REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHAPELHILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, MARCH 23, 1998 AT 7:00 P.M.

 

The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Council Members present were Julie Andresen, Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavăo, and Edith Wiggins.  Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Solid Waste Administrator Gayle Wilson, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, Engineering Director George Small, Finance Director Jim Baker, Assistant to the Manager Ruffin Hall, Chief of Police Ralph Pendergraph, Planning Director Roger Waldon, and Deputy Town Clerk Joyce Smith.

 

Item #3a- JOCCA Petition

 

Fred Battle, Board Chair of the Joint Orange-Chatham Community Action, Inc. (JOCCA), stated JOCCA is petitioning the Council for financial support in the amount of $18,057 in order to continue to meet the needs of program participants.  He said they are facing a budget deficit without the Town's help.

 

Don Wilhoit, a member of the JOCCA Board of Directors, indicated he would provide the Council with more information if necessary.  He said this request represents discretionary funds to offset the cost of personnel, program support, and travel and conference fees.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO REFER THE PETITON TO THE MANAGER.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Item #3b - March for Parks Petition

 

Gretchen Willard, representing the UNC Student Recreation Society, stated the money they plan to raise through the 1998 March for Parks will be used to purchase a playground structure for the Northern Community Park, and invited the Council and the public to participate in the walk.  The walk is scheduled for Saturday, April 18, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

 

Council Member Bateman commented that the play equipment at the park is used constantly, and commended Ms. Willard on her efforts to raise funds for more equipment.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO REFER THE PETITON TO THE MANAGER WITH A REQUEST FOR STAFF TO ASSIST WITH PUBLICIZING THE EVENT.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY

Item #3c

 

Margaret Brown, Chair of the Orange County Commissioners, petitioned to Council to provide front-door bus service to Orange County’s new Southern Human Services Building.  Ms. Brown noted that the driveway and loop in front of the building was built to accommodate buses with enough room to allow a bus to turn around..

 

Rev. John Burton, Pastor of St. John's Episcopal Church, said without bus service, a person would have to walk about nine-tenths of a mile from Airport Road, adding that this would be dangerous for the elderly and mothers with children.  Rev. Burton stated that this length walk would be difficult in the summer because of excessive heat, and in the winter because of excessive cold.  He asked the Council to consider walking this distance in the rain.

 

Timothy Ives said the Human Services they serve a lot of older patients and pregnant women and bus service will be essential for them.  He said he believed it to be an undeniable right of these patients to have access to this facility.

 

Mr. Horton said this request has been referred to the Transportation Board, and would be addressed at their April 7th meeting.  In the meantime, Mr. Horton noted that Shared Ride and EZ Rider service is now being provided, and can be arranged by calling the Transportation office.  Mr. Horton said he expects staff to have a proposal ready for the Council's consideration sometime in April.

 

Mayor Waldorf noted that routes would need to be rearranged and rerouted to provide this service, so it is not simply a matter of sending a bus to that location.

 

Dr. Rosemary Summers, Interim Health Director for Orange County, said they are experiencing a reluctance by some patients who have particular diseases to use the Shared Ride or EZ Rider service, because the patients want anonymity, and have a fear of being recognized.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked for statistics on the number of patients and their geographic location to be provided to the Council sometime in the next week.  Dr. Summers said those statistics would be provided.

 

Council Member Foy commented that last week when this issue was discussed the Transportation Director was asked to research and gain as much information as possible so that logical decisions could be made.

 

Mayor Waldorf indicated there was no need to refer this to the staff, as the issue had already been placed in the staff's hands.

 

Mr. Horton added that if costs were involved, the Council would need to make a decision regarding that.

 

Commissioner Brown said the grand opening is April 21st  from 5 to 7 p.m., adding the Council would receive an invitation.

 

Item #3d - Items Not on the Agenda

 

Aaron Nelson asked for the Council's support of a community walk supporting The Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center.  He stated the walk is intended to be an informative event as well as a fund raiser.  Mr. Nelson reported that the event is sponsored by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, the Chapel Hill Downtown Commission, the Public Private Partnership, and other community agencies.

 

Mr. Nelson read the following resolution, and asked that the Council adopt it:

 

STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR THE 1998 COMMUNITY WALK FOR THE BBC BY THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

 

WHEREAS, the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center serves as a State-wide and community resource for information and dialogue about the history, culture and contributions of African Americans; and

 

WHEREAS, the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center’s Communiversity program benefits students and parents of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School system through literacy programs, homework assistance and Saturday school; and

 

WHEREAS, members of the community and campus have worked diligently to raise money for a free-standing Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center building, located on the campus of the University of north Carolina at Chapel Hill; and

 

WHEREAS, students, faculty, staff and members of the campus and greater community are to be commended for raising $3.8 million towards the $7.5 million effort, including $800,000 in the past year; and

 

WHEREAS, student fundraising efforts have generated over $30,000, leveraging $100,000 from members of the UNC Board of Trustees; and

 

WHEREAS, the students of the University of North Carolina have joined with the larger campus and Chapel Hill community to endorse the 1998 Community Walk for the BCC on April 25, 1998;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, WE, THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL do hereby issue this statement of support for the 1998 Community Walk for the BCC, a student-led and community-supported event to raise funds and awareness for the Sonja Haynes Stone Black Cultural Center.

 

This the 23rd day of March, 1998.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE COMMUNITY WALK FOR THE BLACK CULTURAL CENTER READ BY MR. NELSON.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Council Member Brown asked for an update on the relocation of the McDade house.  Mr. Horton aid he would ask Mr. Heffner to provide a report to the Council.

 

Council Member Foy noted that the Andrews House on Rosemary Street is of some historic significance and asked if the Council was interested in preserving that home.  He petitioned the Council to consider how they might encourage saving the structure.  Council Member Foy stated the house is located at 318 West Rosemary Street.

 

Council Member Brown added she asked the staff for a report on where to put that structure several weeks ago.

 

Council Member Foy stated it might be possible to place both the McDade house and the Andrews house on the same site, and asked the staff to provide options on how the Town might participate in preserving the Andrews house.

 

Council Member Andresen endorsed Council Member Foy’s proposal.

 

Council Member Brown stated the Preservation Society was involved in the preservation of this house, and asked the staff to have the Society make a report along with the staff report.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN, TO REFER THIS ITEM TO THE MANAGER.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Council Member Andresen said there are some more special uses for the Meadowmont project coming before the Council, and suggested that the Council ask the staff what are some other recommendations the Town might make to the applicant on what goes into the traffic impact statement.  She said before the process goes forward much further, she would like to ask the staff to come up with suggestions on what might legitimately be studied before the item comes back before the Council.

 

Mayor Waldorf asked if Council Member Andresen’s request was that staff take another look at the guidelines and then direct the Council on how the traffic studies should be prepared.  Council Member Andresen answered the Council should get as much information as possible in order to make a good decision, rather than using just the impact on the intersections in front of the development as the guideline.

 

Council Member Evans said the applications have already been submitted, noting it may not be fair to make changes in the requirements at this late date.  She said it is possible the requirements should be looked at for future developments, but expressed concern about making changes after the applications have been received and are in process.

 

Council Member Andresen said she did not know if that had taken place, and asked the staff to answer those questions.

 

Council Member Bateman stated she would like more factual information.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO REFER THIS MATTER TO THE MANAGER.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Council Member Wiggins commended the staff who were involved in the mixed paper recycling effort this past Saturday.  She stated they were very busy and several staff members were meeting citizens at their cars so that they would not have to get out in the rain.  Mr. Horton added the effort was very successful, and about 10 tons of recycled mixed paper was collected.

 

Mayor Waldorf indicated that the Meadowmont hearing had been continued to April 2 to allow the applicant to rebut the testimony already presented.  She indicated citizens would be allowed to speak only if new information is offered.

 

Council Member Andresen asked if persons would be allowed to ask questions of the applicant.  Mayor Waldorf stated they would be.

 

Mayor Waldorf said she had the opportunity to meet with the Secretary of Transportation to discuss State funding and more local say in the selection and design of roads and other transportation projects.  The noted the State appears ready to move forward on improvements to South Columbia Street, which involved no new takings in the right-of-way but does include bike lanes.

 

Item #4.1 - Consent Agenda

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked that item #4.1L be removed.

 

Council Member Foy asked that item #4.1f be removed.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA, WITH ITEMS L AND F REMOVED.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES

(98-3-23/R-1)

 

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

 

a.                Minutes of January 12, 26 and 27 and February 9th.

b.               Upgrade of Police Department computer system (R-2).

c.                Closure of Carolina Avenue right-of-way (R-3).

d.               Calling hearing:  Lone Pine Road paving assessment (R-4).

e.                Request for annual funding contributions by Orange County (R-5).

f.                 Hotel-motel tax grant process (R-6).

g.                Change order for Hargraves Gymnasium (R-6.1).

h.                Response to Mathias petition:  Inline skating demonstration day (R-7).

i.                  Scheduling of public forum on traffic management (R-8).

j.                 Newspaper rack guidelines (R-9).

k.               Revision to personnel ordinance: Town employee reinstatement (O-3).

l.                 Response to Pein petition:  bicycling safety concerns (R-10).

 

This the 23rd day of March, 1998.

 

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LEASE-PURCHASE CONTRACT FOR A COMPUTER SYSTEM FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT (98-3-23/R-2)

 

WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill solicited and received competitive proposals from financial institutions for the lease-purchase of computer system programs and related computer equipment; and

 

WHEREAS, Branch Banking & Trust/Craigie Governmental offers the lowest fixed interest rate of 4.23 % for the four year term for this purchase;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to enter into a contract with Branch Banking & Trust/Craigie Governmental on behalf of the Town for the lease-purchase of computer system programs and equipment at a fixed interest rate of 4.23 %.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE AFORESAID CONTRACTS BY AND BETWEEN THE Town of Chapel Hill and Dell Computer Systems, Inc. and Vision Software, Inc., together with the amounts to be paid thereunder, be and the same are hereby designated as qualified tax-exempt obligations of the Town of Chapel Hill for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council does not reasonably expect that the Purchaser (and any subordinate entities) will issue more than $10,000,000 in qualified tax-exempt obligations pursuant to such Sections 265(b)(3)(ii) during the current calendar year.

 

This the 23rd day of March, 1998.

 

A RESOLUTION CLOSING A PORTION OF THE EASTERN END OF THE CAROLINA AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY (98-3-23/R-3)

 

WHEREAS, the Town Council on November 13, 1997 adopted a resolution of intent to consider closing part of the Carolina Avenue right-of-way, and a public hearing thereon was held on February 16, 1998; and

 

WHEREAS, closing this part of the Carolina Avenue right-of-way would not be contrary to the public interest; and no individual owning property in the vicinity of the right-of-way would be deprived of reasonable means of ingress and egress to his or her property by the closing of said right-of-way provided that utility and drainage easements are reserved.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts this order pursuant to the North Carolina G.S. 160A-299, permanently closing approximately 137 feet of the eastern end of the Carolina Avenue right-of-way as shown on Orange County Tax Map 7.57, Block B, subject to the reservation of a 30 foot wide utility and drainage easement all of which shall be recorded on a plat to be provided by the party requesting the right-of-way closure and approved by the Chapel Hill Engineering Department.

 

This the 23rd day of March, 1998.

 

A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR LONE PINE ROAD (98-3-23/R-4)

 

WHEREAS, total project costs have been compiled for improvements on Lone Pine Road; and

 

WHEREAS, a preliminary assessment roll has been established for this project and is on file with the Town Clerk.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council herewith calls a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, April 23, 1998(?) in the Town Hall, 306 North Columbia Street, to hear comments on the preliminary assessment roll for improvements on Lone Pine Road.

 

This the 23rd day of March, 1998.

 

A RESOLUTION REGARDING ORANGE COUNTY’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COST OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL’S LIBRARY AND PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES TO COUNTY RESIDENTS (98-3-23/R-5)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council:

 

1.      Thank the Orange County Board of Commissioners for increasing the 1997-98 annual contribution to the Chapel Hill Public Library by $4,875.

 

2.      Ask the County Commissioners to increase the County contribution for the Town’s library and parks and recreation in 1998-99.

 

3.      Authorize the Library Board of Trustees and the Parks and Recreation Commission to make presentations to the Board of Commissioners in the 1998 County budget process on the need to increase funding.

 

4.      Thank the County Commissioners for the present support of Project Turnaround and request an increase from the present $39,000 to $43,340 in 1997-98.

 

This the 23rd day of March, 1998.

 

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A CHANGE ORDER OF $2,092 FOR THE HARGRAVES GYMNASIUM PROJECT (98-3-23/R-6.1)

 

WHEREAS, electrical drawings for the Hargraves Gymnasium project did not include a necessary circuit box; and

 

WHEREAS, a change order is pending that would establish expenditures for the completion of a circuit box for the Hargraves Gymnasium project’s electrical contract;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council accepts a $2,092 change order to allow completion of a circuit box for the Hargraves Gymnasium project’s electrical contract with Mark Henderson, Inc.

 

This the 23rd day of March, 1998.

 

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF EUBANKS ROAD PARK AND RIDE LOT FOR AN INLINE SKATING DEMONSTRATION (98-3-23/R-7)

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill authorizes use of the Eubanks Road park and ride lot for an inline skating demonstration on April 25th from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. provided the sponsors meets the following conditions:

 

1.      Play It Again Sports and Rollerblade, Inc. would co-sponsor the event with the Town Parks and Recreation Department.  Play It Again Sports and Rollerblade, Inc. would enter into a temporary use contract accepting restrictions on using Town facilities, including prohibition of alcohol, site clean up requirements, and other conditions designed to protect the Town’s interests. 

 

2.      The temporary use contract would also include language that holds the Town harmless from all loss, liability, claims, or expense as provided by the Town’s risk management policies.

 

3.      Play It Again Sports and Rollerblade, Inc. would control parking of event participants to avoid disrupting normal use of the lot for park and ride purposes as well as to protect event participants from vehicular traffic.

 

4.      Play It Again Sports and Rollerblade, Inc. would provide liability insurance with acceptable limits that names the Town as an additional insured party.

 

5.      No sale of skating equipment or products would be allowed at the event.

 

This the 23rd day of March, 1998.

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER TO SCHEDULE AND ADVERTISE A WORKSHOP AND PUBLIC FORUM REGARDING THE DRAFT “POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT”(98-3-23/R-8)

 WHEREAS, the Town Council is interested in receiving comments regarding the draft “Policy and Implementation Process for Neighborhood Traffic Management” which has been developed by Town staff and the Town Transportation Advisory Board; and

 

WHEREAS, it is the Council’s desire to hold an informal workshop in addition to a public forum in order to better familiarize citizens with the draft document and to solicit comments and questions; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council wants to assure that notification of said workshops and public forum is widespread and comprehensive;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council directs the Town Manager to schedule an informal workshop at Town Hall on or about Thursday, April 16 and a public forum during its regular meeting on Monday May 11, 1998.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager to send notification of the workshop and forum to a comprehensive mailing list of individuals, groups, and boards as outlined in the attached memorandum.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager to advertise the workshop and forum well in advance using available print, audio, and video media as outlined in the attached memorandum.

 

This the 23rd day of March, 1998.

 

AN RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEWSPAPER VENDING RACK GUIDELINES FOR THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA (98-3-23/R-9)

 

WHEREAS, the appropriate placement and proper appearance of newspaper vending racks located in the public right-of-way is an important issue with regard to the overall aesthetic appeal and functionality of downtown Chapel Hill; and

 

WHEREAS, in 1989, an Appearance Commission committee and representatives of locally distributed newspapers developed voluntary guidelines regarding the placement and maintenance of newspaper vending racks; and

 

WHEREAS, the Appearance Commission has revisited the issue of regulating vending racks in the public right-of-way and noted that the existing 1989 guidelines have benefited the downtown Chapel Hill; and

 

WHEREAS, the Appearance Commission has concluded some minor revisions to the 1989 guidelines would be beneficial to the community,

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council approves the following guidelines for newspaper vending racks:

 

1.     Racks should not have bent or broken legs.  Racks should be in good repair, rust-free, well painted, and clean and free of graffiti.  Text on racks should be limited to the name of the publication only.

2.     All racks should have self-closing doors, including free publications.  Windows should be kept clean and be free of broken glass or plastic.

3.     Litter should be picked up around all areas.  Delivery persons should self-police and pick up litter for a 5-foot radius around their respective racks.

4.     Racks should not be chained to utility poles, trees or other public or private structures.  Racks should be attached to each other where possible, only using chains when absolutely necessary.

5.     The Town of Chapel Hill will provide trash receptacles as near to vending rack sites as possible, where feasible.  Discarded or unused bulk papers shall not be dumped into these receptacles.

6.     A written notification will be sent to offenders of these guidelines, requesting that racks in violation of these guidelines be repaired or replaced within 30 days of notification date.

7.     No rack shall be placed in pedestrian or vehicular right-of-way so as to impede pedestrian traffic flow or safety.

 

This the 23rd day of March, 1998.

 

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL (98-3-23/O-3)

 

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:

 

SECTION I

 

Sec. 14-53  Reinstatement is hereby amended to read as follows:

 

"Sec. 14-53  Reinstatement

 

An employee of the Town who is on educational, family, sick or other authorized leave shall be reinstated to the former position or one comparable in seniority, status, and salary, if such employee returns to Town service at the expiration of such leave, or authorized extension thereof.  An employee who fails to return within the required time shall be considered to have resigned.

 

An employee called to extended active duty with the United States military forces shall be reinstated, if qualified under the provisions of federal law.

 

A previous employee who resigns while in good standing and requests  reinstatement may be reinstated to the former position provided that such reinstatement occurs within one year of the date of separation.  In such cases the employee may  be reinstated at the previous salary rate, including any salary increases for which the employee would have been eligible during the absence.  Accumulated sick leave and other unused leave balances shall be restored to an employee who is reinstated. "

 

SECTION II

 

Sec. 14- 54   Rehiring shall to continue to provide:

 

" Sec. 14-54   Rehiring

 

An employee who separates from employment and is rehired by the Town shall be regarded as a new employee, subject to all of the provisions or rules and regulations of this Chapter.

 

An employee in good standing who is terminated due to a reduction in force shall be given the first opportunity to be rehired in the same or a similar position for which qualified.  In such cases, an employee who is rehired with two years shall retain the sick leave previously accrued, and may be rehired at the previous salary.  However, once an employee accepts the severance payment, the employee shall no longer have priority for consideration for employment in a Town position or for reinstatement of their sick leave."

 

SECTION III

 

This ordinance is effective upon adoption.

 

This the 23rd day of March, 1998.

Item #4.2 - Information Reports

 

Mr. Erwin Danziger asked for the Council's support of the Bethel Hickory Church Road realignment in the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan.

 

Mr. Horton noted the intent of placing it on the Thoroughfare Plan was to make it eligible for State and local funding.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 19.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

A RESOLUTION CONCERNING BETHEL HICKORY CHURCH ROAD REALIGNMENT (98-3-23/R-19)

 

WHEREAS, the Bethel Hickory Church Road realignment is currently shown on the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan; and

 

WHEREAS, the Town of Carrboro has requested that the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee revise the adopted Thoroughfare Plan to remove the Bethel Hickory Church Road element;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOVLED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council supports the Town of Carrboro’s request to the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee to remove the Bethel Hickory Church Road realignment from the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan.

 

This the 23rd day of March, 1998.

 

Referring to item #4.2d regarding the utility bill for the IFC shelter, Council Member Foy stated that $24,000 is a significant amount of money and the Town should be proud that we are able to donate these funds for this purpose.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER JOYCE BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 3.1, CHANGING THE SPEED LIMIT ON NORTH STREET FROM HENDERSON STREET TO AIRPORT ROAD FROM 25 MPH TO 20 MPH.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 6 -3, WITH MAYOR WALDORF AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN AND EVANS VOTING NAY.

 

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES

(98-3-23/O-3.1)

 

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill:

 

SECTION I

 

That Section 21-11(A) of the Town Code of Ordinances "Speed Regulations" is amended by inserting the following in appropriate order:

 

(1.)       Twenty miles per hour

 

(e.)       North Street from Henderson Street to Airport Road.

 

SECTION II

 

This ordinance shall be effective beginning May 1, 1998.

 

SECTION III

 

All ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herein are hereby repealed.

 

This the 23rd day of March, 1998.

 

Item #5 - Appointments to the Community Design Commission

 

Council Member Evans asked that since no professional civil engineer was on the Commission, that a spot be left open for at least one, so that someone could be recruited.

 

Five or more votes are required for appointment; ten persons may be appointed.  The following persons were appointed to the Community Design Commission:

 

            Dianne Bachman, 9 votes

            Michael Brown, 8 votes

            Terry Eason, 7 votes

            Bruce Guild, 8 votes

            Sarah Haskett, 6 votes

            Alice Ingram, 5 votes

            Stephen Manton, 7 votes

            Weezie Oldenburg, 9 votes

            Martin Rody, 5 votes

            Polly van de Velde, 6 votes

 

Council Member Evans expressed her concern that all ten appointments had been made with no professional civil engineer on the ballot.

Item #6 - Village Oaks Zoning Atlas Amendment and Special Use Permit

 

Roger Waldon stated the proposed ordinance would rezone 13.178 acres of land, located at the northwest corner of Erwin Road and Dobbins Drive, from Residential 2 to Residental-3-Conditional zoning.  Mr. Waldon said along with the Zoning Atlas Amendment application, the developer has submitted an application for a Special Use Permit to allow construction of 42,111 square foot group care facility on this site.  He noted the conditional use rezoning request would allow higher land use intensity than the current zoning allows.  Mr. Waldon said the current R-2 zoning would allow 35,563 square feet of floor area, whereas R-3-C would allow 61,375 square feet of floor area.

 

Council Member Evans asked who would pay for the sidewalk along Dobbins Drive.  Mr. Waldon  said he would get that information to the Council.  Mr. Horton noted that stipulation #5 in proposed Resolution A states that a payment-in-lieu be provided by the Developer for construction of a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along this property’s Dobbins Drive frontage prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

Council Member Foy said he was not clear on why the Transportation Board and the Appearance Commission was Recommending resolution B.  Mr. Waldon indicated the major difference in Resolution A and B  was vehicular access to Dobbins Drive and Erwin Road.  Council Member Foy stated he would support Resolution B.

 

Council Member Evans said it appears that redesigning would place the project too close to the Resource Conservation District.  Mr. Waldon agreed that this was the staff's concern as well, and noted that the way the parking is arranged at this time is satisfactory.

 

Jack Smyre of Kimley-Horn, speaking for the applicant, stated the reason the Transportation Board wanted to shift the parking is their concern with a conflict with pedestrian movement through the parking lot from Dobbins Drive.  Mr. Smyre remarked that they would have to cross 26 feet of asphalt to get to the other side, but this would still be the case even if the parking lots was shifted.  Mr. Smyre said the lot could not be placed on the northern side because of drainage problems.  Mr. Smyre indicated he had recently met with State DOT officials and was told the State would soon begin improvements to this area once Council gave them the formal notification of adoption of a resolution.  He said he left the meeting confident that they were in agreement as to the improvements and who would be responsible for them. 

 

Mr. Smyre reminded the Council that the building had been moved 50 feet in order to save the root system of a specimen tree.

 

Dr. Harvey Krasnee, a resident of Summerfield Crossing, stated his townhome is 25 feet from the property line of this project.  He said the issue concerning him is the walking pathway be placed 15 feet in front of the line of trees and shrubbery.  Dr. Krasnee said he had asked that a retaining fence be placed along this line with Summerfield Crossing.  He said he also understood that because of certain constraints, that pathway was going to be removed, but he still requests that a temporary retaining fence be placed 15 feet in front of that line to protect the buffer.  Dr. Krasnee noted he was opposed to any changes in the parking lot that might allow fumes to pollute the Summerfield Crossing neighborhood.

 

Mayor Waldorf asked the staff to elaborate on Dr. Krasnee's request.  Mr. Waldon said they had responded to concerns about the 50 foot buffer by placing a stipulation in the resolution requiring a fence to protect the 50 foot buffer.  Mr. Waldon said Dr. Krasnee’s request would mean that the 50 feet buffer fence would actually be 65 feet.

 

Council Member Evans asked Mr. Symre if the path was being removed, since it is still in the resolution as stipulation #12.  Mr. Smyre stated it is practical to have such a fence some distance from the project, and had no problem with placing it wherever necessary.

 

Mr. Horton suggested that stipulation #17 be revised as follows:  That during construction of this development, tree protection fencing shall be erected 15 feet east of the buffer along the west property line to protect the 50-foot wide landscape bufferyard along the western property line.

 

Mr. Smyre stated he would accept that language.

 

Mr. Smyre commented that with the adjustment of the building, it was necessary to have a retaining wall to protect that area.  Mr. Smyre noted it was not feasible with these changes to build the walkway, but if it was built it would be at least 15 feet form the tree buffer.  Mr. Smyre said they would prefer not to build the walkway.

 

Mayor Waldorf stated that stipulation #12 needed to be deleted from the resolution.

 

Council Member Evans asked if they had considered changing the name of the development due to its similarity to existing projects.  Mr. Smyre said it had been discussed, but the name is a national name and all of the owner’s brochures use that name.

 

Mr. Horton suggested that the words ‘if built” be added to stipulation #12, so that it would now read: That, if built, the pedestrian path surrounding the proposed building be located at least 15 feet away from the landscape bufferyard along the western property line of this site.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED O-4, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL ZONING ATLAS FOR THE VILLAGE OAKS OF CHAPEL HILL GROUP CARE FACILITY FROM RESIDENTIAL-2 TO RESIDENTIAL-3-CONDITIONAL ZONING  (Chapel Hill Tax Map Number 27, Block A, Lot 3) (98-3-23/O-4)

 

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the application of Marriott Senior Living Services, Inc. to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone property described below from Residential-2 to Residential-3-Conditional Zoning, and finds that the amendment is warranted in order to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Chapel Hill Zoning Atlas be amended as follows:

 

Section I

 

That the property identified as now or formerly Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 27, Block A, Lot 3 (identified on the attached map) located at the northwest corner of the Erwin Road/Dobbins Drive intersection, within the Residential-2 zoning district, be rezoned from Residential-2 to Residential-3-Conditional zoning.

 

Section II

 

That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

 

This the 23rd day of March, 1998.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED RESOLUTION 11.1a, WITH THE NOTED AMENDMENTS TO STIPULATIONS #12 ANDS #17, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE VILLAGE OAKS OF CHAPEL HILL GROUP CARE FACILITY

(98-3-23/R-11.1a)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council finds that the Special Use Permit application, proposed by Marriott Senior Living Services, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 27, Block A, Lot 3, if developed according to the site plan dated December 23, 1997 and the conditions listed below:

 

1.                  Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;

2.                  Would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, 14, and 18,  and with all other applicable regulations (with the exceptions listed below);

3.                  Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and

4.                  Would conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for the Special Use Permit for the Village Oaks of Chapel Hill development in accordance with the plans listed above and with conditions listed below:

 

Stipulations Specific to the Development

 

1.                 That construction begin by March 23, 2000 (two years from the date of Council approval) and be completed by March 23, 2001 (three years from the date of Council approval).

2.                 Land Use:  That this Special Use Permit authorizes the construction of a one-story group care facility containing no more than 42,111 square feet of floor area, 103 residents, and 58 parking spaces.

3.                 Developable Area:  That no construction or grading may occur in the northern portion of the site outside the area of development identified on the site plan, and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plans.

Required Improvements

4.                  Dobbins Drive Right-of-Way:  That public right-of-way be dedicated along Dobbins Drive to correspond with the North Carolina Department of Transportation’s plans for the relocation of this roadway, and that the width and location of this right-of-way be approved by NCDOT and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  The dedication of this right-of-way shall be recorded prior to issuance of a Building Permit for this development.

5.                  Dobbins Drive Payment-in-Lieu:  That a payment-in-lieu be provided for the construction of curb and gutter, three-foot wide planting strip, and five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along this property’s Dobbins Drive frontage prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, at an amount to be approved by the Town Manager.

6.                  Dobbins Drive Bus Stop:  That the developer either provide a bus stop including a bench and 5-foot by 10-foot pad on Dobbins Drive once this road is reconfigured; or that a payment-in-lieu be provided for this bus stop, at an amount to be approved by the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

7.                  Sidewalk to Dobbins Drive:  That a sidewalk be constructed from the proposed group care facility to the sidewalk along Dobbins Drive, after completion of NCDOT’s Dobbins Drive realignment project, in a location that will not require crossing of the Resource Conservation District area.

8.                  Erwin Road Right-of-Way:  That one-half of a 100-foot public right-of-way be dedicated along this property’s Erwin Road frontage, and that the location of this right-of-way be approved by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  The dedication of this right-of-way shall be recorded prior to issuance of a Building Permit.

9.                  Erwin Road Turn Lane:  That a left turn lane be provided along Erwin Road at the entrance to this site; or that a payment-in-lieu be provided for the construction of this turn lane by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), if the NCDOT agrees to construct the turn lane on a schedule agreeable to the Town Manager.  This payment shall be made, at an amount to be approved by the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

10.              Erwin Road Payment-in-Lieu:  That a payment-in-lieu be provided for the construction of curb and gutter, bicycle lane, three-foot wide planting strip, and five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along this property’s Erwin Road frontage, if these improvements are not part of the North Carolina Department of Transportation’s ultimate cross-section. This payment shall be made, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, at an amount to be approved by the Town Manager.

11.              Sidewalk from Erwin Road:  That a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk be constructed from Erwin Road, along the entrance drive to this development.

12.              Pedestrian Path:  That, if built, the pedestrian path surrounding the proposed building be located at least 15 feet away from the landscape bufferyard along the western property line of this site.

Stipulations Related to State and Federal Governments Approvals

13.              State Permits/Agreements:  That any required State permits or encroachment agreements be approved and copies of the approved permits and agreements be submitted to the Town of Chapel Hill prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related to Landscape Elements

14.             Landscape Plan Approval:  That a detailed landscape plan, landscape maintenance plan, and lighting plan be approved by the Appearance Commission and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

15.             Landscape Protection Plan:  That a Landscape Protection Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit; and that the Plan include Town standard notes and details.

16.             Required Buffers:  That the following landscape bufferyards be provided; and if any existing vegetation is to be used to satisfy the buffer requirements, the vegetation will be protected by fencing from adjacent construction:

¨      Type C landscape bufferyard (minimum width 30 feet) along the angled section of the northern property line;

¨      Type C landscape bufferyard (minimum width 45 feet) along the eastern portion of the northern property line, near Erwin Road;

¨      Type D landscape bufferyard (minimum width 50 feet) along Erwin Road;

¨      Type C landscape bufferyard (minimum width 50 feet) along the western property line; and

¨      Type D landscape bufferyard (minimum width 30 feet) along Dobbins Drive.

17.             Landscape Bufferyard Protection:  That during construction of this development, tree protection fencing shall be erected 15 feet east of the buffer along the west property line to protect the 50-foot wide landscape bufferyard along the western property line. 

Stipulations Related to Fire Safety

18.             Fire Flow:  That a fire flow report prepared by a registered professional engineer, showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Design Manual, be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

19.             Sprinkler system:  That a sprinkler system be provided in the proposed building, and that the Fire Marshal approve the Fire Department’s connections to the system prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

20.             Fire Prevention:  That all Fire Department safeguards and requirements be established and confirmed, and that the Department approve all fire hydrant locations, siamese connections, building evacuation capabilities, and fire truck access to the proposed building, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related to Refuse Management

21.             Solid Waste Management Plan:  That a detailed solid waste management plan, including a recycling plan and a plan for managing and minimizing construction debris, be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 

Miscellaneous Stipulations

22.              Detailed Plans:  That final detailed site plan, grading plan, utility/lighting plans, stormwater management plan (with hydraulic calculations), landscape plan and landscape management plan be approved by the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and the design standards of the Development Ordinance and the Design Manual.

23.              Stormwater Management Plan:  That a Stormwater Management Plan, based on the Town’s HYDROS model, be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  Based on a 10-year storm, the post-development stormwater run-off rate should not exceed the pre-development rate.  The Plan must show where and how stormwater detention for this site will be achieved.

24.              Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by OWASA, Duke Power Company, Public Service Company, BellSouth, Time Warner Cable, and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 

25.              Building Elevations:  That the Appearance Commission approve building elevations for this project prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

26.              Transportation Management Plan:  That prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant prepare a Transportation Management Plan for approval by the Town Manager.  The required components of the Transportation Management Plan shall include:

¨             Provision for designation of a Transportation Coordinator;

¨             Provisions for an annual Transportation Survey and Annual Report to the Town Manager;

¨             Quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives;

¨             Ridesharing incentives; and

¨             Public transit incentives.

27.              Erosion Control:  That a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan be approved by Orange County and be submitted to the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 

28.              Noise Impact:  That best efforts be made to minimize the impacts of noise from the air handling systems involved with this proposed development; and that the development, upon completion, shall comply with the Town’s noise ordinance.

29.              Silt Control:  That the applicant take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.

30.              Construction Sign:  That the applicant post a construction sign that lists the property owner's representative, with a telephone number, the contractor's representative, with a phone number, and a telephone number for regulatory information prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

31.              Continued Validity:  That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above. 

32.              Non-severability:  If any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void. 

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the Village Oaks of Chapel Hill group care facility in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above. 

This the 23rd day of March, 1998.

 

 

Item #7 - University Presbyterian Church SUP

 

Mr. Waldon indicated the proposed resolution would approve a Special Use Permit to construct a 2,300 square foot addition on the south side and an elevator on the north side of University Presbyterian Church.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION A.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE UNIVERSITY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH ADDITION AND RENOVATIONS (File Number 80.E. 2,3,4) (98-3-23/R-12a)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application, proposed by the University Presbyterian Church on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 60, Block E, Lots 2, 3 and 4 if developed according to the site plan dated October 15, 1997 and revised November 7, 1997 and the conditions listed below:

 

1.         Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;

 

2.         Would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, 14, and 18, and with all other applicable regulations;

 

3.         Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property;  and

 

4.         Would conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council finds, in this particular case, that the following modification to the regulations satisfies public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree:

 

Modification of Section 13.11.2  of the Development Ordinance to allow 42,578  square feet of floor area;

 

Modification of Section 13.11.2 of the Development Ordinance to allow minimum outdoor space of 39,553 square feet;

 

Modification of Section 13.11.2 of the Development Ordinance to allow a minimum of 10,789 square feet of livability space;

 

Modification of Section 14.12 of the Development Ordinance which stipulates the minimum required landscaped bufferyards to allow no buffer along Rosemary Street at the playground and to allow a Type A bufferyard for the remainder of the Rosemary Street frontage and the eastern and western property boundaries. 

 

The public purpose served in this instance is that the project will fulfill the Town Center Objective of the Comprehensive Plan:  “Revitalize and conserve the Town Center as an attractive and active center for economic, service, residential, and social functions, characterized by a pedestrian orientation and human scale.”

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for the Special Use Permit for the University Presbyterian Church in accordance with  the plans listed above and with conditions listed below:

 

Stipulations Specific to the Development

 

1.            That construction begin by March 23, 2000  (two years from the date of Council approval) and be completed by March 23, 2008 (ten years from the date of Council approval).

 

2.            That this Special Use Permit approves 42,578 square feet of floor area; 39,553 square feet of Outdoor Space;  10,789 square feet of Livability Space; and 27 parking spaces.

 

Required Improvements

 

3.            Streetscape Improvements:   That the applicant provide Streetscape improvements to the area between the Franklin Street sidewalk and the curb to include benches, bike racks and a new trash receptacle on brick paving and ground cover plantings beneath the existing trees.

 

Stipulations Related to Landscape Elements

 

4.            Landscape Plan Approval:  That a detailed landscape plan, landscape maintenance plan, and lighting plan be approved by the Historic District Commission prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  The landscape plan shall include the following landscape bufferyards: 

 

Along the southern boundary (Franklin Street):  Type A

Along the western boundary:  Type A

Along the northern boundary (Rosemary Street east of the playground):  Type A

Along the eastern boundary:  Type A.  

 

Alternate buffers may be proposed for the western and northern (east of the playground) property lines.

 

5.            Alternate Buffer:  That the applicant receive approval by the Historic District Commission prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for an alternate Type A buffer along the western and northern property boundaries. 

 

6.            Landscape Protection Plan:  That a Landscape Protection Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit and that the Plan require that the applicant discuss with contractors, prior to construction, the necessity to protect the 17” live oak near the proposed addition.     

 

Stipulations Related to Building Elevations

 

7.            Building Elevation Approval:  That detailed building elevations be approved by the Historic District Commission prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

8.            Fire Flow:  That a fire flow report prepared by a registered professional engineer, showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Design Manual, be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

9.            Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Duke Power Company, Public Service Company, Bell South, and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 

 

Miscellaneous Stipulations

 

10.        Solid Waste Management Plan:  That a detailed solid waste management plan, including a recycling plan and plan for managing and minimizing construction debris, be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

11.        Shared Waste Collection Site: That the applicant investigate participating with nearby businesses and apartments in a shared dumpster agreement and a joint access agreement and that if the applicant is able to work out a joint access and dumpster agreement that this written agreement be approved by the Town Manager and recorded prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.    

 

12.        Detailed Plans:  That final detailed site plan, grading plan, utility/lighting plans, stormwater management plan (with hydraulic calculations), which shows the method(s) of conveying the storm water around the building site, and a landscape plan and landscape management plan be approved by the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and the design standards of the Development Ordinance and the Design Manual.

 

13.        Erosion Control:  That a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 

 

14.        Construction Sign Required:  That the applicant post a construction sign that lists the property owner’s representative, with a telephone number; the contractor’s representative, with a phone number; and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 

 

15.        Silt Control:  That the applicant take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.

 

16.        Continued Validity:  That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above. 

 

17.        Non-severability:  If any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void. 

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the University Presbyterian Church in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above. 

 

This the 23rd  day of March, 1998.

 

Item #8 - Zeta Tau Alpha Special Use Permit Modification

 

Mr. Horton stated that the applicant had agreed to provide a pavement waiver prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the building addition,  and that a stipulation had been included in resolution A to provide flexibility in the selection of replacement trees.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 13a.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR ZETA TAU ALPHA SORORITY HOUSE ADDITION

(SUP MOD 80-G-6) (98-3-23/R-13a)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application, on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 80, Block G, Lot 6, if developed according to the site plan dated November 1997 (revised and received December 5, 1997), and the conditions listed below:

 

1.         Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;

 

2.         Would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, 14 and 18, and with all other applicable regulations, with the modifications listed below;

 

3.         Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and

 

4.         Would conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds, in this particular case, that the following modifications satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree:

 

1.         Modification of Subsection 13.11.3 of the Development Ordinance to exceed the maximum floor area limit, allowing 9,431 square feet of floor area.

 

                        2.         Modification of Subsection 14.6.7 of the Development Ordinance to allow 30 parking spaces for 31 residents of the sorority house.

 

The public purpose in this instance is the provision of adequate living space for university students.

 

These findings are conditioned on the following:

 

Stipulations Specific to the Development

 

1.         Construction Deadlines:  That construction begin by March 23, 2000 and be completed by March 23, 2001.

 

2.         Land Use Intensity:  This Special Use Permit Modification approves a sorority with 31 residents and a total floor area of 9,431 square feet; outdoor space of  18,584 square feet; livability space of  9,247 square feet, and a minimum of 30 parking spaces.

 

3.         Required Improvements:  That half of a 50-foot public right-of-way be dedicated prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

4.         Dumpster/Recycling Area:  That space be provided on site for the future installation of a cardboard dumpster, and that the proposed recycling area be widened to at least 21 feet to accommodate 7 recycling carts.

 

5.         Heavy Duty Pavement or Waiver:  That the collection vehicle access route to any collection area be paved with all-weather, heavy-duty pavement, or that the applicant provide the Town a waiver from the applicant in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, stating the Town would not be responsible for any damages to existing pavement resulting from Town service to these containers.

 

Stipulations Related to Landscape Elements

 

6.         Tree Replacement and Fence Repair:  That the sorority shall replace the dead Bradford Pear tree(s) with live Bradford Pear(s), or other small flowering tree(s) approved by the Town Manager; and shall repair the fence along the western property line. 

 

Stipulation Related to Building Elevations

 

7.         Building Elevations:  That detailed building elevations and site lighting be approved by the Appearance Commission prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

Stipulations Related to Water, Sewer and Other Utilities

 

8.         Fire Safety and Fire Flow Report: 

 

a.         That a plan be submitted showing the installation plan for automatic sprinklering for the existing building and proposed addition, for approval by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Building Permit.

 

b.         That a detailed fire flow report, prepared by a registered professional engineer, and showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Design Manual, be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

9.         Utility/Lighting Plan Approval:  That the final detailed utility/lighting plan be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Duke Power, BellSouth, Public Service Company, Time Warner Cable, and the Town Manager, before issuance of Zoning Compliance Permit. 

 

Miscellaneous Stipulations

 

10.       Solid Waste Management Plan:  That a detailed solid waste management plan, including a recycling plan and a plan for managing and minimizing demolition and construction debris, be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

11.       Detailed Plans:  That final detailed site plan, utility/lighting plans, be approved by the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance all applicable conditions and the design standards of the Development Ordinance and the Design Manual.

 

12.       Construction Sign Required:  That the applicant post a construction sign that lists the property owners' representative, with a telephone number; the contractor's representative, with phone number; and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

13.       Continued Validity:  That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.

 

14.       Non-severability:  If any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council approves the application for Special Use Permit Modification for the Zeta Tau Alpha Sorority House Addition in accordance with the plans, conditions, and modifications of regulations listed above.

 

This the 23rd day of March, 1998.

 

Item #9 - Landfill Issues

 

Mayor Waldorf stated that the Council had received a letter from the Orange County Commissioners putting to the Council several questions having to do with Solid Waste issues, and the staff had been asked to respond to those questions.

 

Mr. Horton stated the report responds to the questions raised by the Commissioners in exactly the order in which they were listed.

 

Solid Waste Administrator Gayle Wilson summarized the issues in the Manager’s memorandum.

 

Ms. Bonnie Norwood, a resident of Sanford Lane, showed the Council a sample of the water from her well.  She asked that the Council understand that she was told before they moved there that they would be compensated by allowing the landfill to be built there.  Ms. Norwood indicated she must filter all her water before use, adding that her water is contaminated because the entire landfill is not lined.  Ms. Norwood asked the Council to compensate her for these problems.  She indicated the residents in her neighborhood had asked for bus service on many occasions and still have not received it.  She also asked that Reade Road be repaired.

 

Mr. Robert Campbell said he had lived on Rogers Road since 1973, and that his water used to be clear and taste good.  He said when the Eubanks Road landfill was developed, the water changed color and no longer tastes good.  Mr. Campbell said during rainfall, the water is obviously contaminated. He said he believes the testing procedures are flawed.  Mr. Campbell said Ms. Norwood is not the only resident with water problems, and asked the Council to have staff check each well for contaminants.  He said if the landfill is the culprit, then the Council must deal with it.  Mr. Campbell said he believes illegal dumping has taken place under the guise of building materials, and that late night dumping has also taken place.  He said if someone is accessing the landfill after closing hours, then better oversight needs to be instituted.

 

Mr. Campbell said that now that there is a County agency on Homestead Road, bus service needs to be provided, and suggested a loop down Airport Road to the park and ride lot, then down Homestead Road, so that it would benefit his neighborhood.

 

Council Member Andresen asked about the contamination or other problems in this area.  Mr. Wilson said some extensive testing had been done in the landfill area, and primarily the contamination that arises is bacteriological, metals, and occasionally organic compounds.  He indicated this is a County-wide problem.

 

R.D. Smith said in 1971 and 1972 the University allowed the Town to build the Public Works compound on top of the landfill, and at the same time Carrboro's landfill was filling up.  Mr. Smith said the Town agreed to let Carrboro buy into the landfill.  He noted that at the same time the County landfill in Hillsborough was filling up and the County unsuccessfully tried to buy land for a landfill.  Mr. Smith noted the County then bought into the Town’s landfill.  Mr. Smith said if the County wants to operate the landfill, they should find land in the County and operate it themselves.  He asked that the individual wells be tested for contaminants.  Mr. Smith said the County wants to use the Greene tract when they take over the landfill, because they can't find any other land to put a landfill on.  He said it was not fair to continue to talk about landfill issue and the County taking it over when the County cannot provide its own land for a landfill.  Mr. Smith asked why a landfill could not be located in the County?

 

Mayor Waldorf suggested that the Council take each issue in the order it appears in the report and make a decision on whether to accept the staff’s answer on each.  The Council agreed.  Portions of the report are included below with discussion following.

 

A.        Issue: Benefit #1 - Water/Sewer Extensions: Well Testing and Use of LOG Funds

 

l.                    Issue: Does the Council agree with the County determination that sewer line extensions should not be considered as a benefit because no direct or indirect impact from the landfill has been identified?

 

Comment: We believe that landfill operations have not created a need that would be met by construction of sewer lines to serve private properties.

 

Vote on the comment: unanimous.

 

2.                  Issue: Does the Council agree with the County's analysis of well test data indicating that the Eubanks Road neighborhoods drinking water is similar to that elsewhere in Orange County?

 

Comment: We understand that the County Health Department has developed data and conducted an analysis of the drinking water wells both in the vicinity of the landfill and throughout Orange County; and, that they have reached the conclusion stated above.  We have no basis on which to disagree with the conclusions of County staff.  We have not conducted an independent assessment.

 

Mayor Waldorf said she felt compensation would be in order for those affected by unsafe wells.

 

Council Member Foy said if a determination was made that linked unsafe wells with the landfill, then landfill funds could be used for compensation.

 

Council Member Wiggins stated that on page 24 of the report the last comment stated the landfill does not appear to pose an immediate risk to surrounding residential water supply wells.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski  said this was a technical finding, and he did not feel the Council was competent to agree or disagree.

 

Council Member Andresen said she would be in favor of creating a fund for compensation, and does not necessarily agree with the finding.

 

Council Member Foy said he does not believe we are at the point where we could conclude that the wells have not been contaminated.

 

Council Member Wiggins said she was uncomfortable with an absolute statement saying the landfill had not impacted the wells in the area of the landfill.

 

Council Member Brown said the important issue is how we are going to address the problems in this neighborhood and how compensation would be made.

 

Vote: 7 - 2, with Council Members Pavăo and Wiggins voting nay.

                       

3.                 Issue: Does the Council agree with the County's assessment that there does not seem to be a causative relationship between landfill blasting activities and water quality concerns in the landfill neighborhood?

 

Comment: We agree with the County Engineer's view that the available data does not support any causative relationship between landfill blasting activities and assertions of water quality impacts.  Landfill monitoring wells located close to the blasting events show no evidence of impacts.  Seismic monitoring of blasting events demonstrated that they were well within US Bureau of Mines protection limits.

 

Council Member Andresen stated she supported this because no evidence had been shown to the contrary.

 

Vote on the comment: unanimous.

 

4.                 Issue: Given the County's conclusions in 2. and 3. above, and the previous opinions of the County and Town Attorneys indicating that landfill funds cannot be utilized to fund community benefits not related to landfill operations, does the Council agree that any benefits provided should not be financed by the landfill fund?

 

Comment: As we understand it, North Carolina law, as established by both General Statutes and Appellate Court decisions, limits landfill tipping fees to those reasonably necessary to provide the services which the fees are intended to support.  North Carolina Court decisions indicate that a municipality may charge fees reasonably associated with operations, depreciation and actual or anticipated capital costs of a public enterprise.  A statutory provision expressly states that a County landfill fee "may not exceed the cost of operating the facility."

 

The Landfill Fund appears not to be an appropriate source of funds for community improvements.  The governing bodies could appropriately spend other public funds on community benefits in this area.

 

Vote: 8 - 1, with Council Member Wiggins voting nay.

 

B.         Issue: Benefit #1 - Water/Sewer Extensions: Potential Approaches

 

3.                 Issue: Which neighborhoods, if any, does the Council think should be included in any benefit related to water quality?  What approached should be pursued in these neighborhoods, including the consideration of individual home water filtration systems?

 

Comment: The "Groundwater Risk Assessment" prepared by Buxton Environmental, Inc. dated November 17, 1997 concludes that there are no residential drinking wells that would be at risk of contamination by the landfill.  We believe the consultants conclusion is reasonable.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski stated he believed the Orange County Commissioners had agreed that the border line should be extended to the area known as the historic Rogers Road area.  Mr. Wilson stated that was correct, that the area in question was the Rogers Road area from Eubanks Road down to what is known as the Rogers Road community, all the way to the end of Rogers Road.

 

Council Member Foy said in discussing this with the Commissioners and the Landfill Owners Group, the intention in referring to this as the historic Rogers Road area was to include certain properties that have no residences on them.

 

Gary Carver, a resident of this area, said the historic Rogers Road area referred to in the County Commissioners’ report included the Nunn residence and the area around Tally Ho Drive.  Mr. Carver said he did not believe the residents were asking for anything they did not deserve.

 

Council Member Andresen said she would support water for the area under discussion, but the Council needed to work out the costs for the trunk lines.  She indicated she was interested in the water filtration systems recommended by the County.  Mr. Wilson stated the filtration systems would be cheaper than providing water and sewer to the 70 homes in question.  Council Member Andresen asked if there was a possibility of temporary water filters being used while water lines were installed.  Mr. Wilson answered that it was a possibility.  Council Member Andresen asked if those temporary units could then be sold.  Mr. Horton stated they would have to be depreciated but may have some secondary resale value.

 

Council Member Evans said it wasn’t just the cost of installing the trunk lines to be considered, but the ongoing costs of maintenance as well.  She asked on whom this responsibility would fall.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski commented that the Town is growing in this direction, and eventually water and sewer would have to be extended to the area.  He said he does not know if a health risk exists, but knows he would not want to have to face these questions each day.

 

Council Member Brown said filtration units might have short term benefits, but in the long run may prove to have maintenance problems and prove expensive to run.  Mr. Horton agreed.

 

Council Member Foy stated it would take some time to extend water lines to this area, and believes the filtration systems could be used in the interim while lines were being installed.

 

Ms. Norwood said the filtration systems did not work on water that is cloudy.  She stated a sediment filtration system must be used that uses two filters and the filters must be changed often.  Mr. Horton stated that some filtration systems do involve sediment screening that would work.

 

Mr. Campbell said if you install a system like this, you have to have a sediment filtration system to go along with it, as well as build a structure to house it, becoming even more expensive for the residents.  He said he believed it would be cheaper to run water lines to this area.

 

Vote on the comment:  unanimous.

 

C.        Issue: Benefit #1 - Water/Sewer Extensions: Cost Allocation

 

The County has suggested three options for allocating costs for any water service benefit ultimately provided - landfill ownership interest; population; and waste generation rates.  Are there other methods that should be considered for assessing the shares of the public costs of water line extensions?

 

Comment: We discuss the funding scenarios presented by the County separately:

 

-        Ownership Interest Proportion  The landfill ownership interest method would assign costs as follows: 43% Chapel Hill, 43% County, and 14% Carrboro.  Under this method Chapel Hill residents would pay twice; once in Chapel Hill taxes and once in Orange County taxes.

 

-        Waste Deposited Proportion  Under this method the County argues that proportions of cost would be similar to proportions of waste delivered by each community:  52.6% Chapel Hill, 30.2% Orange County, and 17.2% Carrboro.  However, only 44.8% of waste delivered to the landfill is brought directly by the governmental entities with the rest from private haulers.  Of the total amount delivered to the landfill, the governments’ portion are 25.3% Chapel Hill, 11.9% Orange County and 7.6% Carrboro; and private haulers contribute the remaining 55.2%.

 

-        Population Proportion  There are two methods that would be based on population.  In the first, we would divide the population according to municipal boundaries and unincorporated areas.  Chapel Hill would pay 43.1%, Orange County 42.3%, and Carrboro 14.6%.

 

A second method would use the approach used for the distribution of sales taxes:  Orange County's population would be 105,000, (which includes people within municipal boundaries and without) Chapel Hill 43,000, and Carrboro 14,000, with the resultant percentages as follows: Chapel Hill 26.5%, Orange County 64.8%, and Carrboro 8.6%. Both methods would result in Chapel Hill residents paying twice; once in Chapel Hill taxes and once in Orange County taxes.

 

It is our opinion that the all County residents should share equally in funding of any water service lines provided, using the principle of one person/one tax.  To avoid double taxation of municipal taxpayers,  the County would need to fund the improvements.  The County could pay from its operating budget or could finance the costs in several different ways.

 

Council Member Brown commented she would like the Council to have more options on how to pay for these improvements.


Mayor pro tem Capowski commented he liked the idea of spreading the cost to all residents in the County since they all benefit from the landfill.  He said he believes the County should come up with a way to pay for it through their budget process.

 

Council Member Andresen agreed that County funding should be provided, but added that specific recommendations should be made.

 

Council Member Evans noted that double taxation should not take place.

 

Mayor Waldorf said she would like to eliminate all the options other than that the County would need to fund the improvements, and that all County residents would bear the cost equally.

 

Council Member Foy asked if a bond issue was used, how would we address the issue if the bond issue failed?

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski responded that the County uses the landfill, that this is a County-wide problem and not a Chapel Hill problem, and that the residents have suffered because of the entire County’s trash.

 

Council Member Brown said a bond offers all municipalities an opportunity to support water and sewer extension.  She added the landfill was a County-wide facility, and we could work with the County on other ways to fund the extension if a bond effort failed.

 

Council Member Andresen asked how the laterals from the trunk lines to the homes would be paid for?  She asked if the municipalities would be willing to contribute to the effort from block grant funds.

 

Council Member Wiggins noted that the use of landfill funds is still a potential.  She said she believes that if this had been an affluent neighborhood they could have hired their own experts to support a particular point of view, but since they can not afford to do so she is not satisfied that we have a definitive word on what is happening to the wells in this area.

 

Vote: unanimous.  The Council agreed that they would support the County paying for the provision of water to this area through a bond or other methods, including landfill funds if there is ever any evidence that the landfill affected the quality of water in this area.

 

D.        Issue: Benefit #1 - Water/Sewer Extensions: Other Issues

 

1.                 Issue: Does the Council agree that a tipping-fee-supported contingency account should be established to address any  potential future contamination of wells, including those in the rural buffer, caused by landfill leachate? 

 

Comment: Consistent with our comments in B. 3. above, we would submit that none of the neighborhood drinking wells are in the zone of potential contamination; therefore, we believe that such a fund would be unnecessary.  However, we do believe that in the event of a contamination problem, all existing landfill reserves would be made available to address any public health problem.

 

Council Member Evans said the Greene tract belongs to the Landfill Owners Group, and asked why the only source of revenue would be from tipping fees.

 

Council Member Foy said the tipping fee is an ongoing revenue source, and the sale of the Greene tract would be a one-time revenue source.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked why we would want to increase the tipping fee just to build a fund. He said if we can borrow money at low rates, why not do that rather than building a fund?  Council Member Foy answered that instead of putting ourselves in the position of the Landfill Owners Group pleading poverty, the fund would be there and if a link was established between the contamination of the wells and the landfill, then money would be available.

 

Council Member Andresen said it is more powerful to have the funds available.

 

Council Member Pavăo stated the downside is that right now we are in a favorable interest rate climate, but in the future we may not be.  He said that at least with an increase in the tipping fee, we are assured that the fund will continue to grow.

 

Council Member Brown said the landfill fund is different from any other fund, and is similar to a utility fund in that it pays its own way as it goes along.  She added it takes in enough money for what it provides.

 

Mr. Horton noted one of his concerns is that it would take a substantial increase in the tipping fee to raise a substantial amount of money.

 

Vote on comment:  8-1, with Mayor Pro tem Capowski voting nay.

 

2.                 Issue: Would the Council support a survey of landfill neighbors to ascertain which residents could benefit from the installation of water filtration systems?

 

Comment: Please refer to comment B. 3. above.  While there may be residences near the landfill and elsewhere in the County that may benefit from such filtration systems, we believe that it is up to the County to decide whether the neighborhoods should be surveyed and how to interpret the results.

 

Vote on comment: unanimous.

 

E.         Issue: Benefit #2 - Financial Assistance for Water and Sewer Connections

 

1.                 Issue: Does the Council feel that 1) OWASA should be asked to waive its facility fees for connections to any water lines extended to a benefit area and 2) grants for water connections should be provided to homeowners in the benefit area similar to that which are applicable to applicants for CDBG grants?

 

Comment: It does not seen equitable for OWASA customers to subsidize an obligation that appears to us to rest with all county citizens.

 

We believe is would be appropriate for the governmental bodies to seek grant assistance for persons meeting Community Development Block Grant income guidelines.  This could be done as a consortium or by individual jurisdictions.

 

Council Member Andresen said the second half of this question refers to laterals, or extending lines to people’s homes.

 

Council Member Foy commented we should ask OWASA to waive their fees, and let them decide if they will or will not.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked who would be more likely to get a grant to help pay for extensions, OWASA or the Town.  Mr. Horton answered the Town, adding he did not believe OWASA would be eligible for such funds.  He said the County, acting as a consortium, would also be eligible be community development funds.

 

Council Member Brown asked if we could look for grants to fund the lateral extensions.  Mr. Horton answered the only funds available that he was aware of was Community Development funds.  He added that the County acting alone or as a consortium could apply for these funds.  Council Member Brown said she would support this idea.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski noted that if the Town works with the County as a consortium, the County has a better chance of receiving these funds.

 

Council Member Foy offered some alternative language for the first part of this question, so that it would read “Does the Council feel that 1) OWASA should be asked to provide advice on how it might subsidize facility fees for connections to any water lines extended to the historic Rogers Road area,”.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski said as an OWASA customer he would prefer that federal money be used rather than experience a rate increase.

 

Mayor Waldorf suggested the Council ask OWASA how they might participate.

 

Vote on the comment, with Council Member Foy’s language included:  5 -4, with Council Members Andresen, Bateman, Brown and Capowski voting nay.

 

2.                 Issue: What does the Council think about which costs should be covered with public funds (e.g. main water lines) and which costs (e.g. acreage/facility fees, plumbing connections) if any, should be borne by private property owners?

 

Comment: Please refer to C. above, which suggests that the County be responsible for main water lines.  Connection fees and laterals for low income people could be paid for through Community Development Block Grant funds or from the County general fund.

 

Mr. Horton suggested alternative language to the second sentence under the Comment section: “Connection fees and laterals for low income people could be paid for through Community Development Block Grant funds.

 

Vote on comment, with Mr. Horton’s suggested language: unanimous.

 

Regarding Benefit #10, Council Member Brown noted this issue regarding transportation had been omitted from the report because it had been determined in the Assembly of Governments’ meeting that this issue would be left up to the Town of Chapel Hill.

 

Mayor Waldorf stated she believed this issue should be referred to the Manager and staff.

 

Vote: unanimous.

 

F.         Issue: Benefit #11 - Activities Related to Planning Boundaries

 

Do the Towns need any assistance from the Chair in resolving issues related to the planning boundaries between Chapel Hill and Carrboro?

 

Comment: The planning boundary is referred to in the Joint Planning Agreement.  The current process for changing the boundary would be to change the line on the Land Use Plan.  This could be accomplished following a Joint Public Hearing (with the three elected bodies) and a subsequent approval individually by each of the three elected boards.

 

If the governments wish to proceed, we would suggest following the typical process for gaining public opinion about the issue: conduct a well-publicized public hearing or forum, giving opportunity for individuals to come and express their opinions before elected boards, who would then take all comments into consideration before making a decision.

 

Council Member Brown said she believes we should at least set some process to address this issue.

 

Council Member Evans said the process might be to explain how difficult it is to attempt to change boundaries, due to the equity issues.

 

Council Member Andresen said she did not believe it would be that difficult, adding that Chapel Hill and Carrboro could come to an agreement.  She said the Mayor of Carrboro had indicated it would not be a problem for this community to be in Chapel Hill or in Carrboro.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski stated he did not believe it is that simple, that no community liked to give up land.

 

Council Member Brown noted this community feels divided now, and we should give them an opportunity to come together and discuss this.  She moved that the Council set a process to raise the questions that need to be answered and then set another meeting to discuss the conclusions.  Council Member Wiggins seconded that suggestion.

 

Council Member Bateman asked if it was customary for a community to decide which town they were located in.  Mayor Waldorf answered no.  Council Member Bateman suggested that Carrboro be approached to discover their view on this issue.

 

Council Member Foy suggested we just answer the question as yes, since we apparently do need help.

 

Council Member Brown offered to remove her motion based on Council Member Foy’s suggestion.

 

Council Member Foy moved that the Council answer yes to the question.

 

Vote on whether the Towns need assistance from the Chair:  7-2, with Council Members Evans and Capowski voting nay.

 

G.        Issue: Benefit 12 - Post-Closure Use of the Landfill

 

1.                 Issue: Does the Council agree that it is imprudent to pursue construction of a recreation facility on a closed landfill?

 

Comment: We believe that a recreation facility would not be a suitable post-closure use for either the Northern or Southern portions of the Eubanks Road Landfill.

 

In 1989 new rules governing landfill design, construction, operation and closure came into effect.  The rules require the disposal cell areas of both old and new landfills to be monitored for methane gas and groundwater contamination for 30 years after closure.  The rule requires development of a series of gas and groundwater wells for this purpose.  Where a leachate collection system exists, such as on the South Eubanks area, leachate must be collected and treated.  Additionally, the closed disposal cells are required to be covered with an engineered capping system that must be maintained and protected for a minimum of 30 years.  These caps will also contain a methane gas venting system.  Given the array of post-closure activities required and the relatively small amount of the total acreage unaffected by these requirements, little of the property is available without significant restrictions.

 

We do feel that a suitable post-closure use for the landfill during the 30 year post-closure period would be its development into a wildlife refuge or other natural area.  Once the 30 year post-closure restrictions are eliminated, additional uses for this property may be considered.

 

Vote on the comment:  unanimous.

2.                 Issue: Does the Council have an interest in considering the following facilities for possible siting on the Greene Tract:

 

*                 construction & demolition landfill

*                 mixed solid waste landfill

*                 materials recovery facility

*                 transfer station

 

                        If not, does the Council have proposals for where these facilities could be located?

 

Comment:  The Northwest Small Area Plan, was developed pursuant to the Council's direction as a possible guide to the Northwest area,  including development of the Greene Tract and the surrounding area.  The Northwest Small Area Plan envisions several uses of the Greene Tract, including a village center (mixed uses), various residential areas, a park, and a transportation corridor.  The Council has not been presented with, nor committed to any specific development proposals for the Greene Tract.

 

The Landfill Owners Group has recently voted unanimously to recommend that the Greene Tract not be utilized for solid waste facilities and has initiated a preliminary exploration of possible sites for a construction and demolition landfill and a materials recovery facility (which could also be used as a transfer station site).

 

The governing boards have made no decision on whether to proceed to locate an in-county site for a new mixed solid waste disposal facility.  We believe that it is unlikely that a decision can be reached on whether or not to seek a new site for a landfill until such a time as decisions have been made about governance of a solid waste management organization.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski stated he would not be willing to vote no on this issue, since the Council may eventually be looking for site for these purposes and experience difficulties, and would not want to rule this out.

 

Vote on first question:  3-6, with Council Members Andresen, Bateman and Capowski voting yes.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski stated that regarding the second question, does the Council have proposals for where these facilities could be located?  Mr. Horton said he believed it would be far easier to find space for a transfer facility or materials recovery facility, but more difficult to find space for a demolition landfill.

 

Council Member Foy said it would be beneficial for the Council to endorse the Landfill Owners Group’s comments on this issue, adding that a mixed solid waste landfill is the issue.

 

Vote on questions:  unanimous.

 

H.        Issue: Benefit #13 - Expansion of Landfill

 

Does the Council agree that all options should be kept open regarding land acquisitions for any possible solid waste functions?

 

Comment: We agree that options should be kept open until the issue of governance of solid waste management is settled.  It is our opinion that the issue of governance practically precludes the making of key decisions facing the local governments in Orange County, including decisions about future disposal and processing facilities.

 

We believe that each significant delay in settling governance issues reduces options available for the jurisdiction ultimately given the responsibility for solid waste management.  We recommend that within the next few months, by July if possible, that either Orange County or Chapel Hill be designated to assume responsibility for solid waste management and functions.

 

Council Member Brown said it had been indicated tonight that we were going to move ahead and look for processing and disposal facilities of some sort, and asked whether this statement would give us some room to move forward and do what needs to be done.  Mr. Horton stated he was afraid we may identify a piece of land and we are ready to negotiate, and then the question arises as to who is going to give us our instructions.  He asked would he then have to approach municipality, the Landfill Owners’  Group., or the Council?  Mr. Horton said we would then have to consider who would negotiate the price and what price would we consider.   He indicated these types of issues are of concern to him.  Council Member Brown stated she did not want to box the Council in and cause difficulties in moving forward.

 

Vote on comment:  unanimous.

 

Other Issues

 

.           Issue: Other Solid Waste Issues

 

1.                 Issue: Does your board wish to undertake a new landfill siting process?  If so, what should that process involve and what should be the targeted duration of the process?

 

Comment: We believe governance issues should be resolved     before any new siting process is considered.  As discussed in H. above, we believe that the government that accepts management and ownership responsibilities should make the final decisions regarding the provision of long term disposal capacity and other key solid waste decisions.

 

Council Member Andresen stated it would be irresponsible if someone did not undertake a new landfill siting process, but did not want Chapel Hill to do it.  She said she believed we should look for alternative landfill locations, but it should be done along with the other jurisdictions.

Council Member Foy stated the question is, should there be a landfill in Orange County?  He said if the question is do we want to undertake it, the answer is no.  Council Member Foy added that if the question is do we want the County to undertake it, the answer is yes.

 

Council Member Brown noted we need to recognize this is an important issue, and it would be short-sighted of us not to try to take care of our own waste in the future.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski said that, if the question is do we want to undertake a new landfill siting process, the answer is no.  He added that we have safety valve as long as we do not use the rest of the capacity of the present landfill.

 

Mayor Waldorf suggested the following language be added to the comment:  “Once the governments decision is made, we believe a landfill should be sited, owned and operated by the governing agency.

 

Vote on comment, with Mayor Waldorf’s additional language: 5-4, with Council Members Capowski, Evans, Pavăo, and Evans voting nay.

 

2.                 Issue: Does the Council have an interest in conducting additional testing of wells in the vicinity of the landfill?  If so, who should conduct the testing and how should the testing be funded?

 

Comment: We have no basis on which to suggest proceeding with additional testing.

 

Mr. Wilson indicated the residents around the landfill had previously been contacted with an offer to test their wells at the Town’s expense.  He stated that only 8 residents asked for testing.

 

Council Member Evans said that if people believed the results of testing would be translated to benefit the Town and not them, they may not have responded to the offer for testing.  She said that people sometimes believe that the results would not favor their position, so they don’t bother to respond.

 

Ms. Norwood said she did not believe you could trust people you did not know well to test your well and not damage the well housing or the pump.

 

Vote:  Council Member Brown said we had already voted to extend the water, so this question is moot.  The Council agreed unanimously.

 

3.                 Issue: Can the Council provide us with a written description of issues we should be aware of, and the costs involved with, the transfer and administration of the landfill operation?  This information could include:

 

a)                  a list of all positions, with job descriptions, involved in LOG funded solid waste activities

b)                 organizational chart for all such positions

c)                 estimate of percentage of time each position spends on major functions

d)                 all costs of administering all current programs

Comment: Significant work has already been completed by a transition team created to evaluate issues related to the transfer of the Solid Waste Management Department to Orange County.  The team began meeting in late 1996 and created a comprehensive list of about 90 issues related to a transfer of solid waste functions to Orange County.  Staff members from each jurisdiction were delegated to work on relevant issues, such as automation, employee, personnel, financial system/general ledger, assets, operations, legal/insurance/liabilities, organization, and other. 

 

            In response to b) above, we have attached an organizational chart.

 

            In response to d) above, the Town utilizes a cost allocation formula to assign administrative overhead costs to the Landfill Fund.  The formula is similar to that used by the federal government for public transit projects and has been recommended for use in the Landfill Fund by the Chapel Hill Finance Director.  The Chapel Hill General Fund receives annual payments of 13.55% of full-time salary costs.  This has proven reasonable compensation for financial, personnel, and general administrative services, however, this formula may not represent the entire array of costs relevant to managing the fund.

 

Specifically, we do not think it provides adequate reimbursement for the time of the Town Attorney and Town Manager.  These time commitments are intermittent and are at least partially the result of our existing organization structure and the difficulty involved in managing our joint arrangement.  A unified and consolidated organization may not require such a high level of administrative involvement.

 

Since the Landfill Fund is operated as an enterprise fund, we     believe that all other costs are fully accounted for within the Landfill Fund Budget.

 

Mr. Horton indicated that these questions have been answered.

 

Council Member Foy asked if there were any ongoing discussions.  Mr. Horton said no, that discussions were at a standstill.

 

Mayor Waldorf said there had been a question of simultaneous operation of a transfer station at the landfill.  She said she believed that was not economical and the Council should send that message.

 

Council Member Andresen said she would like to review the information before making that decision.

 

Mayor Waldorf said that it had been suggested to her that Chapel Hill would continue operation of the landfill until it closed, while the County would operate the transfer station.  She added that it should be closed before it is full in order to have a safety valve for the future.  Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Wilson to comment on this.  Mr. Wilson said a four to one slope would have to be achieved before closure.  He stated the problem with closing it and then reopening it would be the permit required for operation.  Mr. Wilson said if you abandon a landfill for a period of one year, you would have to add a foot of cover before reopening, which becomes lost space.

 

Mr. Horton stated his opinion that once it’s closed, it’s closed for good.

 

Mayor pro tem Capowski said if a commercial hauler takes municipal trash to some other county, then we began to experience economic problems, would it then be practical to reopen the landfill and use it to capacity?  Mr. Horton said it would be extremely difficult to do so.

 

Item #14 - Approval of Terms of Bonds Sold on March 3, 1998

 

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-17.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item #15 - Revision to Schedule on 1998-99 Budget Hearings

 

Mr. Horton noted that because the budget hearing scheduled for March 19th was canceled, it was necessary to reschedule.  He suggested that Option One, which combined the canceled meeting with the meeting scheduled for April 1st, may be the best option.

 

THE COUNCIL VOTED BY CONSENSUS TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 18, ADOPTING OPTION ONE.

 

A RESOLUTION SETTING A DATE FOR A BUDGET WORK SESSION (98-3-23/R-18)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby sets April 1, 1998 at 6 p.m. as a Budget Work Session.

 

This the 23rd day of March, 1998.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.