effect of the Meadowmont development, the proposed development, on traffic values [sic].

And so, you know, the studies that I'm presenting about here doesn't directly address that. But I think a lot of the other evidence that's been presented talked more to that point.

I'm not arguing about the effect that Triangle Transit Authority's system is going to have on traffic volumes in the area of Meadowmont.

MS. FULTON: Is that a correct number that I have cited, that it reduces traffic by 2 percent? I don't recall the reports.

MR. FRANCK: I don't have any‑-

MS. FULTON: TTA and the MSI reports?

MR. FRANCK: I don't have any information on that.

MAYOR WALDORF: Do the council members have any questions of Richard? You do?

MS. BATEMAN: I would just like to say I would like‑-I hope Rachel has the answer to that. Okay. Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Rachel Willis? After Rachel is Nancy Preston.

MS. WILLIS: I'll take a question at the end. I'm not sure if I can talk without the lights on, but I'll pretend.

MAYOR WALDORF: I'm sure you can.

MS. WILLIS: This is a new experience. Okay.

TESTIMONY OF RACHEL WILLIS

MS. WILLIS: Good evening, council. I'm going to actually start‑-this hearing is very narrowly defined about the traffic thing.

Am I qualified to discuss transportation impact on property values? I think, unequivocally, yes. I have a Ph.D. in economics from Northwestern University, specifically in labor economics and economic development.

I collaborated with very many members of this town council and the staff of this community and of the region in the local analysis of this question since 1989.

I served for six years as a member of the town's‑-the Town of Chapel Hill's Transportation Board. I have chaired that board.

At Joyce Brown's request in 1991, I researched and co-wrote the report on how to reduce single-occupant vehicle usage in Chapel Hill with Richard Franck, Billy Cox, who's now the coordinator for the Triangle Transit Authority, and Laura Thomas, who is no longer with us, but was the founding director of disability services and a real leader in the area of transportation and access to the community.

At Jonathan Howe's suggestion, after he was mayor and after he went to Raleigh, I ended up taking all of the UNC city and regional graduate planning courses that related to transportation in order to better understand the complex relationships between land use and transportation issues in this community.

I am now qualified and scheduled to teach transportation economics at the university. I served at the council's request on the Triangle Transit Authority Fixed Guideway Study Advisory Board.

I participated for the town in the development of the UNC outlying properties on the Land Use Panel. And I now serve as the Town of Chapel Hill's Triangle Transit Authority trustee.

I know from all of that education, experience and research into this specific issue, land use planning and transportation, that access to the community is the key to community property values. And it is, in particular, the key to community residential property values.

Richard and I did Internet search and contacted 10 of the top transportation centers across the country and pulled in papers that related. There's a number of studies that are in progress that there's abstracts up on that are not completed studies, because they're new transit systems.

The ones that come to mind are a very similar light rail system in Baltimore, a system in Washington most of you are familiar with, Metro. The preliminary evidence is in. Georgetown voted not to be part of the system. And though their land prices have gone up, they have not gone up nearly as much.

The key is that land use is what affects property values. And although rail may seem far away to some people in this room, regional rail is real. And it's going to happen, and it's going to dramatically affect property values, particularly in that corridor.

Richard, I think, has done an excellent job on the real world evidence. I'm going to try to scope it for you. The big evidence from communities which have already dealt with the forces of growth and change, which the Triangle is facing, say that property values increase unequivocally when you have regional rail. They don't decrease. They don't remain the same. The property values increase. Close walking proximity to the transit stop is the key to the amount of the property value increase.

So you want to ask the very reasonable question, will it apply here. The answer, again, is unequivocally yes. It has worked in communities such as California that did not have anywhere near the redevelopment and the new development potential that we have along the corridor.

One of the reasons that TTA's per-mile cost for a rail system are so inexpensive is that we have a lot of potential easement from North Carolina Railroad and we have a lot of undeveloped land. We're not talking about taking out a lot of buildings for it.

And we also have something that's not been discussed much in Meadowmont, a regional rail corridor through the property. It's a corridor that has had a preliminary look at the major investment study for the 15-501. It has had preliminary environmental certification.

The Corp of Engineers has designated the right-of-way for that corridor through that property. This is a real corridor. It is a corridor that everybody that was on the several years of land use property hopes to see as the corridor with access to the university from the regional rail system.

And it worked in communities with less consensus about the priorities of the total community than we have here. That may not seem likely, but listen carefully.

You come in that corridor on 54 and you see the bicentennial sign. In Chapel Hill for more than 200 years we the community have valued our cooperation with the university. We have planned for a future together.

And that future planned with remarkable historical cooperation is based on regional and local mass transit strategies, land use plans to reduce single-occupant vehicle use.

Nearly every recommendation that the town's transportation board suggested in the single-occupant vehicle use which went to council in 1993 is in this morning's Daily Tar Heel and will be at community agendas. It's an aggressive demand management policy by the major employer, the University of North Carolina.

We have planned for that future together. And it has required land use plans with intelligent decision-making by policy makers armed with real facts, policy makers who understand the complex interactions that make a community liveable. And I say this, more importantly, make a community accessible.

It is that access that The Oaks has to the community that makes it such a premier community. I sat through three wonderful hours last week of why The Oaks was so wonderful. It's wonderful because of its location. It has the benefits of the university and it has the benefits of the Triangle. It's on a corridor that enables easy access to both.

And in the time that I've lived out on that part of Chapel Hill‑-I live in the Durham County section portion of East Chapel Hill‑-it is also a community that has become connected through Pinehurst to Ephesus Church Road, Durham County, Home Depot, New Hope Commons, 15-501, South Square, Duke University, whatever you want to name. But it is a community that has access out. And it is a community that has very high property values precisely because of its location.

To deny physical access to the fixed guideway corridor through Meadowmont seems wrong. To deny it based on the false perception of decreased property values is irresponsible.

Regional rail is real. I want our community to be part of it. It's not guaranteed. We're Phase 2. It is the only way that we prepare for access to the community.

You asked 2 percent. Something like 70 percent of your traffic is peak hour on that road. And it's people trying to access jobs, education, health care, entertainment events at the university. And region rail has tremendous ability to reduce the amount of that traffic.

It is the only way we prepare for access to the future, to the educational, employment, entertainment and health care resource that makes this region strong.

Proximity to that transit hub in Meadowmont will increase the property values there unequivocally. It will give all of us, whether we can afford to live in The Oaks or not, access to the university and access out to the Triangle, to each other.

And, most of all, it will increase the property values of those residents that are fortunate enough to live in walking distance to the golden corridor of the fixed guideway system.

I fully expect it to be rail. And I wish I was a person that lived in a neighborhood where I could walk to an energy-efficient, resource-kind alternative way to access my work, my schools, my health care, my entertainment and my life.

I hope you will see the writing on the wall. We cannot stop development. We can't stop it in Chapel Hill. We can't stop it in the Triangle. But we can plan intelligently for it and we can plan for the traffic.

Meadowmont is a plan because it has the rail corridor that permits that. It is up to you, each and every one of you, to truly understand these facts and translate them into a community that is accessible to all of us.

I assure you it will not harm property values in The Oaks. The reverse is true. And, more importantly, it will increase the value of Chapel Hill in every imaginable and valuable way.

A long time ago an old economist, John Stuart Mill, had a quote which magically popped up on my Peace and Justice calendar last Wednesday as I prepared for the hearing.

I don't live quite near Meadowmont. I won't be able to walk to it unless you put some sidewalks in, Cal. I don't have a financial interest in The Oaks.

The quote on the calendar last Wednesday was "One person with a vision is more powerful than 99 with interest."

I want you to know I never drive on 54 past The Oaks that I don't see the train going by.

I urge you to approve Meadowmont and give this community the rail corridor that helps solve the problems of growth. Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Are there any questions of this witness? Susan. Please come forward. The folks trying to keep a record of the hearing can't hear you if you're not speaking into a microphone.

MS. FULTON: I don't believe anyone's objecting to the light rail or‑-more importantly, we're talking about the volume of traffic that is projected.

And I still, not to be difficult, didn't hear the answer to the question, what effect, if any, does light rail have on traffic volume.

And I had in my notes that the TTA and the MIS, I believe it is, said 2 percent. You said 70 percent of the cars on the road were going one way or another. But you didn't answer‑-

MS. WILLIS: The 2 percent figure quoted in the 15-501 corridor major investment study is how many cars will it take off the boulevard, 15-501 boulevard.

It has very little to do‑-just for the public record, we're not looking at light rail. If you went on either of our demonstrator trains, we're looking at full-size rail.

There's a phenomenal different in the carrying capacity and the flexibility of the vehicles we're looking at. In particular, to handle game traffic, Dean Smith Sports Arena traffic, when you look at the traffic-generating problems, the types of technologies we're looking at are specifically designated to some peak hour things. It's not just the Dean Smith Center. It's the state fair. It's other peak hour schedules.

The traffic generated in the Meadowmont corridor is predominantly traffic trying to access the community, the university and jobs in and out and health care.

That 70 percent figure is a modal split for who's going to what destination. And I know that from various university transportation and parking studies. Not everybody's going to ride on rail.

You're asking me what the modal split is. I don't know. It depends on how well the redevelopment is around the stops. But 2 percent is strictly what will it do on 15-501.

Let me make a very stark contrast between the type of development that we've let happen on 15-501, Lowe's, Home Depot, New Hope Commons. I wouldn't walk to any of those places from the boulevard. And I certainly wouldn't do it with shopping.

The development proposed in Meadowmont is a development that has internal mixed use on site, that has worked with the Town of Chapel Hill Transportation Board to accommodate bus shelters and surveys, to accommodate the rail corridor, has worked with the TTA and with the university even very recently in the siting of and the curvature of the train lines about where this would go such that we have a maximum number of dense uses at the stop. And that's what impacts the number.

This is what is so radically different than California, which had the development in place. And they're still doing very well with it. It is positively impacting property values.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you. Flicka, did you have a question? No? Any questions of council? Okay. Thank you very much.

The next speaker is Nancy Preston. Sorry. Nancy, you just walked in? We can let somebody else go. You want a couple minutes?

Eunice Brock. And then after Eunice, Nancy Preston.

TESTIMONY OF EUNICE BROCK

MS. BROCK: Good evening, Mayor Waldorf, members of the town council and citizens of the community. My name is Eunice Brock.

First of all, I want to thank the members of the town council for the endless hours they spend in public hearings such as this, not to mention the voluminous files of information they have to read on each issue. We citizens owe them a debt of gratitude.

I would also like to say up front that I have not been paid for my opinion, nor has anyone asked me to speak out about Meadowmont.

Some of you know that through the years I have taken a stand on various issues, whether they are a benefit to my business or a liability. And I'm doing the same tonight.

The Court has charged the town council to block work on Meadowmont until it can be shown that the project, in the language of the Court, will, quote, "maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property," unquote.

At the March 11 public hearing real estate consultant for the developer, Mr. Perry, presented evidence that the proposed project would not decrease value of surrounding property.

Opponents of the project, predominantly residents of The Oaks, voiced strong, emotional objections, but little evidence. Some speakers spoke about how the project would ruin Pinehurst Drive, which is now a nice, quiet place to jog, bike and roller blade. Others said that they would no longer be able to view meadows and wildlife.

Many of The Oaks residents would prefer to see homes like their own rather than garages, swing sets and teeny, tiny houses, as one speaker put it.

Most opponents thus focused on how Meadowmont would change the quality of their lives. The quality of their lives would indeed be changed. But the question before the council is whether or not Meadowmont would maintain or enhance the value of their property.

I have lived in Chapel Hill for 39 years and have been in the real estate business for 35 years. During that time, I have seen many changes. Thirty-five years ago we could diagonally park on Franklin Street, walk to all necessary shopping and speak to friends and neighbors along the way.

Before the Village Green Apartments were build behind my home, I heard screech owls and whippoorwills, but no longer. I regret this. But on the other hand, I like to be able to walk to a park, schools, shopping and doctors' offices, as many in The Oaks would be able to do if Meadowmont is built as planned.

I have also seen changes brought by new roads and developments. Years ago, people complained at town meetings about shopping centers, offices, schools and other projects proposed near their homes. But now they welcome the conveniences.

And their property values have continued upward without pause. In fact, many newcomers to Chapel Hill seek neighborhoods offering such amenities.

What does change property values is an oversupply for the demand. If Mr. Perry is forced to abandon his present plans and use underlying R-1 zoning, there will be many more houses similar to the ones in The Oaks.

The old Economics 101 maxim that oversupply brings down prices will potentially devalue home prices in The Oaks. We all learned long ago to our regret that we may get what we wish for.

The present plan for Meadowmont as earlier approved by the council offers a 70-acre park, land for a middle school, a mass transit corridor and a diversity of housing, including affordable apartments and homes, all positive contributions to our community.

If Mr. Perry is forced to abandon this vision, the potential is for many more homes priced three hundred thousand ($300,000) and up.

Concrete evidence has been presented by professional appraisers that the homes in The Oaks will not be devalued by Meadowmont. And based on my experience of selling over 1,500 homes in Chapel Hill, the value of The Oaks homes will be enhanced by Meadowmont, not devalued.

The citizens of this community realize you, our town council, have a heavy burden on your shoulders. And you and each of us can empathize with the residents of The Oaks.

But we also have faith that each of you will weigh the evidence and base your decision only on the facts presented and determine whether the proposed project will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property.

We are convinced you will do your duty regardless of what your personal feelings about Meadowmont may be. Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you. Are there any questions of Ms. Brock? Does the council have any questions? Thank you very much.

Nancy Preston. And then after Nancy Preston, Madeline Jefferson.

TESTIMONY OF NANCY PRESTON

MS. PRESTON: Good evening, Madam Mayor, council members. My name is Nancy Preston.

I came last week to speak about property values as they relate to living on a connector street, since I thought that that was the topic that needed to be discussed. But many other issues were addressed last week, so I will also make some more general remarks about Meadowmont toward the end of my statement.

In 29 years of living on a street that directly connects the east and the west sides of Chapel Hill our property values have not suffered.

North Street, my street, is a narrow, hilly, gravel-sidewalked street, a sidewalk that invites you in fact to walk in the street, that is used by all our neighborhood.

As property has changed hands, many young people live in our neighborhood, walking to and from the corner bus stop each day. They get off‑-they leave from there in the morning and are delivered there in the afternoon, walking home.

Numerous children have learned to ride their bikes, their skateboards and have roller-bladed, learned to roller blade, on our street. We have gym classes that jog on our street. We have pedestrians that walk on our street.

In 29 years of living on North Street, a connector between east and west Chapel Hill, we've had two people injured, to my knowledge. Too many, to be sure, but not a terrible statistic in 29 years.

In that time, our area has also opened up. When I first moved there, there were only woods behind my house. Now there is a road that opens up all of the Coker property, and upwards of 30 homes are in that area.

In all of that time, with all of those homes, apartment buildings, small houses on small lots, large houses on large lots, a varied array of different kind of housing, our property values have not suffered.

They have not suffered from the connector. I believe that the connector of Pinehurst to the new development of Meadowmont would not harm the property values there.

I've spoken to many people throughout our community, including residents of The Oaks, who are afraid to speak up for fear they will intimidate or make some of their neighbors mad by saying that they in fact support this project of Meadowmont.

And they support it throughout the community, people I've talked to, because it is well planned. It represents planned growth, growth that will come, undoubtedly, but growth that is planned.

Mr. Perry is a local builder. In the eighties we had lots of builders come from California, from Atlanta. They did their thing, and they left.

Mr. Perry is a local builder. He's going to be here. He's going to live with this project himself. He wants to do a project that will benefit the entire town. He wants to do right by our community. I think we should celebrate this fact. We should embrace this fact. And we should work with this plan.

This plan will not be in place instantaneously. It will take at least 10 years to build out. And as the new sections are brought to you for approval, adjustments can be made. You all know this.

I think it's important to point out some things that have been said in this chamber and in the press that are not correct. For example, the retail office space will not be the size of New Hope Commons. That's blatantly false.

It's modeled on a main street plan with diagonal parking and other parking behind. It's very pedestrian-friendly. I think this is an asset, something that people would like to live close to.

Of the 420 total acres of this project, 130 acres, nearly one-third of this entire project, is preserved green space. This is a place, preserved green space, where wildlife can live naturally, not on two-acre lots developed all over the 420 acres.

Now, in my situation on North Street, I have to get in my car to go anywhere. I need to shop for anything. I can't buy milk, I can't‑-unless I want to go get a T-shirt. I could walk downtown and do that. Or a cup of coffee. But in general, I have to get in my car to go anywhere.

There will be the chance in Meadowmont to walk for all those things that you need, an effort to reverse the dependency on driving that we all know about.

From my experience of living on a connector for all this time and general observations from my experience in this community, I believe that the values of property in The Oaks will only be enhanced by the proximity of this new, exciting, well-planned and inviting project.

I urge the council to approve the infrastructure special use permit on April 6. Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Are there any questions of Ms. Preston? Mr. Carsanaro.

MR. CARSANARO: Thank you. I just have one question. Do you live in the Franklin Street Historic District area?

MS. PRESTON: I do.

MR. CARSANARO: Thank you.

MS. PRESTON: Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Does the council have any questions of Ms. Preston? It looks like we don't. Thank you.

Madeline Jefferson and then Bruce Merrifield.

TESTIMONY OF MADELINE JEFFERSON

MS. JEFFERSON: Good evening, Mayor Waldorf, members of the town council.

I would like to speak in broad terms about traffic on the whole eastern side of Chapel Hill. I believe that traffic is one of the most important factors in determining a neighborhood's sense of character, quality of life and ultimately impacts directly on property values.

Let's compare Highway 54 East to Highway 15-501 North, the Chapel Hill-Durham thoroughfare. Approximately 41,000 cars use 15-501 North daily. About 35,000 cars are presently using Highway 54.

Meadowmont is expected to generate an additional 30,000 cars daily. This will total approximately 65,000 cars per day on Highway 54. Where will all this traffic go? These cars will spill over onto neighborhood streets, Oakwood, Rogerson, Burningtree, Cleland and Pinehurst. The intersections will be overloaded.

An independent traffic study by the Town of Chapel Hill has not been done. And studies of I-40/ 54 and 54/15-501 have not been done by the DOT. We have relied on and updated Mr. Perry's studies.

Highway 54 in front of Meadowmont is a four-lane road. And the applicant at one time proposed that the highway be widened to nine lanes in front of Meadowmont, but not to the east or west of Meadowmont. Imagine the bottleneck that will occur when 65,000 cars are funneled from nine lanes to four or six lanes on Highway 54 each day.

Many of you think that mass traffic [sic] will solve this problem. The MIS study of the 15-501 corridor has concluded that 7 to 8 percent of the trips will be reduced by light rail.

At 41,000 cars at an 8 percent reduction means the reduction of about 3,300 cars, still leaving 38,000 cars on 15-501. If applied to Highway 54, an 8 percent reduction will mean 5,200 cars and leave about 60,000 cars on Highway 54. This is still an additional 25,000 cars daily in addition to the 35,000 on there now.

Last week you saw a picture that Bill Davis presented of about 65,000 cars leaving Washington, D.C., bumper to bumper. He failed to mention that the Metro, one of the finest systems in the world, runs along that road and stops every one-half mile for passengers to enter and exit.

This is not to attack mass transit. But we have to be realistic. Any project this large will have a direct effect on the whole eastern side of town from I-40 to the 15-501 interchange and certainly on all our neighborhood streets. This is what directly affects our property values and our quality of life.

I urge you to obtain an independent traffic study of the impact of this development on all the surrounding neighborhood streets, Burningtree, Rogerson, Oakwood, Cleland and Pinehurst, and to ask the DOT to prepare a traffic impact analysis for 54/ I-40 and 54/15-501.

Last week Mr. Swift, who is one of Mr. Perry's experts, commented, "Face it. Chapel Hill will never be the utopian community that it once was." I disagree.

We all know that Chapel Hill has growing pains. But if we are wise and plan well, we can grow without destroying the essence of Chapel Hill. We are still a relatively small community. We don't have a lot of room left to grow.

As our elected and appointed leaders, I urge you to obtain all of the information that you need to weigh all the testimony that you have heard at these hearings and to make the most intelligent, thoughtful decision that you can for our community.

Your charge is to answer this question. Will this property enhance property values on contiguous property? I believe you have a greater charge. Will this property enhance and maintain the property values of all the surrounding neighborhoods and will this project enhance and maintain the quality of life as we have known in Chapel Hill?

And I believe this is the legacy that you will leave. Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you. Does anyone have any questions of Ms. Jefferson?

MS. ANDERSON: I just had a quick clarification.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay.

MS. ANDERSON: Madeline, would you just repeat the total number of cars that you suggested would be on Highway 54 East? It was in the fifties.

MS. JEFFERSON: After the 8 percent reduction?

MS. ANDERSON: Yes. Right.

MS. JEFFERSON: Okay. There will still be‑-there will be 5,200 cars less, leaving approximately 60,000 cars on Highway 54.

MAYOR WALDORF: One more question, please, Madeline? Yes.

MS. EVANS: Madeline, does that number mean that everybody rides in a single car alone?

MS. JEFFERSON: Well, this is what is projected, that the 30,000 additional cars is the projected figure that Mr. Perry has given us.

MS. EVANS: I think that number represents that no husband wife are going to ride into campus together.

MS. JEFFERSON: Well, I think this is actually trips, additional trips.

MS. EVANS: It's from the applicant's traffic study.

MS. JEFFERSON: Right. But they're using, as I understood it‑-and maybe we need information on this from George himself there, or somebody‑-that it is the worst-case scenario in that everybody gets into a car by themselves.

MAYOR WALDORF: Let's ask the applicant to address that after everybody who signed up has spoken.

MS. EVANS: Okay. Thanks, Madeline.

MS. JEFFERSON: Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Bruce Merrifield. And then after Mr. Merrifield, James Scatliff.

TESTIMONY OF BRUCE MERRIFIELD

MR. MERRIFIELD: I'm finding my speech here. I have it in my son's homework folder. I just got in late from Nashville. I missed my‑-my plane was canceled. So I'm a little flustered.

Madam Mayor, town council, Mr. Perry, wherever you are, citizens, I was here last week, and I sat through four hours of, you know, activity. And I was surprised by the Perry team's false logic and what they specifically did not cover.

By finding neighborhoods in other cities for which we can't know the total story or local ones that were not really comparable, they concluded, basically, that more traffic was good for property values.

And I guess if I took this to an absurd conclusion, I probably should run home and sell my house on Pinehurst Drive to the throngs of people who are out there having a spontaneous auction to try to give me a higher price because it's such a highly desirable property and perhaps move to Highway 40 where the real appreciation will be.

But then the reality of my neighborhood in the last 29 months set in. When the council decided to change the rules of the game, in other words, a whole neighborhood had built out and people made investments and very large investments based on certain assumptions, that Pinehurst would be a connection and there would be R-1 zoning in sort of an Oaks IV kind of development.

But instead, the town council decided in October of 1995 to go with a massive, mixed-use, commercial, et cetera situation.

And so for the next 29 months our neighborhoods have been under a cloud. And during that time there have been a lot of homes that have been put up for sale and have sold.

And I would think that if Mr. Perry and his associates wanted to make a case that was relevant, they should have gone and looked at that data. It would be very easy to find all the homes that were put up, what price they were put up for, who was selling them, why were they selling them. We could do a little bit of an interview, et cetera. How long did they sit there, what prices did they sell for.

We could take the ones‑-we take two piles of homes. We could take the ones that are on main drags and we could take ones that are sort of off the drag. But, you know, a big problem would be how do I turn on to drag, perhaps. And say, "What happened to these two pools?"

Now, that would be interesting data. That would be very compelling. That is the marketplace. That's the context of what we have to know. What they gave us was, I thought, irrelevant.

But I can offer you some anecdotal evidence‑-and I'm sure that a lot of other people will, too‑-as far as what's happened in the last 29 months.

My curbside view across the street from me, gong left to right, nine out of ten homes in a row were put up for sale in the last 29 months. At one point it was embarrassing, there were so many "For Sale" signs. Because this is such a highly desirable neighborhood.

And then on either side of my house, not directly next to my house, but a couple down, there was a house, one on each side, that was put up, too. So there was 11, total.

And as new people finally did buy these homes, as a neighbor I would go over eventually and meet them and, you know, get to know them. And in seven situations I said, "Gee, when you bought your home‑-" and they were all out-of-towners, incidentally‑-"when you bought your home, did you know about Meadowmont?"

And five out of seven people said, "What are you talking about?" I said, "Oh, you know. This is what's going to‑-" I gave them all the facts. They were shocked.

Two out of seven people, one from Greensboro and one from Durham, actually said, "Oh, I asked my real estate agent about it. They didn't offer‑-the real estate‑-I had to ask the real estate agent. They said, 'Oh, it's not a big deal, you know, better shopping.'"

And they kind of thought, "Oh, well, that's good." I guess, not having lived here, they didn't know we had an excess of shopping, as the rest of the United States also has. And so they said, "Well, that's good."

But when I told them the rest of the story, they, too, were upset. In fact, they were so upset, they are seven of the 72 people who have contributed not just their time but their money for us to go through this legal process.

And when you look at the 72 people‑-and there are others that have said, "Oh, sign me up. Count me in. If and when you need more money, I will put money up, too." So, measurably speaking, that's a lot of people from our neighborhoods that are doing it.

Now, when these 74 people go to sell their house at some point in the future, I suspect that out-of-towners could come in, but this time they're not going to be naive suckers.

Meadowmont, let's imagine it, has happened, will be there or it will be in process. And they'll say, "Oh, I see. We've gone from a recreational, aesthetic asset here to a thoroughfare connected to New Hope Commons. What should I put into my investment model?"

Personally, I would suggest about a one-time 10 percent reduction in property that sits right on a main thoroughfare like that. Now, that's just my humble opinion.

I don't doubt that 15 years from now, if I went to sell my home, that I would sell it for more than I have invested in it if for nominal inflation reasons‑-you know, inflation will carry it higher. But I still would sell it for 10 percent less than what I could have or would have. And I think that's against the law.

At the outset of our last meeting, Mayor Waldorf requested new information that was relevant to property values. If I stepped back and took a 10,000-sort-of-foot view on what's going on, I have a new concern.

Last week somebody put up a picture of a commuting thoroughfare going from the Maryland suburbs into Washington, D.C. which was obviously a planning disaster.

I dare say that years before there were hard-working town council members and there were optimistic estimates from, you know, developers and they sort of trusted certain forecasts or whatever. And they were obviously way off, weren't they?

And, you know, fortunately, I don't have to commute 54 to 40. But once in a while when I have to go catch a plane at rush hour time, I have that experience. And I would hate for anybody in our town to have to have a one-hour, in-and-out, sit-in-a-parking-lot experience as they crush out to Highway 40, sort of a funnel effect.

Well, I noticed the other day in the Raleigh News & Observer, where I have to get all my information on Meadowmont and so forth, because they do better coverage, that‑-let's see here.

Their information is that Mr. Larry Goode, the highway administrator from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, who overruled the Department of Transportation's engineer's strong recommendations to put in an overpass for Meadowmont, has been subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury starting yesterday, March 17. The FBI is investigating Department of Transportation irregularities, including the spending from the state's Spot Safety Account.

The News & Observer reported in December that Mr. Goode had set aside 2 million dollars a year from that fund and used it to pay for projects sought by politicians.

Now, I have some exhibits here which I will give you. They are articles reprinted without permission from the Raleigh News & Observer web site.

From February 20, 1998, "Federal probe may focus on Goode and Garrett, former secretary of the Department of Transportation."

And January 24, 1998, "Developer doc took private route. Meadowmont got rid of overleaf proposal."

Now, you know, I don't know who these authors are that did this and I don't know what their ax is to grind. Obviously, they think they've got a big scandal cooking, and they've been on these guys for some time.

And, you know, I think that what comes down here in the final analysis is dimensions of trust. Now, I'm going to assume that Roger Perry went to Mr. Goode and did the straight-up, fair thing.

But like the Reagan administration said when it came to removing ICBM Russian missiles from Eastern Europe, "We really trust you, but we would still like to verify. We'd, you know, like to just count some of them and see that they're really going," and things like that.

So I would suggest, given this cloud, that we might want to trust people but verify things, at the risk of having a parking lot 10 years down the road, if that's the legacy you want to leave. It's happened in other cities.

The other thing is that when it comes to trusting the developer's numbers, bring in experts, here's what's going on in Charlotte, Greensboro. Here's high thoroughfare already on Franklin Street. Add a few more people, a few more cars. What's to do? Nothing. Of course. The model hasn't changed.

Here are the taxes you're going to get. Accept my five assumptions that go into these numbers, compounded optimism and so forth.

You have to say, "Well, gee, I wonder how developers' forecasts always work out in the last analysis."

And so the other dimension of trust is trust is a track record. Now, Mr. Perry, apparently, has done other developments in the past. Have any of you called the town councils then, past and now and said, "Gee, this guy came into town and gave you a bunch of numbers and forecasts and so forth. How accurate were the forecasts?"

I know that the federal government for every dollar we've sent them over the years, in the great macro analysis, they've somehow spent a dollar fifty-eight ($1.58).

So, you know, a lot of times these things don't work out. And so I would like you when you think about back to the narrow issue of traffic estimates and can we trust these and so forth‑-I'd like you to put that into consideration.

And, finally, I would go back to the 72, ‑3, -4 people who put their money where their pain is, not to mention their time, and all the other people who may not yet have contributed, but certainly have put their time there, too.

I wouldn't discount these people. They are the market. And if and when they ever sell, they have to sell to people like themselves. And for whatever their wild, irrational thinking is that goes into why they ever bought into these neighborhoods and made those kinds of investments, in some cases, very, very high-risk investments, that has to be appreciated.

You understand that in supply and demand, let's say, the New York Stock Exchange, if a stock goes up for the day or it goes down, if somebody's a big buyer or a big seller and they surpass more than 5 percent of the daily volume‑-if I'm a seller of more than 5 percent of the daily volume, I start driving the price down. If I go in and I'm a big buyer and I buy more than 5 percent of the daily market, I start to drive the price up.

I dare say that all these people who have measurably shown up with their time and their money, they are the market, and they're way past 5 percent of the neighborhoods. And so you shouldn't discount that. Thank you very much.

MAYOR WALDORF: Are there any questions of Mr. Merrifield?

MR. MERRIFIELD: Do you want copies of these?

MAYOR WALDORF: Yes, please. If you'd pass those out, that would be‑-Mr. Sitton, you have a question?

MR. SITTON: I'm Larry Sitton. I'm the attorney for Meadowmont. Mr. Merrifield, what's your address?

MR. MERRIFIELD: 921 Pinehurst.

MR. SITTON: These sales you were talking about, if I understood you correctly, there were 11 sales since 1995 on Pinehurst?

MR. MERRIFIELD: One house turned over twice. No, this is just in my‑-looking up and down the street.

MR. SITTON: Right. What are the addresses of those houses? The reason I'm asking is that Mr. Sprouse and Mr. Heffner have looked at a lot of these comparable sales. I'm not sure that those aren't in the figures we gave you last week. But we're going to present that evidence. I just need to know which houses you're talking about.

MR. MERRIFIELD: Well, I don't know the numbers offhand, but I'll get it for you.

MR. SITTON: Well, you need to get them tonight.

MR. MERRIFIELD: Well, I will tell you one number. 913 Pinehurst. Ben Zeitz put 1.5 million dollars into it. He finished the construction in October of 1992‑-1993, I think. And he put his house on the market in the summer of 1996.

So you passed Meadowmont in October of 1995. It sat on the market for a year and a half, and he sold it for two-thirds of the money he put into it. That's what happens when you put enormous money in a neighborhood where you want to have privacy and security and there a lot of volatility there. So that would be just one egregious example.

Three people directly across the street from me are people who are empty-nesters. They're suffering from maltuition of sort of the college sort. So sooner or later, they had to downsize. As soon as Meadowmont was announced, they put their houses on the market.

Now, they could be patient. They waited. And one guy finally had to take his house off the market. It was getting to be a little embarrassing.

But finally they all were able to sell. And so that was a rash of a certain kind of person who said, "I'm getting out of here before things get worse."

In all cases, they had to sell the house for significantly less than what the appraisers and the real estate people initially had mentioned.

And one last point is if Meadowmont is such a great property-preserver or enhancer, why would the real estate agents, who arguably might know more about Meadowmont than anybody else, not tell this, not use it as a selling point, but in fact not even mention it in five cases and basically soften it and not give complete information in the other two?

MAYOR WALDORF: Mr. Merrifield, I think we need to note that Mr. Sitton is asking you to‑-not at the podium and not now, but to cooperate with him to help him identify which houses these might be so that, not necessarily tonight, but at least for the record, that he can have an opportunity to check that information.

MR. MERRIFIELD: Well, let me ask you. I think Judge Battle said that there hadn't been enough proof by somebody else, not necessarily the neighborhood, that property values‑-so why do I have to come up with proof? I am telling you anecdotally what's going on. I think these gentlemen, you know, can go gather the data.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Fine. Thank you.

MR. MERRIFIELD: I mean, you know, I'm going to resist having them have me do their work.

MAYOR WALDORF: All right. Mr. Sitton.

MR. SITTON: Let me just ask one other question. Mr. Merrifield, have you looked at the presentation we made last week to see if the properties you're talking about were listed on the information that we gave the council?

MR. MERRIFIELD: No, not specifically.

MR. SITTON: So you don't know that they weren't in there.

MR. MERRIFIELD: I don't recall in your presentation where you said, "Here are the homes in the neighborhoods affected that were put up for sale," how long they sat there, what they sold for and comparing ones off thoroughfares as opposed to on thoroughfares. I don't remember that at all.

I remember another neighborhood and I remember Franklin Street. But I don't remember the specific information from our neighborhoods.

MR. SITTON: Madam Mayor, we're going to put this kind of evidence on later.

MAYOR WALDORF: All right.

MR. SITTON: We can put this very evidence on right now if you want to do it in that kind of sequence.

MAYOR WALDORF: Let's just have it later. I'd like to‑-

MR. MERRIFIELD: Are you suggesting that you didn't do it last week or you're going to do it tonight?

MR. SITTON: I'm suggesting we did do it, and we'll do it again, if you want.

MAYOR WALDORF: Sir, I believe what he's suggesting is that it's in the documentation, but perhaps was not presented orally last week.

MR. MERRIFIELD: Okay.

MAYOR WALDORF: So‑-okay. Thank you. Mr. Scatliff. And after him, Mr. Carsanaro.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES SCATLIFF

MR. SCATLIFF: Thank you for the opportunity to address you. My name is James Scatliff. I have been a member of the medical faculty at UNC for a long time. I am a radiologist, and I subspecialize in pediatric neuroradiology.

I would like to bring forward three observations. The first relates to a very important reduction of traffic flow on our home street.

My family and I have lived on Arrowhead Road in Greenwood for 30 years. Until five years ago, traffic going east on 15-501 as it approached the 54 overpass and drivers who wished to turn onto 54 going toward the university had two options.

They could use the cloverleaf exit, but many turned on Arrowhead Road as it joins Christopher Road at that time, because it was immediately accessible to the bypass.

This frequently resulted in people who made the wrong turn looking for 54 going to the campus or worse. Speeding cars on Arrowhead Road were there trying to circumvent waiting cars on the cloverleaf.

Five years ago the state closed the entry from 15-501 to Arrowhead. My neighbors and I feel there has been a significant reduction of traffic on our street.

Have property values been maintained or improved? I don't know. I do know that two families who bought homes adjacent to ours in the last five years feel their children are safer because there's less traffic.

I believe it is very difficult to answer the question about property values versus traffic flow, whether we look at an anecdotal four houses on Burningtree Drive, as we did last week, or the two homes I've just mentioned on Arrowhead Road.

The real estate I am familiar with is the brain and spinal cord. If those tissues are severely injured and the patient survives, there will never be a return to normal neurological function.

All it takes is one car and a child or driver looking the wrong way for this to happen. I believe it is less likely to occur if there are fewer cars moving through a well-defined neighborhood of homes. There is no doubt there are now more people walking or jogging on our street. Certainly children cross through to their friends' homes in greater safety.

My second observation is that automobile access from Greenwood to 54 or 15-501 is increasingly more difficult. There are only two exits that we can use, one from Greenwood and the other from Christopher Road. There is a third along the gravel extension on Christopher Road going west to 15-501, but it is seldom used.

My neighbors and I are playing automobile roulette as we try to get on 54 or 15-501 between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. or 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. If we cross over these roads, we may drive out halfway and wait on the pavement median. Needless to say, this is a dangerous step, particularly on a rain-filled, dark night.

I doubt that further traffic-calming steps will be put in place to help with this. Reducing flow to and from Meadowmont on 54 will.

Lastly, I know the council has been asked specifically to look at property values and traffic flow. I believe the issue about property is much broader than that.

Some years ago a well-known journalist, Vincent Shehan, wrote a book called Personal History. In it he said, "The major problems of the early twentieth century, World War I, the advent of communism, worldwide depression, came about because many business and political leaders took a short-term view of the needs of their country and themselves."

What is needed now is not just a decision for the short-term, but one with a long view in view, as Mr. Shehan emphasized. The long view, I believe, for our community in 50 years or 100 years or 500 years will be that of a community here that has become part of a metropolis that extends from Atlanta to Boston with suburbs in between.

Those who come after us will need every bit of green space possible, and I would suggest more than the 70 acres that is being suggested for Meadowmont now.

Think what Central Park preserved for New York City, what the Luxembourg Gardens did for Paris or Wimbledon Common in London. There is open space to be enjoyed by many.

For Meadowmont, if we need a middle school, let's put it there, and only the school. If we need a reasonable amount of affordable housing, do it, and only that. Best yet would be to keep the trees, the grass, the flowers and open sky as they are now.

Mr. Perry, I think it would be marvelous to call it Perry Park. If this were done, your legacy, with some help from us and state and federal resources, would be remembered and appreciated for many years to come. The future would praise us for our vision. If we don't have that vision, our generation will be censured because we didn't. Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you, sir. Any questions of Mr. Scatliff? Mr. Carsanaro and then Ms. Fulton.

TESTIMONY OF JOE CARSANARO

MR. CARSANARO: Hi. My name is Joe Carsanaro. If Roger declines, you can call it Carsanaro Park.

You all have a tough job before you. Because you're being asked to approve the "Full Monty," everything. No negotiation, no discussion. The whole thing, up or down.

And that's got to be tough. And I'm sure it's tough for seasoned council members, people who've been here, been through it before. But it must be especially tough for new council members.

However, if it's not completely clear that this project maintains or enhances contiguous neighborhoods, then I hope and I trust that it's‑-there's more pressure for you to say no and approve only a project that we can all live with, that we can all live comfortably with. Because we're going to have to live with this project for a long time.

I've heard some people say that there isn't information to prove property values would not be enhanced. And I'd like to just call your attention to some information that I believe clearly demonstrates that this project and the traffic it generates in fact will diminish property values if approved in its current form.

This includes Reginald Morgan's first appraisal letter submitted to prior hearings that concluded property values would be reduced. It includes the first Analytical Consulting appraisal study for the houses south of Pinehurst that concludes if the project is approved as is, these property values would be reduced.

It will include Analytical Consulting's second report that I've read for all of Pinehurst Drive that concludes properties all along Pinehurst will be reduced if this project is approved in its current form.

It included a Kansas City study that was a study using empirical data, a lot of data, for a case similar to this. However, it was not a case where the people were arguing, the two parties arguing their points, did the study. It was a neutral study. It concludes that values will be negatively impacted by the increased traffic.

And if you look closely at the developer's own appraisal report, the report where they did matching pairs on Kingston Drive, two out of the three properties, two out of the three value points, lead to the conclusion that traffic does impact property values.

So they looked at three properties. They looked at matched pairs, properties on a busy street, properties off a busy street, alike in every way except traffic. Two out of those three points show that the properties on the busy street were worth less dollars per square foot. That's included in a letter from Mr. Brough.

I'd like to introduce the following information, the following evidence, into the record. First is an MLS printout for all the properties sold in Silver Creek, Chesley, The Oaks I and The Oaks II in 1996 and 1997.

A summary of that data for 1997 and 1997 in a letter from a Prudential real estate agent, a solicitation, that includes all the houses sold in The Oaks from 1993, 1994, 1996 and 1997. And apparently she lost 1995.

Here's the information in its entirety for the record and a copy of some of the information in summary form for the council. I'll do my best to be brief and to the point.

When you look at different evidence, you have to ask yourself, where did it come from and why is it there and what are the points that people are trying to argue? And I think you heard from one of the appraisers last time that they could argue either point.

What I thought was really interesting was I got a letter of solicitation from a real estate agent. And I didn't know what it was. It basically was a listing of all the houses that sold in The Oaks in 1997.

So I called the person up and asked her, "What is this letter about? Why did you send it to me?" She said, "I send this out every year. It's a copy of all the homes that sold in The Oaks. And it shows the average price per square foot, the selling price, and the date." So I asked her if she had earlier copies.

So this isn't information that I generated. This is information that a real estate agent put together and sends out every year to everyone in The Oaks.

And when I looked at the data‑-and I walked through it very quickly‑-I asked myself a question. And that's why I did a comparison.

In 1993 the average price per square foot, $106.13. In 1994 the average price per square foot‑-or is that 1995? I'm sorry. 1995, on the next page, $112.49. In 1996 the average price per square foot, $118. It sold in 1996. In 1997 the average price per square foot, $117.85.

So when I saw that, I asked her, "You know, I don't understand this. Your letter is so optimistic, but the prices went down." She said, "I know. That's a problem. That's why my letter was so vague," which is why I ended up calling.

I thought, "This is strange. I wonder what it looks like compared to other neighborhoods." So I plotted 1996 versus 1997, all the houses that sold in Silver Creek, Chesley and The Oaks.

And what you can clearly see is that Silver Creek, the values went up 10 percent; Chesley, the values went up 7 percent; Oaks, the values went down 7 percent.

And I recall in one of the earlier reports I mentioned written by Reginald Morgan & Associates, an appraiser‑-and I will quote, "Since the proposed Meadowmont subdivision has come before and has been approved by the council, property values in The Oaks have been stagnant, while the rest of the town has seen continuing appreciation and prosperity," end quote.

And again, I just hope that you'll consider this data when you're answering the specific question, does this project enhance or maintain property values.

I'd like to make one other unrelated‑-well, semi-related point. And this has to do with traffic volumes. There were a number of places‑-a number of firms that have done traffic studies related to this project. Kimley-Horn did a study, and we reviewed the data. And the data is summarized in this table. And it's on the form that I presented during the last hearing.

Carsons & Briggerhoff did a study as well. The Town of Chapel Hill had done a study on Pinehurst Drive. And a consultant that we hired from George Mason University did a study.

And I'd like to just make a couple of quick points and then ask a couple of questions. If you look at Pinehurst today, the Kimley-Horn study indicates the forecast is 3,000 trips per day. However, about a week after‑-sometime before the hearing, but subsequent to the Kimley-Horn report, the Town of Chapel Hill did a study. The date was May 17.

Their conclusion was the actual count was around 1,989 per day. So the Kimley-Horn study was off by 50 percent. If you look at the forecast of 5,500 subsequent to the Kimley-Horn study, but before the hearing and in the evidence, Carsons & Briggerhoff did a study. They concluded that if the connection was open and the project was the size that it is, approximately 6,500 cars per day would be generated on Pinehurst. That's off about 20 percent.

And they're 20 percent and 50 percent off in the wrong directions. So we're estimating the current level too high. It's actually much lower. We're estimating the future level a lot lower when other studies show it's higher, which means it's going to be much worse than it is today, not only on Pinehurst.

And the questions I have are do we really know what we're getting here, have we asked all the questions, what's it going to be like on 54, what's it going to be like in these other neighborhoods.

This project with an open connection is too big for The Oaks II. It's just too big. This project with a closed connection is too big for The Oaks I and Little Creek and some of these other towns‑-streets. I'm sorry. And I ask you to make your own conclusion. Is this project just too big?

I'm happy to answer any questions.

MAYOR WALDORF: Any questions of Mr. Carsanaro? Okay. Thank you very much.

MR. CARSANARO: Thank you for your time.

MAYOR WALDORF: Ms. Fulton?

MS. WIGGINS: I have a question.

MAYOR WALDORF: Oh, excuse me. Joe, just one question.

MS. WIGGINS: If you have information about Mr. Carsanaro's sheets where he gives the selling price per square foot‑-if we want some refinement of this, do we get it from him or do we ask the developer to get the refinement?

MR. CARSANARO: I might suggest the‑-well, I'd be happy to provide you with additional information. But I think maybe‑-

MS. WIGGINS: I mean, that question came up before. I mean, as long as I get the information, I don't care. I'll ask it of the developer.

MAYOR WALDORF: When speakers have finished speaking, why don't we get advice from the staff and see if the applicant has information on that.

MS. WIGGINS: Okay.

MR. CARSANARO: Let me just, again, clarify what I gave you. I gave you copies in that thick binder of all the homes that sold in each of those neighborhoods. And they were summarized and totaled.

There's one sheet that I didn't give you that I could, which is a list of all those homes summarized and totaled. Actually, I think it might be in there. If it isn't, I can get that.

MAYOR WALDORF: I think it is. Yeah. That's your first page, isn't it? Yeah.

MR. CARSANARO: I think it is.

MAYOR WALDORF: It's in here. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. You had a question?

MS. BATEMAN: Not a question, but I don't have a copy of this. If I could get one. There's one that has to be submitted for the record, so we're short one.

MR. CARSANARO: There's another copy right there. Thank you again.

MAYOR WALDORF: No, but‑-we'll get it. You can have that one. Ms. Fulton? And then after Ms. Fulton, Burwell Ware.

TESTIMONY OF SUSAN FULTON

MS. FULTON: Good evening. First I'd like to deliver a copy of a letter from Arnold Loewy, who spoke last week. I don't want to forget to give that to the council members.

The issue before us, we've been reminded more than several times as to what it is‑-and I remind you that it is not whether rail should be built. I also remind the council and, I believe it was Ms. Brock, that this is a continuation of the hearing in which we did present and have testify two appraisers who put into the record evidence that the property values would be reduced.

So what is the issue? The issue before us tonight is whether the infrastructure permit as it was passed by you, the council, with an open connection enhances or at least maintains the value of contiguous properties.

And we are here because, let us not forget, the development ordinance of Chapel Hill requires this finding, among others. It requires that this should be made when a developer applies for his master land use plan and special use permits.

Our development ordinance as amended in 1996 requires these findings, because it was written to protect Chapel Hill citizens and their fundamental rights to safety, quality of life and their constitutional right for their property, that their property cannot be taken from them or devalued for the benefit of another. And in this case, a development‑-a developer.

Now, your question may be, do the citizens or the developer have to provide us, the council, with more evidence or who must be more persuasive, in other words, who has the burden of proof.

Well, since this case is technically irregular, I submit, I would suggest that you look to each of us equally. And the question whether the burden of proof is on the developer or on the citizens as a rebuttable presumption just may have to be clarified in the legal arena.

So what is imperative, council members? It is that the developer and citizens submit, as you've seen infinitum now, substantial, relevant and competent evidence that this development must maintain or not maintain, enhance or not enhance the value of contiguous property.

And in the broad sense, this means that the developer and the citizens must both present facts, information, statistics, numbers and that their comparisons must be supported‑-or must support the similarities that they claim.

So I urge you when you look at the evidence, at the appraisals, at the numbers, please look at them with scrutiny. Look at all the evidence submitted last Wednesday, last year and tonight.

And I do submit that you will see that the citizens clearly‑-that their evidence, both from their appraisers and directly from the citizens, speak to the diminution of the value of the contiguous properties, especially on Burningtree and certain properties on Pinehurst. And I will not review all the comparison of appraisals, because it seems like it's been done quite well tonight.

You, council members, and Madam Mayor, like every other group of elected officials are entrusted with the responsibility of doing this balancing test. Think of all the other elected officials in our United States, Congress, House, Senate and in the North Carolina government, both state and local, that have throughout many times proposed pieces of legislation in good faith, that have worked vigorously for years to promote projects, proposals that have cost millions of dollars and to be voted down. Not because it wasn't a good idea, but because it was determined by a review of the evidence by a majority of those elected officials that it did not serve the citizens and that such balance became clear as a result of our democratic process.

Yes, here in Chapel Hill many years have been spent, have been put into this Meadowmont project. Much time and money has been spent. Many people are clamoring that the business community needs it, the university needs it, the school board, the transportation board need and want this project. And perhaps there are some good reasons.

But the development ordinance was written to protect the citizens. The council before you studied. They did study. They did deliberate and agonize over Meadowmont. The former mayor and council worked hard to introduce something into Chapel Hill development that was unique and different from suburban sprawl. And perhaps that was good. But the development ordinance was written to protect the citizens as well.

So what is really good, Madam Mayor and council members, is that we are here tonight because you, the city council, and we, the citizens, of Chapel Hill have respect for this democratic process.

And I ask that you with that same respect for the process and for the development ordinance and its legislative intent, the legislative intent behind it‑-that you review the information, acknowledge the facts, not with a bias, not with a personal agenda, and not with concern that you must finish what others have started, but with the concern that you will better what they have started and finish what the community needs.

The community needs less traffic, and the citizens need their fundamental rights to use, enjoy and maintain the value of their properties, protected by you, the elected officials, and not taken from them for the benefit of another. Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you. Any questions of Ms. Fulton? Mr. Ware? Burwell Ware? Is he not here tonight? Okay. He signed up last week. Mr. Donald Sweezy? And then after him, Bruce Ballantine.

TESTIMONY OF DONALD SWEEZY

MR. SWEEZY: I'm afraid that I didn't get my hands on the documentation from last week until late on Monday, so it's been something of a challenge to put something together. And if you're missing any pages in what I just handed out, please let me know and I'll try to fill them in.

MAYOR WALDORF: For your information, for everybody's information, the record will still be open after tonight, so other evidence can be submitted.

MR. SWEEZY: Will this work as a hand-held (indicating microphone)? Can I pull this up?

MAYOR WALDORF: I think the one over there is better, sir.

MR. SWEEZY: The question before you tonight is unusually narrow.

MAYOR WALDORF: We're not hearing you. Can somebody help him?

MR. SWEEZY: The question before you tonight boils down to, have you received convincing evidence in this hearing, which means last week and this week, from the Applicant to support a finding that property values will be maintained or enhanced by the Meadowmont infrastructure which you are being asked to approve.

The evidence that was presented was presented by three gentlemen who have substantial credentials, and I'm quite impressed with the amount of work that was done. And they did a good job of collecting numbers, and I think they did a good job of presenting the numbers.

But I think as you will see very shortly, their conclusions are not supported by those numbers. In fact, they are exactly wrong.

There were three types of analysis presented last week. The first type of analysis looks at a neighborhood where traffic has gone up. You saw this last week. This is from the first presenter, Mr. Swift.

It looks at a neighborhood where the traffic has gone up and examines the sale prices, or really, the purchase price, of houses in that neighborhood which were purchased before the traffic went up, and compares that to their prices after the traffic went up.

Did we get the mike working? I don't know if I'm getting recorded or not, but--

MR. WALDON: Here he is.

MR. SWEEZY: Oh, good, yes. Thank you.

The flow of Mr. Swift's analysis was to look at the average annual appreciation which he had computed through here based on the purchase price, which was shown here as "Previous Sale," and the sale price, shown here as the "Current Sale."

And then he took an average of the annual appreciation numbers and found that on the average, for the set of houses where traffic had gone up, there was a 2.6 percent increase in their sale price compared to their purchase price.

They presented several examples from different cities around the state. I'm only looking at the Raleigh example, which was the first one in the book, and I'm afraid that's as far as I got, so--I didn't select it for any other reason than that.

What is missing here is handling of the effect of inflation on the relationship between the purchase price and the sale price.

Last week you heard me ask specific questions about inflation and its effect on these numbers, because--well, number one, as far as credentials and qualifications go, I do have a degree in economics from the University of North Carolina, and I earned that degree back in the 1970s when inflation was very high.

And appreciation, or the importance of it, was drummed into me at that time. But, if you look back to the days of high inflation, we all learned that if you had a bank account that was earning 5 percent while inflation was at 8 percent, you were not making money. You were losing money.

Specifically, the value of your asset, of your investment, went down over time. The dollar numbers got bigger. At the end of the year you had 5 percent more dollars in your account than when you started out, but each of those dollars was worth 8 percent less than it was at the beginning of the year.

That means that you lost money.

And the same thing happens here. What I have done, on the next slide, I'm just dropping off these columns and looking over here, and then we'll add a little to them.

The first thing that we have to add to them is a correction for inflation. What I've done here is to take the published numbers produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Department of Labor--they provide the authoritative number on the Consumer Price Index. And that information is at the back of the packet that I just handed you. It's four pages of minutiae, and I wouldn't recommend, really, trying to read it at the moment.

But what I have done is to correct these numbers for their place in time. And the effect of that correction is to express them in 1981 dollars. Those numbers in themselves are not the important part, though.

What you see when you look at the appreciation or depreciation of the homes is a big change. Here, without considering inflation, everything is positive. It looks like they all made money. When you consider inflation, you see big negatives. And those homes lost value.

Converting them to a real annual appreciation rate, this column would be directly comparable to the column which Mr. Swift presented, and really based his conclusion on.

In fact, though, this tends to reduce or minimize the severity of the effect that the traffic had. Remember that this example was selected by an experienced and knowledgeable real estate professional as a place where any change in the price would be principally the result of the change in traffic.

So, that's what we're looking at, the impact of traffic. Finally, I want to show you two things. Number one is, that what we wanted to do, if you recall, was look at transactions where a house was bought before the traffic went up, and compare that to its sale price after the traffic had gone up.

In fact, though, the purchase date, the "Previous Sale" column, on many of these houses are after the traffic went up. In the text that accompanied this table it is stated that the traffic went up, that the extension and connection of that road occurred in 1992. It does not state what date in 1992, but simply identifies the year.

Here you will see, though, a purchase in 1993 which produced a relatively high appreciation number; another purchase in 1993, a high appreciation number; a purchase in 1995.

In fact, if we look only at the homes which were clearly purchased before the traffic went up‑-that means those with purchase dates before 1992--this is the story that you get. Each of them lost money. I think they all lost big, myself.

But those losses range from a low of $12,000 to a high of almost $77,000, and the mean loss was $33,000, $33,800. Here I'm expressing the dollars that I'm using here simply by taking the percent change in real price times the sale price when it was finally sold.

Most of these are in almost current dollars. You see they are 1995 through 1997. So this is getting up to present-time dollars. And this is the kind of loss that owners of property in The Oaks on Pinehurst and on Burning Tree have to anticipate, if they own that land when the traffic goes up, when Meadowmont goes in.

There's been a lot of what I regard as confusion about what happens in the case of an increase in traffic. What I've shown here, the dots are the data from the preceding discussion. And I'm sorry, I really should have gotten rid of them, but time ran out.

But this is a graph of the averages that you get off of that first model. On the average, or the average of the purchase dates, was in the second half of 1991, and the average of their sale dates was early 1997.

That average loss of $38,000 occurred whenever it was that the traffic went up, sometime in 1991. So I've kind of arbitrarily placed it there. We don't know exactly when it was.

When you're trying to understand the arguments about traffic's impact on property values, here's what happens. You start out, everybody's happy, their property is appreciating. An event occurs. Increase in traffic is very similar to a tree falling on your garage, your neighbor building a fence across the middle of your back yard.

It's a one-time event which suddenly takes value away from your property. In this case you can't see it happening the way that you could if--well, like that garbage truck taking out somebody's kitchen in Raleigh.

You can see those. You can't see this. But the effect is the same. All of a sudden your property is worth $30,000 less than it was. It then continues to appreciate. It's part of the neighborhood. It's getting the same benefit of market activity as everybody else. But you have lost this money and you don't get it back.

The second type of analysis that was presented last week--this is a chart presented by Mr. Sprouse--looked at appreciation rates of homes that are on high traffic streets and compared them to homes that are off of high traffic streets, but in the same neighborhood.

You don't have this chart in your packet because it is one from the developer. You may recall, though, that I asked specifically during the question period, is it possible that a house on Pinehurst, where traffic is high, which was identical to a house off of Pinehurst, where traffic is low, the chart makes it look like the Pinehurst house is better off. It's got a higher growth rate.

Does this indicate in any way that the price of this house on Pinehurst is higher than the price of the house off of Pinehurst? And Mr. Sprouse's answer was, no, it does not indicate that.

He acknowledged that this is interesting stuff, but it does not apply to the question of whether houses on high-traffic streets are negatively impacted compared to houses off of high-traffic streets. It really doesn't tell you anything.

So, as you are reviewing the evidence that was presented by the development team, keep in mind when they are talking about a comparison of appreciation rates, it doesn't tell you anything.

Now, the third type of analysis that was presented was to compare average prices of homes in the neighborhood off of high-traffic streets to those in the same neighborhoods on high-traffic streets. And the key presenter here was Mr. Heffner.

He talked about comparing homes on Franklin Street to homes off of Franklin Street. As you may recall, he found that the average price per square foot of homes on Franklin Street, high-traffic homes, was substantially higher than the average purchase price off of Franklin Street. This was a big surprise to quite a few people.

I think you will see why he got that result. Here they are. And if my father is watching at home on television, I know he is going to tell me, "Son, you've got too much information on these slides." So let me apologize up front to all of you. He's right. But I really like this stuff, you know.

The bars on the left are the homes on Franklin Street. The bars on the right are off of Franklin Street. And again, the source of this is the development team's data. Here is what's doing it.

These two homes sold very recently for a whole lot more than any other houses on Franklin Street. You may recall Mr. Heffner threw out the million dollar home. Well, it would have been well up here somewhere. He didn't stop--or he stopped too soon, because these guys should have gone as well.

Here is why they should have been excluded. This is Mr. Heffner's table. So it is not repeated in what I handed you. Those homes are in the top group in a very recent time period, and here they are, above $200 per square foot, where their closest competition is less than $150 per square foot.

The reason that they should have been thrown out is right here. This column is the year built. Both of these homes are over a hundred years old. The market for classic homes is very different from the market for homes along Pinehurst or pretty near anywhere else in town.

Including them in here is like including a 1938 Packard in an analysis of whether odometer readings decrease the value of a car. If you're comparing it to regular used cars like real people drive, then it's going to blow away the whole comparison. And that's what has happened here.

So what do we find from Mr. Heffner's analysis? First of all, whoops--that's a little harder to do than I expected. I'm afraid my hands are shaking.

What he found was that the average price per square foot on Franklin Street was $145; off Franklin Street it was $120. A big difference, a 21 percent difference. He, too, did not adjust his numbers for inflation.

And if you look at the actual prices and dates, the bulk of the off-Franklin Street homes were sold farther back in the past than those on Franklin Street. That meant that their values were distorted down. They were understated in his numbers.

When I did the same kind of correction using the Consumer Price Index to adjust the prices to fit the times of the sales, you find that the difference goes to zero at that point, even including the two hundred-year-old homes.

When you remove the two hundred-year-old homes, you get a much clearer view of the comparison between Franklin Street and off-Franklin Street--high traffic and low traffic. And the difference is homes on the high-traffic street sold for 12 percent less per square foot than homes off of the high-traffic street.

Those folks--it doesn't hurt someone who buys that house, because the loss of value has already occurred. But if this happened to someone who bought a house when it was in a low-traffic neighborhood and the traffic went up, if things worked the way that they do on Franklin Street, that person would lose 12 percent of the value of that home.

And for a $300,000 home, that loss is $35,000. Here again, we're looking at over $30,000 impact, totally separate example, totally separate set of numbers developed by totally separate analysts.

I think at this point we can conclude, number one, you do not have new evidence which supports Judge Battle's requirement. You don't have evidence that supports a finding that the project will maintain values. You have a lot of authoritative evidence which denies that finding.

Number two, in a broader sense, this is a bad public policy decision. What you're looking at here--and I think that several of you may feel that the advantages to the town and the value to the town to be gained by going ahead with Meadowmont would outweigh the costs of going ahead with Meadowmont.

I agree. I think this is a good project in a lot of ways. I like the idea of mixed use. I like the idea of having commercial and professional facilities right there where the new population is going to have access to them.

I especially like the idea of including new schools in new building. But what are we saying if we go ahead with this design? We're saying that it's okay to severely injure a few citizens in order to get benefits for the many. I don't agree. I think that type of thinking is the basis for some of our worst public policy mistakes.

And finally, all of the evidence that was presented last week said nothing about the impact of having R-3 density development right next to those five houses on Burning Tree. And I think you'll see in some of the information that my wife is going to present that just the presence of the development threatens the value of all of the homes.

But certainly having R-3 density right there next to those five homes, that's going to hurt them even worse. If you go ahead with approving the special use permit, and like I say, I don't see really how you can at this point--if you do, please include a condition which would require that the density behind those homes be adjusted so that it will be compatible with the existing large-lot R-1 single family homes that are there.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions?

MAYOR WALDORF: Any questions of this witness? Mr. Perry.

MR. PERRY: You can use that, you can use this, whichever you prefer.

MR. SWEEZY: I'd kind of like to face them. I'll trade with you. I kind of made that mistake last time.

MR. PERRY: That's fine. The first question I'd like to ask is what was the inflation rate in 1981?

MR. SWEEZY: 1981--

MR. PERRY: Which was your baseline.

MR. SWEEZY: 1981. The Consumer Price Index for it was 90.9. That means that prices in 1981 were .9 the level that they set for the indexing.

MR. PERRY: Well, as compared to '80, they went from 82.4 to 90.9. So that means that in 1981 there was an inflation rate in excess of 10 percent. Is that correct?

MR. SWEEZY: That's correct. From '81 to '82 the inflation rate was 6.2 percent. From '80 to '81 it was 10.3 percent.

MR. PERRY: Ten-point-three (10.3), right. So you started with a baseline of 10.3 inflation rate. By starting--

MR. SWEEZY: No. No, no, no, no. The Consumer Price Index--

MR. PERRY: Why did you pick 1981?

MR. SWEEZY: I did not. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Department of Labor did.

MR. PERRY: Picked it on what regard?

MR. SWEEZY: It's an arbitrary selection as far as how you use the numbers is concerned. Here is the document that I got my numbers from. And the averages are repeated in the World Almanac. It's generally used numbers.

MR. PERRY: Let me just ask you. You're an economist. Doesn't starting your baseline in a year where there is high inflation, considerably higher than we are currently experiencing today, skew the overall values of these homes through that period of time and artificially props them at a very high level in those early years, which compounds itself and makes the litmus test for whether they have appreciated or not much, much more difficult to pass?

MR. SWEEZY: No, not at all. Absolutely not. The effect of using the index does away with the inflation. It converts the numbers back to a constant valued dollar.

MR. PERRY: Well, then why would you not use--on each of the sales, why would you not use on those sales that occurred before the connection was made and after the connection was made, why would you not use the year that they were first--the first transaction occurred, why would you not use that in each of those examples?

Why would you not start at that point and use that inflation rate at that year for each of those sales in figuring how those homes performed during the period between the first sale and the second sale?

MR. SWEEZY: I'm not using an inflation rate. I'm using an index, an expression of each of those prices in terms of 1981 dollars. The reason that I used 1981 dollars is because that is the basis for the published Consumer Price Index from the government.

I did consider using either a floating‑-or what I would kind of have preferred to use would have been 1997 or 1998 dollars, because that would really phrase this more in real terms for right now. But that would have required--

MR. PERRY: Fine. Let me ask you this. If you had started at a zero base in those years that the initial transaction occurred, and then used the inflation index for the subsequent years until the second transaction occurred, would the numbers have been different?

MR. SWEEZY: No, the results would have been exactly the same. The only difference would have been where I've got a dollar value expressed in 1981 dollars. That amount would have changed, but all of the relationships--let's see. Oops, I'm sorry, that was your numbers. It didn't do that.

All of the relationships, the percent increases, the appreciations--no, those are your numbers. Anyway, the comparisons would have been exactly the same as they are. So, this column, these columns would have changed, but the relationships between them, the percent appreciation and the annualized numbers would have stayed exactly the same.

MR. PERRY: Not being an economist, I'll take your word on that. Let me ask you one final question.

MR. SWEEZY: Well, really, I kind of apologize for the minutiae of that discussion, but‑-

MR. PERRY: No, that's fine.

MR. SWEEZY: --the key thing is, if you do not factor in inflation, you produce misleading results. And I think we all understand that.

MR. PERRY: You've challenged the Council to interpret the ordinance, and I think Ms. Fulton did the same thing. Have you all read, or do you see anything in the ordinance that says that property values must be maintained and enhanced inflation-adjusted?

MR. SWEEZY: Absolutely. That is what value means. And my example of a bank account whose numbers of dollars went up, but its purchasing power went down, is exactly what happens. You're losing money if you don't keep up with inflation.

MR. PERRY: That's interpretive on your part. I see nothing in the ordinance that says it must meet that test. That's all.

MR. SWEEZY: I look forward to the results of that test.

MAYOR WALDORF: I believe you've both gotten your point down to a final statement that was very clear on both your parts. Thank you.

MR. SWEEZY: Were there any other questions?

MAYOR WALDORF: Any questions from the Council? Okay. I just want to--thank you very much.

MAYOR WALDORF: I wanted to point out to the council and to everyone here that we have six more speakers who signed up to speak tonight. Then there are three people signed up who wish to speak a second time tonight, and then the applicant wishes to have time for rebuttal.

I hope that we can get through all these speakers tonight so that we can continue the hearing for decision, but not to have to have another night of testimony.

The next person is Bruce Ballantine, and after him Lee Butzin.

TESTIMONY OF BRUCE BALLANTINE

MR. BALLANTINE: Thank you. Madam Mayor, members of the council, the subject I have to address is just a single subject, and this will be brief.

I understand that at the previous public hearing there was testimony presented that compared the walls on Weaver Dairy Road, the need and the cost of those walls, in regard to‑-a comparison of that part of town and those developments to a potential reduction in property values along Pinehurst Drive due to an increase in traffic that was anticipated due to the Meadowmont connection.

I am here to speak on that subject as the designer of Chesley subdivision, as the designer and developer of Silver Creek subdivision, which are the two neighborhoods that have the buffer walls on Weaver Dairy Road.

All three of these neighborhoods, The Oaks, Silver Creek and Chesley, are similar in one regard. They're all in the same general price range as far as lot and house values.

There is absolutely no similarity between Weaver Dairy Road that adjoins Silver Creek and Chesley and Pinehurst Drive. And that's what I wanted to speak about.

Weaver Dairy Road, which abuts both of the Chesley and Silver Creek neighborhoods, is designated by DOT and the Town of Chapel Hill as a major thoroughfare. As it's widened, it's widened to 73 feet in width back-to-back of curb and gutter, which is five lanes of traffic and two bike lanes.

Similar other roads in town, if you're not familiar with Weaver Dairy, are Airport Road, which has the same design standard, N.C. 54 West, which we know as Raleigh Road, between the campus and the bypass, and East Franklin Street.

These roads were all built five lanes wide with curb and gutter. And today's standards add bike lanes to the older standards, which is five lanes.

This type of road can carry in excess of 20,000 vehicles a day. Weaver Dairy is expected to carry over 13,000 vehicles a day by the year 2000.

The town does not allow driveways off of these major thoroughfares, so that lots that face on a thoroughfare have to back up to it. So it's the rear yards that face on Weaver Dairy Road in both Chesley and Silver Creek, not the front yard as in The Oaks situation. It's the front yard that fronts on Pinehurst Drive. It's the public side of the house, not the private.

The reason for the wall is twofold. One is just for marketability, so that the back yards of those homes that are in Chesley and Silver Creek that back up to Weaver Dairy Road‑-the back yards are the private side of those homes. That's where the patios and the decks and the kids' play equipment is.

The town also requires that a buffer be built along these thoroughfares that adjoin any residential neighborhood. So walls are built, one, to satisfy a town requirement, two, to satisfy a marketing requirement as a buffer screen between a residential lot and a town thoroughfare that is a major town thoroughfare.

The comparison, then, between Pinehurst Drive, if you remember what I just said about Weaver Dairy and Airport Road‑-Pinehurst Drive is listed in the town's design manual as a collector road. It's listed on DOT's regional thoroughfare plan as a minor thoroughfare. Quite a bit different from major.

Town roads that are similar in design to‑-there are‑-other collectors that are similar to Pinehurst are Kenmore Road, North Lakeshore, Burningtree Drive. All of those roads have lots that front on them. The driveways access those collector roads. The front yards front on those roads. The back yards remain private.

To equate the Chesley‑-Silver Creek wall to the situation that might occur in The Oaks is totally erroneous. The two are completely separate.

Increasing traffic on Pinehurst Drive by connecting Meadowmont just does not equate the situation that we have on Weaver Dairy Road.

That was what I came to speak about tonight. But I was curious to see the graphic that showed‑-and I was pleased to see the graphic that showed Silver Creek's prices so high over the last couple of years. And the reason is that in the back of my mind I have been watching the sales be very aggressive in Silver Creek.

And I think back to a couple of years ago where we sat in this chamber and heard a special use permit for the school system, which now we know as East Chapel Hill High School.

If you remember, the Chesley neighbors at the time‑-there was a vacant piece of land across Weaver Dairy Road. The Chesley neighbors were extraordinarily panicky and fearful about what was going to happen with the development of that school.

Also, the Chandler's Green neighbors were also very upset. You spent many hours, many nights in here deliberating that development proposal.

What I have seen over 30 years of following land development in Chapel Hill is that oftentimes it's not the land development that becomes the problem in the long run. It's the short-term fear of that development.

In fact, the lots in Silver Creek that are selling for the highest prices and the quickest sales right now are all the lots that back up to the school. People are looking at our neighborhood. They want to be next to that school.

In fact, now that East Chapel Hill High is in that part of town, it is a very nice neighbor. And I would have been placed in the category that was dubious four or five years ago.

But in fact, that land development proposal has been a plus. And I've seen that in Chapel Hill over many, many years, where we fear a future project. The reality is we all use it, we all like it.

And on my street in Silver Creek, if seven or eight homeowners had decided to all put their homes on the market at the same time because of a fear of the school coming next door, their values would have dropped. There's no doubt about it. There's no doubt about it.

Hang in there, Bruce. Your value will be up once Meadowmont is built. Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Any questions of Mr. Ballantine? Bruce, someone would like to ask you a question.

MS. BROOKS: Yeah, I have one quick question.

MAYOR WALDORF: Would you identify yourself for the recorder, please?

MS. BROOKS: I'm Sue Ann Brooks from Burningtree Drive. I testified last week.

MAYOR WALDORF: I remember you, but she needs to know.

MS. BROOKS: I have one question. And that is, when the Chapel Hill High School was built, were any trees taken down on the Chesley side of Weaver Dairy or the Silver Creek side? When the high school was built, that was a very treed area. Were trees taken down in either Silver Creek or Chesley?

MR. BALLANTINE: The site of the high school was a wooded site. It's a 70-acre piece of property that was all wooded. Chesley is across the street from the school, across Weaver Dairy Road. Silver Creek is on the same side of the road. And Chandler's Green is on the same side of Weaver Dairy as the school. All three of us abut the property.

The school, if you are familiar with it or drive by and look at it today, it is pretty well clear-cut. When you build a school site, you don't leave too many trees. There are some clusters. There are buffers that were left. New plantings were planted. But pretty well, that site‑-you can't build a ball field and a school and parking areas without taking down the trees.

Now, did the school come over on the Chesley lots and cut trees? I'm not sure that's what you meant, but that's what I heard. No. They cut trees on their land. They left a little ribbon of trees along Weaver Dairy that is kind of spindly. But‑-

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Butzin and then‑-

MS. EVANS: Joe's got a question.

MAYOR WALDORF: Oh, I'm sorry. You had a question of Bruce? Bruce, one more question, please.

MR. CARSANARO: Hi. Real quick. Bruce, are you either a licensed appraiser or a licensed‑-this would be "yes" or "no"‑-licensed traffic engineer for the state of North Carolina?

MR. BALLANTINE: I'm a registered professional engineer, not a land appraiser.

MR. CARSANARO: So the answer is no?

MR. BALLANTINE: No.

MAYOR WALDORF: Mr. Butzin? And then Jeff‑-

MR. EISCHEN: Eischen.

MAYOR WALDORF: ‑-Eischen. Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF LEE BUTZIN

MR. BUTZIN: You're moving this right along, Madam Mayor, and I'll try to keep it moving.

Mr. Brough wanted me to submit the complete study that I'd given you a summary on from Kansas City. So that's what I'm delivering to you tonight.

And as he pointed out‑-and maybe I didn't emphasize it when I testified earlier‑-I put a great deal of credibility in that study. Because you've seen three appraisers on one side say one thing, and two appraisers on the other side say another thing.

And I would like to say that I respect‑-at least, I know the two fellows that are local on the other side, and I have considerable respect for them. So you might say why do we come to different conclusions.

If you'll indulge me, maybe I can try to answer that question. Because two appraisers can in good faith come to different conclusions. And, at least, as I look at the data, I can see why they might have come to different conclusions. And it might be that they started with a different premise.

And the first thing I would like to point out, again, is that one reason why I even agreed to do this testimony is‑-when I was first asked, I said, "There is not enough data in Chapel Hill to prove what you want to prove, that the traffic will lower your value."

But then I found that study. I was out working for the tax assessor in Kansas. It was actually in Johnson County, Kansas. And, as you all know, tax assessors do not like to lower taxes.

But in this case, this particular tax assessor was catching a lot of static from a lot of taxpayers who said, "I live on a busy street. My house is worth less than the house one block over."

So he did commission a study in a larger market than ours, somewhat larger. And it was a study where the houses are a lot more homogeneous than ours are in Chapel Hill.

One of the appraisal issues in Chapel Hill is that all our houses tend to be different from each other. They're custom or semi-custom. We don't have the nice cookie-cutter houses that you find, particularly, out in the midwest or in Chicago or some of the big cities out there.

Kansas City has a lot of these cookie- cutter houses. So you can do what appraisers call a matched pair, because you have a house over here and one over here that's nearly identical. And in the case of this study, the only difference was a busy street.

And in summary, what that study found was that, at least in that part of the world, once you hit about 3,000 cars a day, there is a difference in value.

Now, when we appraisers start talking about this, the first question that you as a council have to ask is what is the question. And the appraisers that said there is no diminution in value, approximately 50, 60 percent of their argument was they took data‑-they took two sets of data, one on the street and one off the street.

And they said, "The growth is similar. We have measured the growth over a number of years." And I wouldn't argue with that. But what is possible is you start with a base here and a base here, and then it grows at the same rate.

So they're only asking the question in that part of their data, is there going to be growth on both a busy street and off a busy street. And certainly I don't have any data that would controvert that. There probably would be growth, particularly in a very nice neighborhood like Pinehurst.

Likewise, you've heard testimony about what a rapid transit station might do to property values. I have read many of those studies. It will enhance it. But that is 15 or 20 years in the future.

And the question that was given to me is, what will happen to property values if we go from 2,000 cars a day to somewhere between 5- and 10,000 cars a day. We don't know.

And based on the study I found in Kansas City, it's pretty clear that once you hit somewhere in the neighborhood of 3- to 5,000 cars per day, there is a measurable diminution in value.

Now, the second area‑-and Mr. Sprouse's study studied the exact same street I did, Kingston Drive. And he used a very similar method, matched pairs, which I think is the best method to use in a study such as this. And he came to an opposite conclusion.

I looked at his data, and I compared it to mine. And I said, "How can this be? I respect Bob. He's a good appraiser. He comes to the opposite conclusion that I do. He says there's no difference in value." I said, "There probably is."

Well, I think, partly, when I started my study, the question I was asking is will the data support this thing in Kansas City. And I suspect that what Mr. Sprouse may have been asking is will the data prove a diminution in value.

And, yes, there probably isn't a statistically significant sample which can prove that there is a diminution in value, which is why we need something like that Kansas City study to look at.

I looked at the data. And Mr. Sprouse used, I believe, 16 sales and showed average sales on and off about the same or within a dollar per square foot.

Just by the simple change of using 20 sales, which is what I did, there was a difference for 1996 of 2 percent and in 1998, I think, 4 percent. If you want to, I've got slides, but I won't show that. Do you want to see the slide?

MAYOR WALDORF: Sure.

MR. BUTZIN: Okay. It might be worthwhile. This was Mr. Sprouse's report.

MAYOR WALDORF: Lee, can you talk into‑-

MR. BUTZIN: Yeah.

MAYOR WALDORF: Is the other microphone working? Thank you.

MR. BUTZIN: Can you hear me?

MAYOR WALDORF: Yes.

MR. BUTZIN: You can see he used 16 sales, and there was almost no difference. The difference between eighty-eight dollars ($88) and eighty-seven dollars ($87) is certainly not statistically significant.

And I'll show you exactly the same data that I used. This was for 1994 and 1995. And for those years, 1994 and 1995, I had four sales on and two for‑-six sales off.

And it might be‑-the difference in data set‑-I might have started a little bit earlier than he did. But we had a different data set. And you can see that there is a difference. Although a statistician, given the small sample, would probably say that is not a significant difference, which is why I get very nervous about small samples.

But when I looked at this sample, nevertheless, it did corroborate what we saw in Kansas City.

This was my second data set, which was over the years 1996, 1997. And you can see that I used six sales off and five sales on. And it showed a slightly larger difference.

So here you've got two appraisers looking at pretty much the same data. It's slightly skewed. One says, "I don't see anything persuasive." The other says, "It looks like it supports this other study I've got."

Then Mr. Sprouse did a matched pairs analysis, which‑-and I did one, too. In his matched pair analysis, if you look at it, it presents a slight amount of evidence in support of the Kansas City study, very slight.

In two out of the three instances, actually, the price on Kingston was less than the price off. In one instance there wasn't a change.

In matched pairs‑-and I'm sure that most appraisers would agree with me‑-one of the dangers is that you're only selecting a few pairs. The appraiser is making a selection. And depending on that selection, you can tell a quite different story.

Both Mr. Sprouse and I did not try to adjust our matched pairs, because then you get into a lot of appraiser's judgment. And we looked at raw data and tried to draw as much data out as we could.

He showed slight evidence which supported the Kansas City study. And I'll show you‑-I'll put my matched pairs back up so you can see--and you can see‑-this was for 1994, 1995‑-I showed similar evidence.

And I can tell you the way I picked my matched pairs. I arbitrarily picked the two that were closest together in size. I didn't pick it for any other reason. Because that was just‑-it was a good, arbitrary, objective way to pick it.

And this was the second data set that I had, 1996, 1997. And again, you can see Kingston Drive is lower in both cases. In one case, it was substantially lower.

So all together, I had four or five data sets which appeared to support the position of the Kansas City study.

And the purpose of all this is‑-and I think Michael Brough said to you, "Appraising is somewhat of a science, but also somewhat of an art." And two legitimate appraisers can look at the same data and arrive at slightly different conclusions.

But what I've tried to do is give you a little of the background of where I was coming from on this data. And I think you can see that at least it hasn't been shown that there in fact is not a diminution in value.

And the only question‑-and I purposely very much limited my study‑-is what happens to property values, all things being equal, if traffic goes up from about‑-in this case, from about 2,000 cars a day to somewhere in the 5- to 7,000.

And I'm pretty comfortable in my conclusion that, yes, property values will immediately go down. They may go up later someday when there's a transit station. They will probably go up over time. But there will be that little drop immediately.

And if the plans for Meadowmont can somehow mitigate that, I think that you will not be hurting those adjoining property owners.

MS. WIGGINS: I have a question.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay.

MS. WIGGINS: Mr. Butzin, right over here. Over here.

MAYOR WALDORF: Over here. Excuse me. Council member Wiggins would like to ask you a question.

MS. WIGGINS: When you say "will be affected immediately," what time period is "immediately"?

MR. BUTZIN: That's a good question. I don't know how rapidly Meadowmont would develop. That is the time frame that it would take to move from the 2,000-car-a-day level to the 5- or 6- or 7-.

And I might say that in my first study I tested Pinehurst Drive and didn't find much difference, both on and off. And I was surprised. Because, supposedly, those homes were being impacted, because the Kimley-Horn study said that there were 3,000 cars a day by their estimate. It turns out there are only 2,000 by the town's actual measurement.

Well, at 2,000 cars a day, according to this Kansas City study, there isn't any significant impact. There's probably some impact, but it's pretty hard to measure.

But in answer to your question, it depends on how fast Meadowmont develops. If it develops at 10 homes a month, it would obviously be faster. If it develops at two homes a month, it would be slower.

MAYOR WALDORF: Other questions? Any questions of Mr. Butzin? Mr. Sitton?

MR. BUTZIN: Oh, oh. Here comes the attorney.

MR. SITTON: I'll be nice.

MR. BUTZIN: Okay.

MR. SITTON: Mr. Butzin, if I understood you correctly‑-and I just want to make sure of this‑-you in your study were looking for evidence that supported the Kansas City study. And if the Kansas City study was inappropriate to be applied to the Meadowmont development, would that have an effect on your analysis?

MR. BUTZIN: If the conditions are completely different from Kansas City, of course.

MR. SITTON: Well, if the person who conducted the Kansas City study said that it was inappropriate to apply the Kansas City study to the Meadowmont development, would that have an effect on your analysis?

MR. BUTZIN: Well, let me say I'm not applying the Kansas City study to the development.

MR. SITTON: Well, if I understood‑-

MR. BUTZIN I am saying that there is a very significant study that showed this diminution in value. And when I look at Pinehurst Drive, I see some very similar conditions. That's what I'm saying.

I'm sure that that appraiser out there‑-if it were mine, I would not say, "I want this applied somewhere else in the country." But I can still look at the evidence.

MR. SITTON: Well, what if the appraiser out there said it was inappropriate to use the Kansas City study when you're looking at property values in Meadowmont? Would that have an effect on‑-

MR. BUTZIN: It's inappropriate to use‑-well, I don't know that I'm using it. I'm using the evidence.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Butzin? Okay. Mr. Butzin, can you lend us your transparencies‑-

MR. BUTZIN: Sure.

MAYOR WALDORF: ‑-for a little while so that we can get copies of them?

MR. BUTZIN: Yeah. Actually, I've got the hard copy here.

MAYOR WALDORF: You've got the hard copies. Okay. Thank you. Jeff Eischen, and then John McCoiak.

MR. EISCHEN: Is this on now? Okay.

TESTIMONY OF JEFF EISCHEN

MR. EISCHEN: Well, good evening, Mayor Waldorf and members of the town council. My name is Jeff Eischen.

I just want to provide just a little bit of personal information to set the stage for what I'll talk about. I've lived in the Triangle area now about 12 years. I've lived and owned homes in Cary, Durham and Chapel Hill.

During that time, I've taught mechanical engineering at N.C. State. I moved to Burningtree Drive in November of 1997, very recently. And I do have a five-year-old son.

And here I'll show you where I live. This would probably be considered ground zero in terms of what we've been talking about here.

This is Highway 54. This is the Meadowmont development, proposed development. This is Burningtree Drive. I live on the second house in, joined by four neighbors. I think we've been termed the contiguous properties on Burningtree Drive. And there's certainly no dispute about that.

What we're faced with here with the proposed development is first a 20-foot-wide buffer, which I'll make some comments about later. We don't feel that's really an effective buffer. They're basically mature trees that you can see right through, and they'll provide no visual or noise buffer at all.

This row of one-seventh-acre single-family homes is next. There's a street, another row of homes. This area in here, from my understanding, will be townhomes.

The next area over here will be commercial property, a restaurant or restaurants. I'm not sure about that. This area here is more townhomes.

I point to this area here for the following reason. The line that I'm drawing here with my pointer is along a ridge. It's the high point in the development. It's about 70 feet elevation rise above where the neighbors here on Burningtree lie and about 1,000 feet back. So it's roughly a 7 percent grade.

This is just a similar picture, just a little bit closer in, again, showing where I live and where my neighbors live and the boundary between our property and Meadowmont.

This shows a little more clearly what is going in in the area that's contiguous to us. All the components of the development are labeled here, the brownstone townhomes, office and commercial, civic commercial, restaurant and office‑-I guess the office property is across Highway 54. Again, our lots aren't labeled on this picture, but they lie in this region right here.

Now, before I talk about property values and items like that, I'd like to provide also a little bit of professional information. I have a bachelor's degree in civil engineering, UCLA. I took courses in structural design, hydrology, which is drainage, water run-off, et cetera, and soil mechanics.

I have a master's and a doctorate in mechanical engineering from Stanford. I'm a registered professional engineer. I'm associate professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at N.C. State. And I've testified numerous times as an expert witness in litigation.

Now, the question before the counsel, I believe, is this one. And this graph may actually be a little inaccurate after hearing Mr. Sweezy's calculation earlier. You can't hear a lecture from an engineering professor without seeing a graph. So here it is.

Property values against time. Most of us in Chapel Hill enjoy this type of a trend. This is what I call the maintain trend. It may or may not include inflation.

This is now. Here's where Meadowmont comes in. The question is will Meadowmont allow our homes to maintain the trend upward. Some people have even suggested that it may increase our property values. And the other option is to decrease.

Now, my concerns as well as my neighbors' are basically in these four categories--traffic and measuring traffic by levels, noise, safety issues and possibly pollution, drainage issues.

We're very concerned about construction, mud flows and stormwater run-off down the hill that I mentioned earlier, light and noise, again, levels of light and noise, both from the residential area of Meadowmont and the commercial area, which, again, keep in mind will be significantly elevated or above where our homes lie.

And then the zoning or location issue, where we have a significant abutting lot size discrepancy, R-1A on the Burningtree Drive and R-3 density in our back yards.

And then, again, the up-slope view of homes, townhomes, a commercial area and a restaurant, which will all be in very plain view from our properties.

First, the traffic concerns. I'm relatively new to the local area here. And I've tried to get an understanding of what was going on. I obtained the Kimley-Horn report just a couple of days ago.

And it's very clear in there‑-it's clearly stated that the existing traffic flows are 35,000 vehicles per day on Highway 54 and about 2,100 vehicles per day on Burningtree. That was in 1996.

I'm not only concerned with Burningtree, which is the street I live on, but with the traffic levels on Highway 54. Because the center of Highway 54 is about 250 feet from the center of my back yard.

Projected total traffic flows were not provided in the report, which I found very mysterious, only peak flows for 54 and Burningtree. And that has something to do with determining whether or not an intersection or traffic lights are appropriately sized.

So what I did is I tried to do my own projecting using the numbers in the report. And I think that's possible. Whether the numbers in the report are reliable or not is of course another question.

And I think this calculation has been done‑-it was done by one of the speakers earlier. And we got about the same answer. So again, you have an engineering professor, you've got a graph. Now you have to deal with a formula.

So here's the 2006 total, which I guess is the agreed-upon, final build-out date. So to project this total traffic on Highway 54, which, again, is what concerns myself and the neighbors, you have to account for the historical growth that would be there without Meadowmont and then add on the Meadowmont growth.

The historical growth rate for traffic in the Chapel Hill area is 2 percent. And so I've compounded this 2 percent over 10 years, going from 1996 to 2006.

I'd be curious as to whether it's appropriate to use an average traffic growth rate figure on Highway 54. It may be higher, certainly not lower than that, given all the development that's occurring in the area.

Then this number here, the 12,257, is a number that's quoted in the report as a‑-it's an equal number in and an equal number out of traffic on Highway 54. And this number has been corrected in the report for something they call pass-through traffic or some term like that. But this has been adjusted.

So anyway, the 2006 total comes out to 67,179 vehicles per day on Highway 54 in the vicinity of our area. Of course, that's just a number. To understand the significance of the number, you need to compare it with traffic in other areas of Chapel Hill.

I got some data from the Planning Department here, Mr. Bonk. He has a picture that shows the traffic on all the roads in the area.

And on 15-501 near the St. Thomas More School the traffic is 41,808 vehicles per day. On 15-501 down near I-40, 41,700.

Just based on my own experience in driving around in the area, it seemed like this number should be higher. It just seems like there's more traffic near I-40 than there is near the St. Thomas Moore School. But that's another matter.

So just compare that with what's projected for Highway 54 with Meadowmont, 67,000. So that's an unprecedented level of traffic in the Chapel Hill area.

Now, the Kimley-Horn report comes a little closer to where we live. They discuss the intersection at Highway 54 and Burningtree. In the report it's stated that there's acceptable delays now at that intersection, but it will become congested with the Meadowmont development. So the Meadowmont development is associated with congesting that intersection.

And I don't know exactly how to correlate traffic and reduction in property values. I'm certainly not an appraiser, so I really can't attack the problem that way.

But as a scientist, I have access to the Internet. And it took me about 15 minutes to find this article. It's an article out of the Road Engineering Journal, 1997, very recent.

The title of the article is "Factors That Determine the Reduction in Property Values Caused by Traffic Noise." So here we have a reference that discusses the reduction in property values and attributes that reduction to noise. So that noise must be one measure of level of traffic.

I'd like to just read the first two sentences. It says, "Environmental noise caused by traffic can reduce property values. Planners, policy-makers and legislators must look at noise damage costs caused by motor vehicles when considering transportation options."

I provided a full copy of this article to the council last week in a letter. So again, on this slide I just repeated the title of the article and then given some information about what's contained in the article.

Apparently, it's a very standard, well-established procedure to study traffic noise on roadways. In fact, the Federal Highway Administration has this method for determining traffic noise. And it's based on a decibel scale. That's a scale that's used to measure the level of noise. And in the report it states that housing values decrease for each decibel increase in noise level.

So my conclusion from this is if the traffic on Highway 54 is going from about 35,000 now to 67,000 with Meadowmont, that that has to increase the noise level. And I'm not prepared at this point to attach a number to the increase in the noise level. But a study that made some measurements in this regard would certainly be useful.

Now, from what I've read in the newspapers and so forth, one of the arguments for Meadowmont‑-and it may be a good one‑-is that there will be an alleviation of traffic levels by what's termed in the Kimley-Horn report "Transportation Demand Management," or TDM.

And basically, what TDM is is anticipating car-pooling, people riding together in their cars, telecommuting, working at home, if you can work with a computer and communicate by phone and fax, or mass transit.

Now, I wasn't able to understand what the‑-or to find any information dealing with the effect of car-pooling or telecommunicating on traffic levels. But there is some information about light rail.

There's a study‑-and I'm not exactly sure what the reference here is. Again, David Bonk gave it to me from the Planning Department. I think some other people have referred to this earlier tonight.

But along the 15-501 corridor, volume-to-capacity ratios, which are a measure of the level of traffic, decrease less than 2 percent with a light rail alternative.

There's another report by the Triangle Transit Authority that reached a similar conclusion Triangle-wide. So instead of focusing just on Highway 15-501, this study looked at a Triangle-wide value and came up with a similar reduction in traffic levels.

So this does concern me. And if the traffic levels are increasing by almost 100 percent due to the development and if some day in the future we had a light rail system that might offload some of that traffic, that the effect may not be as significant as hoped for.

Okay. A second concern surrounds drainage. My back fence and the neighbors' is about 1,000 feet from the top of the ridge in Meadowmont and 70 feet below it.

And I've drawn a picture here to scale that gives you a relative sense as to what the average slope is going away from the ridge where the townhomes, commercial office buildings and the restaurants are.

To give you a better feel for what this type of slope is, my neighbor, Ed Wise, went out today and measured the slope of the road between Greenwood Road and the St. Thomas Moore Church, kind of going up the hill into Chapel Hill. That's 5 percent. So this hill that's going to be behind our homes going up into Meadowmont is somewhat steeper.

The clear-cutting of trees in the area behind our homes and the attendant topsoil disturbance will lead to significant construction mud flows and storm water run-off down the hill.

I realize that normally during these types of developments there are silt fences put up along adjoining properties. Also based on my experience, a lot of those don't work. And there are a lot of problems with mud in the area. Anybody driving down Airport Road would certainly see some good examples of that.

Lighting and noise concerns. The ridge top includes‑-again, up here; we're down here‑-includes the townhomes, commercial offices, restaurants‑-and I'm sure there will be a lot of lighting associated with that part of the development. Both the light and the noise would be expected to cascade down the slope into the Burningtree area.

Passing through what's going to be left is a very minimal buffer. Again, I emphasize the trees that are there that will be left are very mature, very tall. There's very little undergrowth in the area. So that buffer will not really provide much of a light or noise barrier.

I think the zoning concerns have been addressed by others, the fact that the five contiguous properties on Burningtree are R-1A. And their abutting our 3-density housing with a minimal buffer is a problem. This is very uncommon, or even unprecedented.

We've studied the zoning maps in Chapel Hill and haven't seen this type of situation before. And the upslope view of the homes and townhomes, again, won't be mitigated by the 20-foot buffer.

So the answer to the question of property values and what happens in time, to me, is really pretty obvious, using just common-sense argument. And I think I've provided some objective arguments here that the Meadowmont development will lead to a decrease in property values.

Now, we can argue about what happens at this point, whether you shift the curve down and then go parallel or just what happens. But anyway, there is a decrease in property values.

And I think the developer is probably aware of this. In studying the map of the development, the largest lots adjoin the golf course, just down from where we live. And I imagine those are going to be some of the more expensive homes. The lots will sell for the most property [sic].

And the reason for that is is because those homes look out over the golf course. It's a nice view out the back of those homes. Whereas, what we're faced with for these five contiguous properties is a view of row upon row of homes, commercial offices and the associated light and noise that will come with those. Thank you very much.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you. Any questions? Edith, do you have a question?

MS. WIGGINS: I see from your data that you moved onto Burningtree in November of 1997.

MR. EISCHEN: Right.

MS. WIGGINS: Did you know about Meadowmont when you purchased that property?

MR. EISCHEN: Yes.

MS. WIGGINS: Okay. Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Go ahead.

MR. FOY: When you purchased the property then and you were aware of Meadowmont, was that a factor in pricing the home?

MR. EISCHEN: Yes.

MR. FOY: What‑-can you‑-

MR. EISCHEN: I think I got a good price.

MR. FOY: Well, I'm asking you specifically. Did you use Meadowmont as a bargaining tool?

MR. EISCHEN: Yes.

MR. FOY: As a bargaining tool to do what?

MR. EISCHEN: To negotiate a lower price.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you.

MS. WIGGINS: Can I just ask any of the realtors in town, isn't it typical for a buyer to use just about anything they can to get a lower price? I mean, almost no homes sell for their asking price, is that not right? Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Yes. A question of Mr. Eischen?

MR. PAVAO: Yes.

MAYOR WALDORF: Mr. Eischen, one more question, sir.

MR. PAVAO: The negotiated price, was that lower than the appraised value of the property?

MR. EISCHEN: Yes.

MR. PAVAO: It was.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. We've still got four more‑-oh, you have a question over there?

MR. KRISHBAUM: Mr. Eischen, I actually have four questions, I guess. What is directly across the street from your home?

MR. EISCHEN: In the front? They're called Oakwood Townhomes.

MR. KRISHBAUM: Townhomes. And if you look out your front door toward N.C. 54, what do you see?

MR. EISCHEN: I don't look out my front door and see N.C. 54. I see the trees in my front yard.

MR. KRISHBAUM: As you move out to N.C. 54 on Burningtree and look toward N.C. 54, what's in your field of vision?

MR. EISCHEN: Well, as I look towards N.C. 54, I see N.C. 54. Directly across the street are the townhomes.

MR. KRISHBAUM: Right. And where is The Pines Restaurant in relationship? Catty-cornered, basically, from you?

MR. EISCHEN: I can't see that unless I walk pretty far out in my front yard.

MR. KRISHBAUM: And next door to that is a motel?

MR. EISCHEN: I think there's a vacant lot next door to The Pines. And then there's a motel.

MR. KRISHBAUM: And you were aware of all those things‑-

MR. EISCHEN: Sure. Sure.

MR. KRISHBAUM: ‑-when you bought. One other question, if I might. You'll have to help me out with this. Your graphic on drainage indicated that drainage would reach your house all the way from the crest of the hill in Meadowmont, 1,000 feet away. Was that what I understood?

MR. EISCHEN: Given the existing topography, that's the case, yes.

MR. KRISHBAUM: All right. Well, given the existing topography, if there is a major drainage feature here, going in that direction, which there is, and a major drainage feature going in this direction in the present topography, how will that water get to you and avoid those two drainage features?

MR. EISCHEN: Well, I don't know. But there's already a lot of water. If you'd like to come over sometime when it's raining and walk along this fence, there's a significant flow of water already across the property.

MR. KRISHBAUM: My question was, how will that water get to you if there are two major drainage features between your house and the top of the hill?

MR. EISCHEN: Are you speaking about drainage features that are going to be added as part of the development?

MR. KRISHBAUM: No, I'm talking about the ones that are there presently, not to mention the roads that will intercept the drainage. How do you expect‑-

MR. EISCHEN: Well, if you can explain that, that will mitigate the drainage, that's great.

MR. KRISHBAUM: Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Excuse me. Mr. Krishbaum, you need to identify yourself.

MR. KRISHBAUM: Yes. I'm George Krishbaum. I'm the Director of Operations with East-West Partners.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Eischen. Excuse me. We've got another question. Sir, is this a question for Mr. Eischen or‑-

MR. SPROUSE: My name is Robert Sprouse. I just wondered what his address was. I missed that.

MR. EISCHEN: 1143.

MAYOR WALDORF: 1143 Burningtree Drive, right? Okay. Mr. Wise, did you want to ask Mr. Eischen a question?

MR. WISE: No. The other gentleman.

MAYOR WALDORF: Mr. Attorney, I don't think we're going to have cross-examination of somebody who cross-examined.

MR. SITTON: We don't cross-examine people that ask questions. We're cross-examining witnesses this evening.

MAYOR WALDORF: Mr. Wise?

MR. WISE: I'd like to know what that feature is there that has been discussed. I wonder if that could be explained.

MR. SITTON: We'll put Mr. Krishbaum on when it's our turn, and he can answer that question.

MAYOR WALDORF: All right. Mr. Wise, when the developer gets an opportunity to respond to questions that have been raised later, they will answer that question. Thank you. John McCoiak? And after him, Keith Cooke, who I think has given up and left.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN MCCOIAK

MR. MCCOIAK: Good evening. My name is John McCoiak, and I welcome your questions.

I currently live in Chapel Hill, and we recently purchased a property at the end of Pinehurst south of Burningtree.

My comments are in direct response to Councilwoman Wiggins's question at the end of the hearing last week about recently purchased properties at the end of Pinehurst.

A year ago, my wife and I purchased our property where we are currently building our home. We knew about Meadowmont at that time. We knew that Meadowmont homes would be located directly across the street from us on Pinehurst. And that, to the rest of you‑-I don't have my map‑-is at the dead end of Pinehurst where it turns into a very narrow asphalt strip at this time.

When we purchased our property, we were shown the developer's plans for a very attractive iron-and-stone gate that was proposed at that time for that location. And we knew that the community favored no connector at that time, and we also knew that the developer was willing to build that gate at that time.

We went ahead and purchased the lot based on that assumption. Since then, or a few months after that, the vote was taken, and we learned that the connector was to be open and that gate was not to be built.

So based on that, that reduced what was our expected value of that lot from that change in what we anticipated was going to happen. Closing that connector would then maintain what our anticipated value in that lot would be. Thank you.

Any questions?

MAYOR WALDORF: Any questions of Mr. McCoiak? Thank you very much, sir. Is Keith Cooke still here? Okay. Cynthia Tauf, and then Susan Sweezy.

TESTIMONY OF CYNTHIA TAUF

MS. TAUF: Madam Mayor, members of the city council, thank you very much for the brief moment to make a point as a homeowner on Pinehurst Street. I'm Cynthia Tauf. I live at 928 Pinehurst Drive, along with my husband.

We moved here from San Antonio in 1993, when I finished my tour of duty with the United States Air Force. We considered homes in three parts of Chapel Hill at that time and spent much of our time traveling in this area, parking on the streets and walking up and down the streets, to look at what was the neighborhood like. Because that's how I as an expert home buyer buying my first home made a decision.

And so I placed my money depending on how I judged the streets. And I stopped and asked people who were walking up and down Pinehurst, you know, "Why do you come here?" And people said, "We drive over here from another area of Chapel Hill and walk our kids." You know, people are out there jogging.

And that made the decision for me, or my husband and I, to move to Pinehurst. Excuse me. I'm not used to this.

MAYOR WALDORF: That's okay.

MS. TAUF: Our purchase, then, depended on the importance of the street. We could have bought a home like ours in other areas of Chapel Hill or other areas of this area, but we chose it because of the neighborhood.

Our final decision was made, as I said, talking with people. And it was worth looking at the dead-end streets that were in our area. And we asked specifically about Pinehurst and what was going to happen at the end of that street and what was going to happen at the end of Lancaster, which is the dead end adjacent to our house.

And we were told at that time, 1993, that there was a lovely development of additional homes that would go in. And I was not concerned with, again, additional homes at the end of the street.

It wasn't until subsequently in reading the paper that we found out that there was this large commercial project going in after we had already purchased our home.

The advice that I received and my opinion as a home buyer‑-I've talked with realtor friends in California and a realtor who is a relative‑-so these are not unrelated people‑-who all said, "How can you possibly think that the cost or the value of your home is not going to be affected by traffic going up and down the street, particularly when there's going to be a significant increase with this commercial and homes added?"

So I just basically want to say my expert testimony is as a home buyer. I saved up my money. My husband and I purchased this place. And we care about it and care about Chapel Hill.

But if I look at the value of my house, I think that as a home buyer that the traffic will decrease the value of this property of our home, especially for someone like us who's interested in a family neighborhood.

We decided to buy and invest. And as a buyer, I'd say that traffic matters. Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you, Ms. Tauf. Are there any questions? Thank you very much. Sue Sweezy? And then after Ms. Sweezy, we'll go to people who spoke at the last hearing and have asked to speak again. And then we'll go to the developer's answers to questions.

TESTIMONY OF SUE SWEEZY

MS. SWEEZY: I'm Sue Sweezy, you may recall from last year. I'm a resident of the Timberlyne neighborhood. I have not been asked to make a presentation. I have nothing to gain or lose from the proposed Meadowmont development. I am not a real estate professional. I am not a statistician. I'm a retired research scientist.

A major component of my profession is reviewing experimental data and suggesting alternative statistical analyses to be performed on that data in order to revise, refine or clarify the interpretation of the results. Refinements I've identified in clinical trial data have resulted in drugs being approved by the FDA that otherwise may not have been.

My husband describes me as being a card-carrying, relentlessly rational being.

I'm compelled to offer an alternative interpretation of the data presented on March 11, 1998, by the expert appraisers on the property value issues of the Meadowmont proposal.

I have moved four times in three states in the past 10 years. Each time a house was sold, each time a comparative market evaluation was prepared by three real estate professionals. Every one of those 12 real estate professionals stated the real estate mantra that you can not include sales that are more than one year old in a comparative market evaluation.

The Meadowmont appraisers violated their own mantra by comparing property values over a seven-year period. The reason you cannot include sales more than a year old is because of the Economics 101 maxim, that dollar values must be adjusted for inflation over time in order to be compared. We've heard a lot about that earlier this evening. The Meadowmont appraisers violated the economics maxim by not adjusting the property values for inflation.

I appreciate that a great deal of data-gathering was performed. And I thank the Meadowmont team for providing it. I offer an alternative method to make comparisons from the data submitted by the Meadowmont team. The results will indicate the property values.

And again, this has been alluded to by many people this evening, that the property values on Pinehurst have already been negatively impacted by the proposal of Meadowmont, with or without regard to traffic.

Even though the Meadowmont team violated the real estate and economic mantras with their conclusions, comparisons and values can be made on a year-to-year basis to minimize the inflation factor.

If one accepts the appraiser's premise that all variables except house size tend to cancel each other, then comparisons can be made based on the dollars per square foot of a sale.

I calculated the average dollars per square foot in a given year for Pinehurst Drive sales and compared that to the dollars per square foot for all the Chapel Hill data, excluding Pinehurst Drive on Chart 1.

Based on the average dollars per square foot in a given year, I calculated the dollar sale value for a 3,000-square-foot home. This is on Chart 2. This calculation could be done for any size home, and it would not affect the results. The dollar difference in a given year between the Pinehurst values and the other Chapel Hill values is calculated.

It's difficult to visualize and interpret the results in tabular form. So the Chart 1 dollar difference data is presented graphically on the bar chart.

The horizontal line is the dollar difference‑-the horizontal line is the zero dollar difference line between Pinehurst values and all other Chapel Hill values. The values above the line indicate the premium placed on Pinehurst homes that was expected due to the prestigious nature of the neighborhood.

Most folks would expect Pinehurst values to be higher than the rest of Chapel Hill. And indeed they were in 1992, 1993 and 1994, twenty to a hundred thousand dollars higher.

However, something happened in 1995. The values on Pinehurst have plunged from a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) above the average to sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) below the average. And they have not recovered through 1998.

In my opinion, this is not small potatoes. I would be upset if the value of my home behaved in this way. What happened? As we have heard this evening, the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan was approved by the council in October, 1995.

My conclusion? The prospect of Meadowmont has already negatively impacted The Oaks neighborhood home values.

It would be reasonable to end my presentation at this point. But one may question the use of all other Chapel Hill data to do the comparison to Pinehurst Drive.

If you feel that the Pinehurst Drive values may be more similar to the prestigious, high-traffic East Franklin Street values, look at Bar Graph 2. The trend is the same. The values on Pinehurst dropped in 1995, and they have not recovered.

If you feel that the Pinehurst values are more similar to the prestigious, low-traffic, off-Franklin Street, downtown values, look at Bar 3. The conclusion is the same. The values on Pinehurst dropped in 1995 and have not recovered.

The case presented is based on the facts provided by the Meadowmont development team experts. Their expert conclusion that Meadowmont will maintain or enhance contiguous property values is fallacious because the rules of real estate appraisal and economics were not followed.

My expertise allowed me to view the facts, applying those rules, and come to the conclusion that the proposed Meadowmont development has already had a major negative impact on Pinehurst Drive property values since 1995, with no recovery of those property values to the present. The results are the same regardless of traffic.

Perhaps the proposal could be returned to the applicant with instructions to modify the infrastructure so the northbound traffic does not go through The Oaks neighborhood, with or without the Pinehurst connector. Perhaps the developer could facilitate an agreement with Durham County and the North Carolina DOT for an immediate continuation of Meadowmont Lane or Meadow Lane to the northeast through Durham County where it may have minimal impact on neighborhoods.

I thank you for your attention. And if there are any questions.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you. Any questions of Ms. Sweezy? Yes, Mr. Heffner. Would you please come forward?

MR. HEFFNER: I know the time is late. But unless the council members know more than I do, I didn't understand your analysis. Do you mind going through just quickly again the basis of the analysis, how you came up with your numbers?

MS. SWEEZY: Sure.

MAYOR WALDORF: Really simply, please.

MS. SWEEZY: What I stated was about as simple as I can make it.

MAYOR WALDORF: Well, please don't go through the whole thing again.

MS. SWEEZY: Okay. The data submitted by the appraisers contained a lot of data of houses, when they were built, square feet, and a lot of characteristics of those houses.

One of the calculations‑-

MR. HEFFNER: I apologize. Let me interrupt. Because you said something that may be germane to what my question is.

The chart here is labeled "All Chapel Hill, excluding Pinehurst Drive."

MS. SWEEZY: That's correct, right.

MR. HEFFNER: Is that source of data from the other appraisal, from the reports‑-

MS. SWEEZY: Yes.

MR. HEFFNER: ‑-that were submitted? So it's not really all Chapel Hill data.

MS. SWEEZY: Well, it's all Chapel Hill data that was submitted‑-

MR. HEFFNER: In our reports.

MS. SWEEZY: Right. Estes Drive‑-Estes Hills, Coker Woods, on-Franklin Street, off-Franklin Street.

MR. HEFFNER: I would just submit that‑-

MS. SWEEZY: Okay.

MR. HEFFNER: ‑-that's not all of Chapel Hill.

MS. SWEEZY: That's just the way I'm identifying it for this discussion. And I appreciate that clarification. Because that is at the bottom of these graphs, what that column includes. Is everybody comfortable with that?

MAYOR WALDORF: Yes. Thank you.

MS. SWEEZY: Are there any other questions?

MAYOR WALDORF: Is there another question? Mr. Sitton? Yes, sir.

MR. SITTON: You've obviously spent a lot of time on this. Do I understand you do not live in the neighborhood?

MS. SWEEZY: That's correct.

MR. SITTON: Are you being paid for these statements?

MS. SWEEZY: Absolutely not.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you.

MS. SWEEZY: We are concerned citizens.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you.

MS. SWEEZY: Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Now, there are three individuals who spoke last Wednesday night, who signed up to speak again. I'm going to call on them in the order in which they signed up. And I would hope that they would be very understanding of the fact that this is the second time they've been up and try to be as brief as possible, given the hour. We normally end our meetings at 10:30.

So‑-Ms. Chaiken, and then Mr. Nelson Chow. I believe you spoke last time, Mr. Chow. And then Reginald Morgan.

TESTIMONY OF BARBARA CHAIKEN

MS. CHAIKEN: Good evening. I'm Barbara Chaiken. Last Wednesday night I sat and listened with dismay to everything Roger Perry's paid professionals had to say on the matter of Meadowmont. Two things in particular left me feeling frustrated and angry.

The first was the statement used several times that Meadowmont and the increased traffic and congestion it will bring will actually "enhance" The Oaks as a place to live. That word just got to me, which is why I had to speak again tonight.

The second was the statement that Pinehurst is the Franklin Street of The Oaks. I believe most people living in The Oaks don't buy either of these arguments, both presented as facts.

I for one would not want to live on Franklin Street with its constant flow of traffic and the accompanying noise. I would never willingly raise my children where they could not walk, roller skate, ride their bikes in the street.

Even one of Mr. Perry's own experts admitted when pressed that he would advise a potential home buyer looking at a house in The Oaks to offer less because of the negative impact increased traffic would have.

Another part of last Wednesday's discussion needs further attention. With all of the talk that centered on the additional 2- to 3,000 cars per day on Pinehurst, we need to look at where these cars go and the impact they have.

The additional 2- to 3,000 cars proposed for Pinehurst have only one place to go, and that is onto Ephesus Church Road. Ephesus Church Road has Briarcliff on one side and Colony Woods on the other side. These are densely populated neighborhoods. There are, additionally, down the street near Legion Road three, I think, at least, apartment complexes.

The applicant's experts mentioned how nice and wide Pinehurst is. Well, Ephesus is narrow, with houses on both sides and no way to widen it in order to accommodate the increased traffic flow that would be‑-obviously would happen if this was passed.

There is already, as I mentioned last week, a traffic build-up at certain times of the day since the new light was installed at Legion Road. What impact will the additional traffic have on the safety of children going to and from Ephesus Church School, many of whom walk? What impact will the additional traffic have on the already congested Eastgate and New Hope Commons shopping centers?

After a couple of the applicant's experts used the word "enhance" when talking about Meadowmont's impact on The Oaks, I decided I should not believe them when they said the people living in Atlanta's Buck's Head, Raleigh's Northridge, Charlotte's Southpark and Myers Park neighborhoods were not at odds with the increased traffic flowing past their houses.

A bit of research, all that I was able to do with limited time and resources this week‑-I've also been sick all week‑-revealed that the Southpark in Charlotte is a huge area. It includes a mall and many subdivisions.

Colony Road was mentioned last week. It's a busy thoroughfare, with walled communities on both sides. From what I could discover, it is a very different community from The Oaks. It seems that the thoroughfare skirts the community rather than going through it like at The Oaks. Raleigh's Northridge community includes a mall and several subdivisions.

I'm not sure from their presentation if they're talking about all of these subdivisions or one in particular. Buck's Head in Atlanta, I've been told, is an enormous area, not at all comparable to anything we have in Chapel Hill.

Although we need to find out more information about these projects, clearly there is more to this story than meets the eye. What the applicant's experts seem to have done is selectively chosen out from these other developments what they think you need to hear. They are comparing apples with oranges.

As to the issue of property values, the idea of considering only the impact from a monetary standpoint is one-dimensional. How does one adequately quantify quality of life, the value of quiet, safe, uncongested streets and clean air.

These nonmonetary amenities, things we value most about our homes and our neighborhoods, must be factored in when attempting to quantify the impact that Meadowmont will have on property values, not just on Pinehurst, as I know you're supposed to be looking at, but on all of the areas around Chapel Hill.

Finally, I urge you to deny the Special Use Permit before you on behalf of all residents of Chapel Hill, again, not just those whose homes and neighborhoods that are jeopardized by this project.

The proposed shopping center should not have been approved. Highway 54 cannot handle an additional 30,000-plus cars a day. Ephesus, in my opinion, cannot afford to handle any more cars.

At least, at this point you can still vote against the Infrastructure Special Use Permit so that the other four special use permits already approved will be placed on hold.

It is your responsibility as city council members to prevent Chapel Hill from becoming a congested, poorly thought-out, anytown, U.S.A. Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Thank you, Barbara. Nelson Chow? I think he left. Reginald Morgan?

MR. MORGAN: I need an assistant.

MR. WISE: I'll help.

MR. MORGAN: Yes, please.

TESTIMONY OF REGINALD MORGAN

MR. MORGAN: My name is Reginald Morgan. I live at 160 Kingston Drive in Chapel Hill. I'm a state-certified general real estate appraiser. I'm also a state-licensed real estate broker. I hold the designation of Certified Relocation Professional from the Employee Relocation Council. I've served on the Board of Equalization Review in Orange County for the past three terms with Tom Heffner, and I've testified in Superior Court as an expert witness in both Orange and Durham Counties.

Good evening. Someone said earlier that you people have great patience, and I would second that. I want to help you with your decision tonight. So I'll try and be concise here.

This is an overview. I would like to state that the word from Hillsborough, county-wise appreciation from 1993 to 1997 was from 20 to 45 percent. So Orange County did very well between the revaluation in 1993 and 1997.

I am speaking tonight not for the same people I spoke to last Wednesday. I'm speaking tonight for the contiguous property owners, Jeffrey Eischen, who spoke earlier, and Ed and Cynthia Wise. Mr. Eischen lives at 1143 Burningtree, and Mr. and Mrs. Wise live at 1139 Burningtree in The Oaks, Chapel Hill.

I've been asked by Edmond and Cynthia Wise and Jeff Eischen of Burningtree Drive in The Oaks to analyze the effect that the proposed Meadowmont subdivision will have on their homes, more directly, to discuss the issue of whether or not the development proposed by the Infrastructure Special Use Permit would be located, designated and operated as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property.

I will present competent material and substantial evidence to indicate that the special use permit planned development mixed-use proposed by East-West Partners Management Company, Inc., would not be located, designed and operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property.

This is a picture of the contiguous property. This is Mr. Wise's house. He is my assistant right here tonight.

This is his house, which is comparable to other houses in The Oaks and in the neighborhood, well-maintained, nice daffodils. I don't know why mine died and his didn't.

Anyway, behind here is Meadowmont. And you can see that there is a mount there, though it's through the trees. And these trees will be gone, and you will see a hillside of development.

We must first look at some basic appraisal and evaluation principles, the first being highest and best use. This is a fundamental concept in real estate appraisal.

The highest and best use is defined as follows. The reasonable, probable and legal use of vacant land for an improved property which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible and that results in the highest value.

The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility and maximum profitability.

To estimate the highest and best use of a property, two conditions are considered, as if vacant and as improved. As stated in the definition, under both of these conditions are properties analyzed on four criteria.

The use must pass on one criteria in order to be considered for the next one. A discussion of each criteria and the uses that do and do not pass it follows.

The highest and best use as if vacant. Legal permissibility. Legal restrictions to the sites along Burningtree are those from the Chapel Hill Planning Department. The property is located within R-1A, residential 1A, two units per acre in the district.

The zoning does not allow for any type of commercial use or multi-family uses. It does not allow for any‑-it allows for types of accessory office, commercial and industrial uses. Residential use is therefore legally permissible.

Physical possibility. The sites have access to all municipal utilities and a publicly maintained street. The topography of the sites are graded to level, and there are no physical factors other than size that would prevent improvement of the site. Therefore, the uses that are legally permissible are physically possible.

Financial feasibility. The test of financial feasibility is whether a use would produce a positive return to the land. Of the legally permissible and physically possible uses, it is financially feasible to improve the site with a residential use.

Maximum profitability. The use that produces the highest return to the land is the use with the maximum profitability. No one particular type of residential use is the most productive, provided the site is improved to its maximum potential.

So then we go on to the highest and best use as improved. In this analysis, the same four criteria are considered, but the improvements are included.

Legal permissibility. The site as improved conforms to the requirements of the zoning ordinance and is therefore legally permissible.

Physically possible. Since the site is already improved with a dwelling, the current use is obviously physically possible.

Financial feasibility. In order to be financially feasible, a property must product a positive return to the land as stated in the "as if" section.

Some type of residential use is the maximally profitable use of the site. The site is improved with a residential dwelling which conforms to this use.

Maximum profitability. The use with the maximum profitability is that use which results in the highest possible return to the land. The sites are improved with single-family dwellings and driveways.

Okay. That's all the dry stuff.

This is the proposed subdivision, and this is Mr. Wise's house right here, which is abutting this one here, correct? Which abuts‑-this is seven units per acre. And this is much denser zoning than his zoning.

All of a sudden it has changed. When he bought his house, it was R-1A, and all of Meadowmont was R-1. So the proposed subdivision is going to put seven units per acre contiguous to his property.

Okay. We can go to the next one. This is what he would look at, the backs of smaller‑-much smaller units.

Okay. We can go on to the next one. This is what Meadowmont has proposed as a sort of a threat. They say, "Well, if we don't do our mixed-use program, we will do this," which, as you can see, is a much more reasonable zoning behind these contiguous properties. This is more in keeping with what their zoning is.

Okay. We can go to the next one. Now, what happens to the highest and best use of the zoning abutting the property as the rear changes in density from R-1, the current zoning of Meadowmont, to R-3, minimum density, residential, seven units to an acre.

To further illustrate this, I will bring this into a more familiar perspective. We will look at a parcel of OWASA water tower land. So this is a similar parcel that vacant zoned R-1. Okay? Right here is council member Wiggins's home.

For the sake of argument, let's say OWASA realizes that the highest and best use for this property is no longer to store water, and it decides to sell the property to Mr. Perry of East-West Partners.

A special use permit is approved, and the land becomes R-3 and R-5. This land abuts council member Wiggins's property. I'm sure council member Wiggins would feel the same as the contiguous residents along Burningtree. Seven single-family units on an acre of land would not be located, designed and operated to maintain or enhance the value of her contiguous property.

When the highest and best use of a contiguous land changes, this change radically affects the contiguous land. It would not be financially feasible or create maximum profitability to build a large, single-family dwelling on R-1A or R-1 land.

If we can go on to the next. It just shows it a little more clearly. This is the water tower. So all of a sudden they change their zoning. And it's going to have a major effect on these properties here, because they were purchased when the zoning was R-1.

We can go back to the definitions. What happens with our definitions is the financial feasibility has changed, because‑-and also the maximum profitability.

The reason I picked congress [sic] member Wiggins's house is because I live near there, and I watched it go up. And it was a vacant piece of land. And when she decided to build her house, had she known that there was going to be seven units per acre behind hers, she would probably have made a different building decision. She would have built a different house more in keeping with the houses behind her.

In any case, it certainly throws out the financial feasibility and the maximum profitability because they have kind of cross-circuited the appraisal principle. They have changed the zoning, which comes right back here to legal permissibility. The zoning behind them has changed.

To give another example with a broader reach, let's say the Town of Chapel Hill‑-the next one after that‑-‑-let's say the Town of Chapel Hill no longer feels that Cedar Falls Park is the highest and best use for the park and decides to sell it to Mr. Perry of East-West Partners.

The land use permit is approved, and the zoning is changed to R-3 and R-5. He builds cluster homes and townhouses on the hill.

I think that's the next one, the picture there. That is what apartments look like on the hill. This is Southern Village.

Even though the mayor's property in Chesley is not contiguous to the park, she and her neighbors would feel the negative effects of such a development on her lifestyle and the value of her property.

Can we go back to the other one just to show where that lies? Right.

So here's Cedar Falls Park. They decide we're going to change the zoning from R-1 to R-3. And here's Chesley all in here. Even though the mayor lives over here, this is definitely going to affect her property, all this development right on this piece.

So this is the big view of what's happened to the people who are contiguous in The Oaks.

The second valuation principle that must be expressed is externalities.

I guess we can go back to our definition.

The principle of economies outside a property have a positive effect on its value, while the dyseconomies outside the property have a negative effect on its value. Costs or benefits accruing to the property for which compensation or remuneration cannot be handled through normal contractual procedures.

A further and more concrete concept and the principle that is most clearly illustrated in the case of the homes that are contiguous with the proposed Meadowmont development is external obsolescence.

An element of accrued depreciation, a defect usually incurable, caused by negative influences outside the site and generally incurable on the part of the owner, landlord or tenant. Depreciation in appraising means a loss in property value from any cause.

Here's an example of external obsolescence which you will all understand.

So you can go to the next picture.

Here is the picture of the coal generation facility at UNC. The properties that are in proximity to the plant are affected by the noise, light and soot from the plant.

I know this for a fact because Mr. Heffner, Margaret Brown, who is now Orange County commissioner, and the late Lightning Brown were all on the Board of Equalization and Review and discussed the effect of this external obsolescence on property values into the wee hours of the morning with the assessor's staff in Hillsborough.

For the contiguous property owners as well as the adjoining neighbors the proposed Meadowmont subdivision is external obsolescence, an incurable defect caused by a negative influence outside the site.

"Incurable" means it cannot be practically or economically corrected. For the contiguous property owners, there is no way to correct the problem because it is outside their property.

We can go on to the next one. Are we done there? Okay. We can go back to the picture of your house.

To prove that the proposed Meadowmont development has a negative effect on property values, I will cite two sales along Burningtree that demonstrate the negative impact that the proposed Meadowmont development has on property values.

The property located on 1143 Burningtree Drive has sold twice in the past three years. The earlier sale was 6/15/94 for two hundred and fifty-five thousand dollars ($255,000), and the last sale was 11/24/97 for two hundred and eighty-five thousand dollars ($285,000). This is thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) over 42 months, which calculates to 3.36 percent per year.

Let's compare this low rate of appreciation to similar sales during the same period in Coker Hills West. The house at 630 Kensington Drive sold first for two hundred and seventy-two thousand ($272,000) on 5/27/94, and later on 7/14/97 for three hundred and thirty thousand dollars ($330,000) for an annual appreciation rate of 7 percent. This is double the rate of appreciation in The Oaks along Burningtree.

Furthermore, the last seller did some significant improvements over and above what it takes to sell a house in Chapel Hill. In talking to the former owner, it is estimated that he spent seventeen thousand four hundred dollars ($17,400) on improvements.

Subtract approximately seven thousand five hundred dollars for normal sprucing-up cost to market your house, and we have ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in improvements over and above normal costs to sell your house.

This would include‑-these are what he did. This would include replacing the carpet in the entire house, replacing the vinyl in the upstairs and downstairs bath with hardwood floors, installing a security system and additional landscaping.

So if we deduct these additional costs over and above normal marketing costs, the selling price would be reduced ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to two hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars ($275,000) for an annual appreciation of 2.24 percent.

The former owner who sold this house and moved reported increased traffic noise from Highway 54 in the last three years. And when he heard that Highway 54 would be increased to six lanes, he felt that additional noise would negatively affect his property value.

In conclusion, the proposed Meadowmont development would have a negative impact on the contiguous property values along Burningtree Drive and would not be located, designed and operated as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property.

MAYOR WALDORF: Any questions of Mr. Morgan?

MR. PERRY: The sale that you just cited‑-

MR. MORGAN: Right.

MR. PERRY: --did the value of the home go up?

MR. MORGAN: It did.

MR. PERRY: Would you therefore conclude that its value had been maintained or enhanced?

MR. MORGAN: Not according to the other properties in Chapel Hill.

MR. PERRY: That's not my question. Was the value of that property maintained or enhanced during the period between those two sales?

MR. MORGAN: I would say it wasn't. Because it didn't go up as much as other properties did.

MR. PERRY: That's not relevant.

MR. MORGAN: It is relevant. That's what we're talking about.

MR. PERRY: Did the value of that property go up?

MR. MORGAN: The property sold from two fifty-five ($255,000) to two eighty-five ($285,000).

MR. PERRY: Right.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you. Any other questions? Kevin, do you have a question of Mr. Morgan? Okay.

MR. FOY: Mr. Morgan, I wasn't clear on what your‑-I'm right here.

MAYOR WALDORF: Over there.

MR. FOY: Hi. I wasn't clear on what your purpose was in bringing up the power plant.

MR. MORGAN: It's just an example of an influence outside a property that devalues the property.

MR. FOY: So you're saying that that devalued the surrounding properties?

MR. MORGAN: Yes.

MAYOR WALDORF: Although the plant itself‑-correct me if I'm wrong‑-predates‑-

MR. MORGAN: Right.

MAYOR WALDORF: ‑-many of the properties that are next to it.

MR. MORGAN: Right. But the homeowners felt that the soot, noise and light was keeping their properties at a lower value. And they appealed to the Board of E&R and won in a sense because their properties were not going up as other properties were because of the soot, noise and light from the facility.

MR. FOY: Oh, so you're talking about the tax assessor's value.

MR. MORGAN: Correct.

MR. FOY: Okay.

MAYOR WALDORF: Do you have a question?

MS. WIGGINS: Mr. Morgan, do we know each other outside of the council chambers?

MR. MORGAN: No.

MS. WIGGINS: Are we friends or anything?

MR. MORGAN: I drive by your house, and you have beautiful roses.

MS. WIGGINS: Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out how you would know how I think and make decisions. I mean, there are some friends of mine that probably could make some assumptions‑-

MR. MORGAN: Right.

MS. WIGGINS: --about some things. But I'm just curious about how you feel you are able to predict what my feelings or opinions might be about anything.

MR. MORGAN: Well‑-

MAYOR WALDORF: That may be a rhetorical question. I don't know.

MR. MORGAN: Right.

MS. WIGGINS: No, it isn't.

MAYOR WALDORF: Oh, okay. You want an answer.

MS. WIGGINS: He entered it as part of the evidence with slides and whatnots. I'm just curious. He made a statement about how I would feel based on where my property is located.

MR. MORGAN: Well, because your property is located next to OWASA property, it's pretty much always going to be open space, wildlife, trees. And if that property was changed, if that became a development, I think that would have a severe impact on you.

MS. WIGGINS: Okay.

MR. MORGAN: And your process in building on that site.

MS. WIGGINS: Okay. But you're just assuming that. Did you know that OWASA has evaluated all of the properties that it owns and they've had discussions about selling off some of them to raise revenue?

MR. MORGAN: No‑-

MS. WIGGINS: I mean, we are aware of that because that's where we live.

MR. MORGAN: Right. I know that is a possibility for any municipality.

MS. WIGGINS: So, you know, the assumption that we moved there thinking that it would always be OWASA property is not true. They can provide you with that information, where they have inventoried all of their properties and have had some very preliminary discussions, very preliminary, about‑-to the extent that they want to sell some.

MR. MORGAN: Okay. Thank you.

MS. WIGGINS: Okay?

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Any other questions?

In a way, I would make the same point, Edith, that I'm not sure that Mr. Morgan is correct in making assumptions about the way I feel about where I live. And I think it is perhaps a fact that for some people the kind of structure you live in and where it's located is not directly tied to all your values.

There was another question somewhere. Yes, sir. Would you please come forward, identify yourself and speak into the microphone?

MR. BRUCKENSTEIN: My name is David Bruckenstein. I live on Pinehurst Drive. I would like to ask you to address the question‑-or the statement made by‑-I believe it's Mr. Perry. When you were answering the question about property value, he said, "That's not relevant." I'd like you to address why that is relevant, the point that you were making.

MAYOR WALDORF: Briefly. Because I think you've already said why you think it is relevant. We don't need to belabor this.

MR. MORGAN: The property values in Chapel Hill have gone up. If I compare the property that I used on Burningtree and compare it to a comparable property in Coker Hills West sold the same years, sold in 1994 and 1997, within a similar price range, that property did very well as far as appreciation, whereas the property on Burningtree did not do well.

And so it shows if you buy on Burningtree, you're not going to see as much return on your dollar as you are if you buy in another neighborhood. Does that clear it up?

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you. That's all the speakers we have. Before we turn to the applicant, I just want to make sure that entered into the record are this letter from Nick Didow, the chair of the school board, about a school site, a memorandum from the Parks and Recreation Commission and a memo from Jill Blackburn. I think the council has copies of all these. Yes.

MR. FOY: Madam Mayor, I'm not sure whether this is in the record, but I did receive also this letter from Ms. Vickery. I think everyone else did, too.

MAYOR WALDORF: Yeah.

MR. FOY: And I just want it to be part of the record.

MAYOR WALDORF: That should be in the record, yeah. So entered. It's in.

MR. FOY: As part of what we've all been informed about.

MAYOR WALDORF: Right. Just part of the record of the hearing. Part of the documentation that we've received.

It's ten of eleven. And I guess I need to get some advice from the council and from the applicant, perhaps, about how long your responses would take. You are legally entitled to take as long as you need. And you probably don't have long enough tonight. So‑-

MR. PERRY: Well, that's up to y'all, obviously. We're seven hours and 50 minutes into this public hearing, Mayor. And we've only been up here an hour and a half of it.

And we feel very compelled to present some new evidence and to address what we think are some absolutely scurrilous opinions that have been expressed up here in the last seven and a half hours. And I can say that, you know, I would think our presentation will run easily an hour and perhaps longer.

MAYOR WALDORF: All right. Would it be acceptable to the applicant to defer this to another time?

MR. PERRY: Sure. I mean, certainly, we'll do this at your leisure on this. You know, we are prepared to go through it tonight. We'll move through it as quickly as we can.

My guess is that we will get some questions directed at us for what we have to say. If you want to proceed, we shall. And it's entirely up to you. If you want to do it another night, we will.

MAYOR WALDORF: What's the‑-

MR. PERRY: I will say to you we have no plans to ask for a power plant.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. What's the wish of the council here? Do you all want to‑-

MS. BATEMAN: My wish is I be as alert as I can. And I just don't think I can give you a fair hearing.

MAYOR WALDORF: Yeah. We've been here since 5 o'clock.

MR. PERRY: I guess I'd say to you, Mayor, I appreciate that comment, and I think that's correct. I'm not sure we can be as succinct and effective. We would prefer a delay.

MAYOR WALDORF: All right. I think that's the general sentiment here. Some possible dates for rescheduling the hearing the manager has forwarded to me are April 2, April 7. What day of the week is April 2, Mr. Manager?

MR. HORTON: April 2 is a Thursday.

MAYOR WALDORF: Is a Thursday. And do you see before you how many meetings we have that week?

MR. HORTON: You have only one other meeting scheduled that week, and that's on April 1. The NCAA event is on the 30th.

MAYOR WALDORF: I see.

MS. ANDRESEN: We have a water and sewer boundary meeting on the 2nd at 7:00.

MAYOR WALDORF: Can that be rescheduled? Does that have to take precedence over this?

MS. ANDRESEN: In some ways it would seem that it should not. However, in order to get this date, it was exceedingly difficult to come up with this date. Do you remember, we went through I don't know how many iterations to come up with this date? Do you remember, Julie?

MR. CAPOWSKI: Julie is right. But, again, it's only two of us. But we're talking about two different people from several different elected boards each. That's a tough one to schedule.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. How about April 7? That's a Tuesday, correct?

MR. HORTON: That's a Tuesday, and you have meetings scheduled on Monday and Wednesday already.

MAYOR WALDORF: All right.

MS. BATEMAN: We were supposed to vote on it on April 6. Can we not do it then?

MR. HORTON: That's a regular business meeting night.

MAYOR WALDORF: I have a feeling, Flicka, that the council will want some time to elapse between the time we receive the information in the next hearing and then actually vote.

MS. BATEMAN: I understand. I was proposing that rather than do our voting that night, that that be the time that we had our next public hearing, continue the public hearing.

MAYOR WALDORF: That's a good suggestion. I'll endorse that.

MS. BATEMAN: Instead of the business meeting where we voted on it.

MS. ANDRESEN: What about March 26?

MAYOR WALDORF: Well, excuse me just a second. Now, April 6 is a regular business meeting?

MR. HORTON: Yes, ma'am. And my estimate is that you have probably two to three hours of hearing ahead of you at this point.

MAYOR WALDORF: Why are we having a regular business meeting on the first Monday in April instead of the second?

MR. HORTON: Because the spring break for the school system is the next week.

MAYOR WALDORF: All right. Okay.

MS. EVANS: I raise the date of March 26, a Thursday.

MAYOR WALDORF: That's a Thursday. Is that a possibility?

MS. EVANS: You mean tomorrow night?

MR. HORTON: You have a meeting on the 23rd and on the 24th at this point.

MS. EVANS: That's a week from--

MAYOR WALDORF: I'm going to be out of town that day. Well, March 26.

MS. WIGGINS: Madam Mayor, I opt for as soon as possible. Because I think it's easier to keep track of what's been said and the testimonies.

MAYOR WALDORF: Yeah.

MS. WIGGINS: When we, you know, go over a week or 10 days between hearings, you have to almost crank up again, and that's kind of difficult.

MAYOR WALDORF: Yeah.

MS. BROWN: What was wrong with the 2nd?

MAYOR WALDORF: Julie and Joe have a water-sewer boundary committee meeting.

MR. CAPOWSKI: If the 2nd is the best date, I'll withdraw my request, and we'll deal with the water-sewer boundary some other way.

MAYOR WALDORF: What if they won't be willing to reschedule?

MS. EVANS: Well, if the two of you aren't there‑-

MAYOR WALDORF: I think they have to. Aren't the rules of that group that you have to come to consensus on everything? So if you all are not there, there's no meeting.

MR. CAPOWSKI: The meeting is not going to be held without us, Julie. I'm not trying to exaggerate our importance, but Chapel Hill is a serious part of that group.

MAYOR WALDORF: I guess my first choice would be the 2nd. Because that's a week in which so far we have only one other meeting. That's a Thursday. Is that impossible for anyone else?

MS. ANDRESEN: Start at 5:00?

MR. CAPOWSKI: No, it's got to be nighttime. Because there are people involved.

MAYOR WALDORF: It's got to be at 7 o'clock.

MS. EVANS: What about the 31st?

MAYOR WALDORF: Excuse me?

MS. EVANS: What about the 31st of that week?

MR. HORTON: The reason I would not recommend the 31st is I believe that UNC does have a good chance of being in the finals on the 30th, and a lot of your staff will be up all night long if that's the case.

MS. EVANS: How about the 30th?

MR. HORTON: That's the finals.

MS EVANS: That is the finals, okay.

MR. HORTON: Yes, ma'am.

MR. FOY: The highest god.

MS. WIGGINS: Would it be the same staff‑-Cal, so it would be the same staff that would be up?

MR. HORTON: Well, all of your management staff. And we will ask almost all of the department heads to volunteer to work that night.

MS. WIGGINS: Okay. Okay.

MAYOR WALDORF: Lots of people. That's not good. How about the 2nd?

MS. WIGGINS: I'm just asking. I'm just asking.

MS. EVANS: We're all okay for the 2nd now that Joe and Julie have said they'll reschedule.

MAYOR WALDORF: Seven p.m.? All right. Then is there a motion to recess this hearing until April 2?

MR. CAPOWSKY: So moved.

MS. EVANS: Second.

MAYOR WALDORF: All in favor please say aye.

(Ayes respond.)

MAYOR WALDORF: All opposed, no.

(No response.)

MS. ANDRESEN: Rosemary, could I ask you to make a request that this meeting be changed that would have a certain authority to it?

MAYOR WALDORF: Which‑-

MS. ANDRESEN: The water and sewer.

MAYOR WALDORF: Your water and sewer boundary?

MS. ANDRESEN: Yes, please.

MAYOR WALDORF: To whom?

MS. ANDRESEN: To the chair, and that would be Moses Carey.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay.

MR. FOY: Rosemary, will this affect our bringing it to a vote on the 6th?

MAYOR WALDORF: Probably.

MR. FOY: When will we decide that?

MAYOR WALDORF: Well, when we‑-what we typically do when we conclude a hearing on a special use permit is we refer it to the staff for a follow-up report. And it seems to me very unlikely that they could get that prepared by Monday the 6th if we had‑-

MR. HORTON: We could not.

MAYOR WALDORF: ‑-the hearing on the 2nd. So, yeah, I think it does postpone the decision.

Was there anything else? All right.

MR. PAVAO: Move to adjourn.

MAYOR WALDORF: All right.

MS. EVANS: Second.

MAYOR WALDORF: All right. We're finished.

(Whereupon, the hearing was recessed

at 10:20 p.m., to reconvene on

April 2, 1998, at 7:00 p.m.)