P R O C E E D I N G S

MAYOR WALDORF: Good evening. Welcome to this continuation of the hearing on how the Meadowmont proposal might affect contiguous property values. We're going to resume this hearing again tonight.

I have just a few procedural points I want to run through. They're basically the same at every hearing, but they have shifted just a tiny bit tonight.

First of all, I'm advised by the court reporter that we have here that every speaker who comes to the podium needs to identify himself at the podium so she can be sure who you are.

And all witnesses need to be sworn. And people who come forward to cross-examine and ask questions also need to be sworn. So if you're not sworn before you ask your question, then go over and speak to Joyce Smith and sign your name up and get sworn after you ask your question.

When the March 18 hearing recessed, the next speaker in line was the applicant. Therefore, we will begin tonight with the applicant, who now has the opportunity to rebut previous testimony.

Another point is that new evidence in response to the applicant's rebuttal is allowed. This evidence needs to be material to the issue at hand. Evidence already in the record should not be and need not be repeated.

Individuals or council members may ask questions of witnesses. When you ask a question, it needs to be a question, not an argument or an instructional statement. The wintess then needs to answer the question and then stop.

I hope that tonight we're going to finish receiving rebuttal evidence. When we finish tonight we probably would recess this hearing to a date certain. And the principal purpose of recessing and continuing the hearing would be to allow time for the staff to prepare and submit a final report.

So having said that, I think I would just move on to call on the next person in line to speak, which is the applicant's representatives, for purposes of rebuttal.

MR. PERRY: Mayor, council members, my name is Roger Perry. I know you have gone through eight hours of intense conversation about this subject.

We are getting ready to make a presentation to you that addresses many of the issues that you have heard from those who have spoken against this special use permit.

We ask your tolerance and ask you to pay as careful and close attention as one can after listening to eight hours of this, as we are convinced that we have presented to this point in time the only clear and tangible evidence about the impacts of Meadowmont on contiguous property values, and that most of what you've heard other than our presentation is distortion filled with half of the facts, and in fact changes the rules of the game in many perspectives as to how this particular issue should be analyzed. And we beg your indulgence in that and thank you for your time.

First, I'd like to introduce Robert Sprouse with Pickett & Sprouse Appraisers here in the Triangle.

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT SPROUSE

MR. SPROUSE: Madam Mayor, council members, I'm Robert Sprouse with Pickett & Sprouse Real Estate.

I'd like to first address a couple of items either requested by or asked about by you during the first night of the public hearing.

I believe council member Wiggins asked about the Woodcroft Development in Durham and whether or not there were any contiguous existing neighborhoods at the time it was developed that may have been impacted.

Woodcroft is located in southern Durham Couinty north of N.C. Highway 54 between Hope Valley Road and Fayetteville Road. Mr. Perry was the developer of Woodcroft, and he will speak more to the scope of the Woodcroft Development later.

To my knowledge, there were no existing neighborhoods adjacent to Woodcroft at the time it was developed. It was a rather large tract of land, somewhat--700 acres going between these roads that I've mentioned.

However, the first phase of Woodcroft, known as Windemere, was just off of N.C. Highway 54, and it was started before the main part of Woodcroft was developed.

The main street in Windemere is Highgate Drive. This section of Windemere along Highgate Drive with several side streets off of Highgate Drive was built in the early eighties.

Highgate Drive at that time dead-ended into the undeveloped balance of Woodcroft. In the mid-eighties Highgate Drive was extended to Woodcroft Parkway. Highgate Drive and Woodcroft Parkway are the main roads in Woodcroft.

We looked at sales on Highgate Drive before it was extended and then resales of the same houses after Highgate Drive was extended to see if the increased traffic had an impact on the increase in value of those sales and resales compared to the sales and resales off Highgate Drive in the same neighborhood.

Analysis of that data indicates that the average annual increases of the sales and resales of the homes on Highgate Drive are within the same general range of those off Highgate Drive, indicating that there was no apparent impact resulting from the extension of Highgate Drive and the resultant increase in traffic.

Someone also asked in the first public hearing if we had looked at Finley Forest. At the time, we had not. But we have since taken a look at sales activity there.

Finley Forest has been a very active neighborhood as regards sales activity during the past several years. Over 100 of the properties there sold from 1992 to 1997. That was the time frame that we looked at.

We looked at some of the sales, resales activity in Finley Forest just to see what property values have been doing there. Average annual increases have been in the range of 5 percent to 8.5 percent. We don't believe that there will be any adverse impact on property values in Finley Forest as a result of the Meadowmont development.

Several things were brought up at the last public hearing that I feel need to be addressed. One gentleman stated that we should have looked at sales in The Oaks. As I said on the first night of the public hearing, we did look extensively at sales in The Oaks and included that analysis in our report, along with the sales from the other neighborhoods we analyzed which had collector streets that are more heavily traveled than other streets in those neighborhoods.

We attempted in each neighborhood to do three types of analyses, one, matched pairs of similar homes on and off the more heavily traveled collector road in those neighborhoods; two, comparisons of the average sales price per square foot of homes on the main collector road with that of homes on other streets in each of the neighborhoods; and, three, comparisons of the sales, resales of homes on the main collector road to that of homes on other streets in each of the neighboods.

The first two types of analyses are done in an effort to see if there is any difference in the value of those homes on the more heavily traveled road versus those off the more heavily traveled road in each of those neighborhoods.

The third analysis is done to see if there is any difference in the average annual rate of increase of homes that have sold and resold on the more heavily traveled roads versus the sales and resales of homes off the more heavily traveled roads in each of those neighborhoods.

A matched pair analysis is the best method to use. In this method sales data on highly similar properties are analyzed to isolate a single characteristic effect on value.

In this instance the single characteristic we're attempting to isolate is traffic. In neighborhoods that have homes that are very similar, this can be done with a fair degree of accuracy.

However, in neighborhoods of custom-built homes like The Oaks, it is practically impossible. We were able to do a matched pair analysis in Timberlyne, which I will address more specifically later.

Short of being able to do a matched pair analysis, an analysis of the average sales prices per square foot of homes both on and off the more heavily traveled road in each neighborhood is the next best method to try and see if there is any difference in value.

In doing this analysis, as in the matched pair analysis, it is best if the sample of sales used is of homes that are as similar as possible. We purposely tried to use sales that were as similar as possible in order to have a more meaningful analysis.

We researched the Triangle Multiple Listing Service for sales that took place in The Oaks between 1992 to early 1998. We did the same thing in each of the other neighborhoods analyzed.

Estes Hills, as I mentioned in the first public hearing, was the only neighborhood that indicated lower values for homes on Estes Drive, which carries in excess of 15,000 vehicles per day, versus the homes on streets off Estes Drive. But even the sales on Estes Drive have gone up in value, those that have sold and resold.

Having reached the conclusion from our analysis that those are only impacted when there are extremely high volumes of traffic, such as on Estes Drive with over 15,000 vehicles per day, we then wanted to see if properties on the more heavily traveled streets were increasing in value at rates equal to those off the more heavily traveled streets.

Analysis of the sales and resales of homes in each of the neighborhoods analyzed indicates that the homes that have sold and resold on the more heavily traveled roads have increased in value at rates equal to those off the more heavily traveled roads.

This table is in the report that you have. It shows the sales, resales that we looked at in The Oaks. Not taking into consideration the sales, resales of 1004 Pinehurst Drive and 104 Lancaster, the range of average annual increase on Pinehurst Drive was .8 percent to 6.8 percent, with an average 4.1 percent, compared to a range off Pinehurst Drive of .7 percent to 4.6 percent, with an average of close to 2.5 percent.

Discussions with an agent involved and knowledgeable about the sales of 1004 Pinehurst Drive and 104 Lancaster, the ones that we left off in the range that we gave, reveals that both of those transactions were sales by relocation companies, who typically will sell at a reduced price.

In both of those transactions the sellers were paid more by the relocation company than they had originally paid for the property, the first sale.

It should also be pointed out that there were extenuating circumstances involved in the sale of 1008 Pinehurst Drive, which accounted for the relatively poor resale performance of that property, that had nothing at all to do with traffic on Pinehurst Drive.

This analysis shows that the homes on Pinehurst Drive have increased in value and that the increases have been equal to or better than those off Pinehurst Drive.

Much has been said about values in The Oaks compared to values of homes in Chesley and Silver Creek. In order to make valud comparisons, you must take into consideration the fact that most of the homes in Chesley were built after 1990, compared to a wide range of homes' ages in The Oaks, with some even dating to the early seventies.

You must also take into consideration when looking at sales within The Oaks that some of those properties are in Durham County, with Durham County schools, compared to Chapel Hill schools.

These same things apply to comparisons of homes in Silver Creek when comparing those to The Oaks. Most of the homes in Silver Creek were built around the mid-nineties and newer.

This chart is not in your report. We have since looked at sales and resales in Chesley. Although not included in our original analysis, we have analyzed these not taking into consideration the sales and resales that went down in price. And there were two, one of which was a relocation sale.

The average annual increases are in the range of .9 percent to 7.4 percent, with an average of about 3.5 percent. The average annual increases of the sales, resales in The Oaks, including those that we discussed on Burningtree Drive, are all within this same general range.

The text in my report which discussed the Timberlyne paired sales analysis states that, and I quote, "Taking into consideration the differences listed in the remarks section, the homes on Kingston Drive sold for about the same price as those otherwise similar homes off Kingston Drive."

As previously discussed, in a matched pair, or paired sales analysis, one attempts to analyze sales that are as similar as possible so that after any necessary adjustments are made, the only difference, if any, would be for the variable that you were trying to isolate.

Although I didn't make the adjustments for differences on the Timberlyne paired sales chart in my report, if I had, it would look something like this.

As you can see, the adjusted sales prices are within a close range, so much so that, in our opinion, there is no difference in that of the homes on Kingston Drive versus those off.

The Kingston Drive house in the first grouping there had no covered front porch as the second one did and the third one. Both of those, 117 Balsam and 18 Timberlyne, had covered front porches as opposed to maybe just a concrete stoop at the front door. Those covered front porches were from 200 to 250 square feet.

A minus-thrree-thousand-dollar adjustment would be appropriate for a covered front porch of that nature. When you make that adjustment, the price of the 117 Balsam house drops down to one-ninety ($190,000) by comparison to the one eighty-eight ($188,000) on Kingston. And the price for the 18 Timberlyne house drops to one eighty-eight ($188,000) by comparison to the one eighty-eight ($188,000) on Kingston.

I did the same thing for the next grouping. The two off of Kingston were the same ones in the first analysis, 117 Balsam and 18 Timberlyne, compared to 137 Kingston. They both had the front porch. If you make a minus-three-thousand-dollar adjustment, you get a minus-one-ninety [sic] versus a one-ninety ($190,000) on Kingston and a one eighty-eight ($188,000) for 118 Timberlyne versus a one-ninety ($190,000) on Kingston.

The third grouping was an instance where the off-Kingston sale was lower than the one on Kingston. And I didn't make any adjustments there because it was already lower in value.

At the last public hearing, Mr. Butzin tried to explain to you how two competent appraisers could use pretty much the same data and come up with different conclusions.

Mr. Butzin also did a paired sales analysis. He stated that he arbitrarily picked two sales, one on Kingston and one off, that were closest together in size. What Mr. Butzin did not do, however, was take into consideration the differences between the houses that he analyzed.

I've noted to the right of the matched pairs used by Mr. Butzin some of the differences that should have been taken into consideration. The first matched pair is identifical to one we used. The sale off Kingston had a covered front porch. If you make a minus-three-thousand-dollar adjustment, which we did, you'd come up with about the same thing or a little less.

In the second grouping, the sale off Kingston was four years newer and was of a better quality construction home. In the third grouping, the sale of off-Kingston had a two-car garage and an extra half-bath. In the fourth grouping, the sale off Kingston was 10 years newer, had a two-car garage and a jacuzi and is of better quality construction.

Mr. Butzin attributed the difference in the sales price of those homes totally to traffic without considering any of these differences.

Finally, one of the more meaningful analyses that we did was the sales and resales of homes along Burningtree Drive before and after the completion of Pinehurst Drive.

The four sales that we analyzed show that homes along Burningtree Drive continued to increase in value after the increase of traffic as a result of that extension, and that the rate of increase when compared to that of other homes in The Oaks and in Chesley is equal‑-is commensurate with homes in other areas.

Comparing the average annual increases of those homes to a broad cross-section of average annual increases like this provides a much more reliable analysis than the comparison to a single sale or resale in Coker Hills West as done by Mr. Morgan.

Again, as a result of our analysis, it is our opinion that the extension of Pinehurst Drive through the proposed Meadowmont development and the development of Meadowmont will not adversely impact the value of contiguous propperties, and that the value of contiguous properties will be maintained or enhanced.

MAYOR WALDORF: Are you finished, Mr. Sprouse?

MR. SPROUSE: I'm finished. I'll be glad to answer any questions.

MAYOR WALDORF: It would be helpful if we could get hard copies of these overheads that you've presented tonight.

MR. SPROUSE: I'll make those available.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Are there any questions of this witness? Yes, Mr. Brough. Please come up to the podium, identify yourself and ask your question.

MR. BROUGH: My name is Mike Brough. And, Mr. Sprouse, let me just ask a couple of questions. In your testimony you indicated that perhaps the best form of analysis for reaching the conclusion that the council has to reach is through the paired approach; is that correct? Paired analysis?

MR. SPROUSE: That would be the absolute best if you were able to do it in each of the neighborhoods.

MR. BROUGH: Can you put up the previous overhead that you had, the one with the Timberlyne house, please?

MR. SPROUSE: Timberlyne? Sure.

MAYOR WALDORF: Is this leading to a specific question, Mr. Brough?

MR. BROUGH: Oh, it is.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Good.

MR. BROUGH: Well, the first question was a specific question. And the rest of them will be, I hope.

And this was a chart that you had prepared, correct?

MR. SPROUSE: That is correct.

MR. BROUGH: Now, is it not true, Mr. Sprouse, that in the Timberlyne situation I think you or one of the other appraisers indicated, did you not, that the Timberlyne neighborhood is particularly susceptible to a valid paired analysis approach because of the comparability of the types of houses that are there?

MR. SPROUSE: The general homogeneity of most of the homes in Timberlyne.

MR. BROUGH: And Kingston Drive is the one which has the heavier traffic, correct?

MR. SPROUSE: That's correct.

MR. BROUGH: And the paired analyses that‑-you have three pairs of analyses there, correct?

MR. SPROUSE: That's correct.

MR. BROUGH: All right. And looking at the first one, on a per-square-foot basis the Kingston Drive is somewhere between two and three dollars less per square foot in value than the other comparable homes; is that correct?

MR. SPROUSE: Before making any adjustments. That's correct.

MR. BROUGH: And that's also true of the second comparison. Kingston Drive is also in sales price per square foot some four dollars lower, correct?

MR. SPROUSE: Again, before making any adjustments, that is correct.

MR. BROUGH: So in your own analysis, then, before the subjective adjustments that you made, two out of three of the examples that you came up with support the view that the Kingston Drive houses, at least on a per-square-foot basis, are worth less than the comparable houses on roads that are not so heavily traveled.

MR. SPROUSE: Absolutely not. You cannot look at it that way. Because if you've got a difference, you must take it into consideration. Because that difference has an impact on the per-square-foot price.

For instance, in a garage, if you don't make an adjustment for the garage, that garage price adds to the price of the house. The square footage doesn't change. The square footage of the garage is not included in the enclosed, heated area.

And most of these analyses that are done on a per-square-foot basis don't include the price of the garage‑-or the square footage of the garage. So when you do not make adjustments, it gives you a distorted picture.

MR. BROUGH: Did you give the council‑-this was your picture that you gave the council originally, was it not?

MR. SPROUSE: Yes.

MR. BROUGH: So it's your testimony now that you gave the council a distorted picture before?

MR. SPROUSE: No. Mine did not have garages. My remarks state that if you take into consideration the differences‑-this is stated in my report‑-that if you take into consideration the differences that, in my opinion, those two sales do not show any difference in the values on versus off Kingston Drive.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you. Are there other questions of this witness?

(No response.)

MAYOR WALDORF: All right. Does the council have questions of Mr. Sprouse?

(No response.)

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF TOM HEFFNER

MR. HEFFNER: Hello, I'm Tom Heffner. I primarily want to take just a few moments tonight and answer some questions and some points that had been raised at the earlier hearings.

The last time we met, Mrs. Wiggins asked a question concerning the impact of the development of Meadowmont if it were developed simply as an R-1 subdivsion and not the plan that the applicant has currently proposed, but simply as an R-1 subdivision.

It's difficult to analyze that, but I can give you simply my judgmental opinion on it. In the current Meadowmont plan there are approximately 70 houses that would presumably be built that would be comparable to the existing type of home that exists in The Oaks subdivision now.

I make that analysis because those tend to be larger lots. In the Meadowmont proposed development they tend to be the lots that are on the golf course or near the golf course. And the presumption would be that they can stand or will accept a larger size home. And as a result, you would expect that on those lots homes comparable or somewhat similar to the houses existing in The Oaks would be built. There are about 70 of those lots now.

If Meadowmont were developed as an R-1 subdivision‑-and obviously the number of lots would vary, depending on the approval process‑-but it's my opinion that approximately 547 houses could be built on that tract of land under the R-1 zoning regulations. Probably less than that would be approved. But I think there would still be a significant‑-several hundred lots would ultimately be approved.

It would be my opinion that that kind of development would have more of a negative impact on the existing Oaks subdivision than the Meadowmont development would.

The reason for that simply centers around the supply-and-demand issue. If a typical R-1 type subdivision were built with several hundred similar houses to what's in Meadowmont [sic] now, it would be expected that those houses would potentially have equal or greater market demand. They would be newer, they'd have more current features and would probably offer more competitive challenge to the houses in Meadowmont [sic].

So it's my opinion that an R-1 subdivision would potentially cause the homes in The Oaks more potential adverse impacts to value than the Meadowmont development would.

Secondly, on another issue, Professon Loewy and Mr. Merrifield both commented on a house that was for sale on Pinehurst Drive for over a year. And I believe, to paraphrase what they said, it was their belief, perhaps, that this house was on the market and was for sale for such a long time because of all the discussion about the increased traffic that might take place on Meadowmont Drive.

Even though they didn't identify this house specifically, I believe based on my search of multiple listing records that the house they were referring to was the house that's located at 913 Pinehurst Drive.

This was a large, custom house that had approximately 7,400 square feet of living area in it. It was on the market for about 18 months. That is correct. It was definitely on the market for over a year.

The original asking price on the house was a million two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000). And the house ultimately sold for nine hundred and fifty-eight thousand dollars ($958,000).

I think in this case we have an example that's typical and common of many custom homes. This was a very large, custom-built home. It had many custom features in it. It had certain floor plan idiosyncracies that were there because that's what the people building the house wanted.

As an example of this, I looked also at another home that was in The Oaks subdivision that was located on Galway Drive. Galway Drive is in the Durham Country part of The Oaks, but is located on a cul-de-sac and is in an area where there's really no through traffic. And I don't believe that any case could be made that whether Meadowmont is developed or not developed, there would be a significant increase of traffic on Galway Drive.

This also was a custom home about 6,500 square feet in size. It was on the market for approximately seven years. It originally listed for a million three hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($1,350,000) and finally sold for eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($850,000).

I believe we have the same situation there. The house on Galway Drive was probably overpriced to go in with. The house on Pinehurst Drive was probably overpriced to go in with.

The issue was raised‑-I think Mr. Merrifield offered the opinion that the house on Pinehurst Drive had cost a million and a half dollars ($1,500,000). Based on the research I did, I could not confirm that that in fact was what those people paid for that house. I believe that what they paid for it was significantly less than that. But I don't have a copy of their contract, and I can't tell you that for certain.

In the case of the house on Galway Drive, the people who built it certainly sold that house for less than what it cost them to build. Again, it was a very custom house. It had a swimming pool. It had a number of unusual floor plan features.

And I think my opinion would be that in the case of these two very large custom houses that the reason for the decrease in value or the apparent decrease in value is due to the unique nature of the home and not to potential traffic on Meadowmont Drive.

Unfortunately, many times cost and value are not synomous. And we tend to see this expecially on these very, very large custom homes.

Mr. Collins stood up and spoke about his home at 1020 Pinehurst Drive. And unlike the appraiser from Kimley, who submitted a letter stating that the Collins house value would be impacted, I have been inside the Collins house. Not while the Collinses have owned it, but I was in the house when it was offered for sale the last time before the Collinses bought it.

It is approximately a 22-year-old contemporary house. It's a little less than 2,000 square feet in size. It's located on a very nice, one-acre lot on the Chapel Hill Country Club golf course.

It would be my opinion that the house is probably an underimprovement for the lot. While it is a nice house, the typical home in that subdivision in that area and the typical home that you would build on a lot of that size would be significantly larger than a 2,000-square-foot house.

I do not believe that any increased traffic in front of the Collins house will result in a loss of value. I think the Meadowmont development, the lots that show on the plan, that are closest to the Collins house, that are contiguous to the Collins house, are larger lots. They're not as large as the Collins lot, but they are larger lots that would be expected to have larger homes.

In fact, homes larger and more expensive than the Collins house would typically be expected to be built there. And it's my opinion that these houses will have a positive impact on the value of the Collins house. And I do not believe that its value will be negatively impacted by additional traffic from Meadowmont.

Finally, I'd like to respond to some of the comments of Mr. Sweezy concerning my analysis of sales on Franklin Street. If you'll recall‑-I'll put the map that cannot be read back up here, or the chart that could not be read, I should more accurately say.

Mr. Sweezy pointed out that if we disregarded my two sales in the first group of sales on Franklin Street‑-those would be sales 12 and 13. You have these in your previous packet--his opinion was that because these two houses were built in the nineteenth century, before 1900, that they should be thrown out. I think this is completely erroneous logic.

I think when you're doing an analysis of multiple sales of this nature it is a completely false idea and a very dangerous idea to think you pick and choose sales.

As an example, if you could look up just a few notches from sales 12 and 13, you have sale 9, which is also a nineteenth century sale, that sold for a hundred and forty-three dollars ($143) a square foot.

So we have in 1997 three sales on Franklin Street that took place in the 1890s [sic]. Two of them sold at around two hundred dollars a foot. One of them sold at a hundred and forty-three dollars ($143) a foot. I don't think it's sound logic to say, "Throw those sales out."

Likewise, if we wanted to come down in the second group of sales that I've analyzed, sale number 35, 211 Glenburnie, which was a sale off of Franklin Street and was up in the hundred-and-forty-one-dollar range, sold with an extra lot.

From my standpoint, I could easily say, "Well, throw that sale out. A hundred and forty-one raises the value of those."

Likewise, sale 34, 380 Tenney Circle, had been fully renovated. It sold for a hundred and sixty-seven dollars ($167). If I wanted to arbitrarily pick and choose, I'd say, "Well, throw that out. That house has been totally renovated."

My point simply is that you can't pick and choose these sales. You need to look and analyze the data as a total group. And it's my opinion that the analysis was correct and that the analysis does support the idea that the traffic on Franklin Street is not having a harmful impact on the value of those properties.

And those are really the only things that I wanted to respond to. If any of you have questions, I'll be glad to answer them.

MAYOR WALDORF: Are there any questions of Mr. Heffner from anyone in the audience?

(No response.)

MAYOR WALDORF: Do council members have any questions of Mr. Heffner?

(No response.)

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you.

MR. HEFFNER: Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE KIRSHBAUM

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Madam Mayor and members of the council, my name is George Kirshbaum, and I'm the Director of Development Operations for East-West Partners Management Company.

When I began working on the Meadowmont project, I was tall and thin and good-looking. It has clearly taken a toll on me, as I'm sure it has on a number of you.

But I have a number of elements to cover tonight. And I'd like to begin with a very brief recap regarding traffic generation from Meadowmont. Because it seems to me that after four years we still don't quite have a grip on where these numbers have come from and what they mean.

The chart that you see here is basically the chart that was in the traffic impact analysis that was done by Kimley-Horn & Associates.

Let's first address the question of how were these total trips calculated. Initially, each trip is treated‑-or each use in the area is treated as a free-standing and unrelated element and is factored by standard trip generation tables.

These tables are universally recognized and are published by the ITE. They are ones that the town acknowledges as the official method by which trip generation should be calculated.

Next, adjustments are made for two factors, pass-by trips and internal capture. Now, I'll take you to the bottom‑-

MR. CAPOWSKI: Mr. Kirshbaum‑-

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes.

MR. CAPOWSKI: What page is that chart on, please?

MAYOR WALDORF: It's Table 2, isn't it? Table 2, George?

MS. BATEMAN: Table 3.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: I think it's Table 3, according to this.

MR. CAPOWSKI: No.

MS. BATEMAN: It is in mine.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Oh, in that?

MS. BATEMAN: Yes.

MAYOR WALDORF: It's not exactly‑-here, Joe.

MS. BATEMAN: It's the precise one. It's Table 3, page 14, Kimley-Horn.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: In the big text.

MAYOR WALDORF: But what you've got on the screen is only part of that table.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: That's correct. It's basically just the trip generation, total trip generation infomration.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Under total trips that are calculated from all of those uses, we have 15,500 trips out and 15,500 trips in, for a total of 31,000 trips.

Now, that is the total generation of all uses unadjusted for any other factors. But two adjustments have to be made to those. The first is pass-by trips. The next, internal capture.

Now, pass-by trips are described as those trips which though initially assigned to the uses in the development are already on the external street system. These are trips that are already on N.C. 54 that will either shop, work, recreate or do business in Meadowmont facilities once built.

We could have justified, according to the ITE, 36 to 38 percent of our total trips as being pass-by-generated trips, but we settled on 25 percent with the concurrence of the town staff.

The next adjustment is for internal capture. And this means pretty much what it says. These are trips that are generated by the various uses in Meadowmont which never get out of Meadowmont to the exterior street system.

These are people who live in Meadowmont or work in Meadowmont, and these trips are for shopping, school, recreation or work activities that have their termination inside of Meadowmont and do not go out into the street system. The rate of calculation for the internal capture was 10 percent. This was done in concurrence with the town staff.

Now, once these adjustments were made, the total Meadowmont trips‑-and I'll point out the adjustments for internal capture and pass-by. The total of all new trips introduced to the external roadway system by Meadowmont was calculated to be 24,500 trips, actually, 24,514.

Now, does this mean that you add 24,500 trips to the existing 36,000 trips on N.C. 54 and now have a total of 60,000 trips? The answer to that question is no. This is because the trips go in different directions when they leave Meadowmont and they leave from different access points on N.C. 54. They are never all in the same place going in the same direction on the same day.

By assignment made in concurrence with the town staff, 60 percent of the total trips for Meadowmont were assigned as westbound, toward Chapel Hill, and 40 percent were assigned as eastbound, toward Interstate 40.

Since the issue of connection to Pinehurst Drive was and arguably still is an unknown, we assigned all of the Meadowmont external trips to N.C. 54, to show the worst case.

MAYOR WALDORF: Excuse me. Would you please repeat that last statement?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes. Beginning‑-

MAYOR WALDORF: Since the Pinehurst connector was arguably an unknown.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Since the issue of the connection to Pinehurst Drive was an arguably and still is an unknown‑-and that is at the time that the study was done‑-we assigned all of the Meadowmont external trips to N.C. 54 to show the worst case. Whatever percentage one may wish to assign to Pinehurst Drive, those trips must be deducted from N.C. 54.

Based on the allocation of 60 percent westbound and 40 percent eastbound, Meadowmont will add 14,700 trips that build out to N.C. 54 traffic to the west side of Meadowmont. It will add 9,800 trips to N.C. 54 traffic on the east side of Meadowmont.

MAYOR WALDORF: Could I ask you to repeat those two statements again, please?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes. At build-out, Meadowmont will add 14,700 trips to N.C. 54 traffic on the west side of Meadowmont and 9,800 trips on N.C. 54 to the east side of Meadowmont.

I would also point out here that our opponents' consultant said in documentation provided to this council, "We conclude that the assumptions used in developing total trips, including the reductions for internal trips and pass-by trips, seem reasonable. Therefore, the total daily trip generation of approximately 24,000 vehicles per day was applied to our analysis."

Now, is there any other traffic to be accounted for? Oh, yes, there is. There's the background traffic. This is additional new trips on N.C. 54 which are generated over time from sources that are unrelated to Meadowmont. The background traffic in this study is estimated to be 2 percent per year, compounded.

So where, when all of this traffic is added together at the build-out of Meadowmont, do we end up? Well, on N.C. 54 in the year 2006, the percentage of Meadowmont traffic to the west of Meadowmont on N.C. 54 will be 25 percent.

MS. ANDRESEN: When you say "to the west," do you mean going in a westerly direction?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: I'm saying that the total of all trips counted, all traffic counted, beyond the Burningtree Drive intersection‑-that's going out and coming back‑-that Meadowmont will comprise 25 percent of all of the traffic that's out there, and only 25 percent.

MS. ANDRESEN: On both sides of the road coming and going.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes. That's correct.

MS. ANDRESEN: Yeah, okay.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: But that doesn't add up to 50 percent. And west of Meadowmont‑-

MAYOR WALDORF: You mean east?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: East of Meadowmont, that figure will be 18 percent of the total trips on N.C. 54.

Let me show you the Burningtree Drive intersection. This is the projected 16-hour traffic count at Burningtree Drive. The brown-red color will be the existing traffic, and that's the existing traffic to date. The blue will be the background traffic multiple over a 10-year growth period. And the green will be Meadowmont.

You'll also see how it falls within the day. And I wanted particularly to point that out. Because there's been discussion about the relative service levels of the intersections on N.C. 54 and the fact that those service levels are shown generally as level of service C, and I think in a couple of cases, level of service D during the peak hours.

I would also like to point out that the peak hours‑-in this case, you will notice there is a peak hour in the afternoon and a peak hour in the morning. There is some peaking that begins to take place on either side of that hour. But the level of service C or level of service D only exists in about a four-hour period of time at that intersection.

At all other hours of the day, the level of service is either one or two letter grades better, either B's or A's.

MS. ANDRESEN: Excuse me. Which intersections are you talking about?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: I'm talking about all intersections that were studied, including Burningtree, Barbee Chapel Road, the intersection of Meadowmont Lane, and a planned intersection of the extension of Barbee Chapel.

MS. ANDRESEN: Okay. The ones in front of Meadowmont Lane.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: That's correct.

MS. ANDRESEN: Okay. Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: I have a question, too, Mr. Kirshbaum.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes.

MAYOR WALDORF: Just to make something clear to me, the scenario that you have in front of us now, this chart‑-

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes.

MAYOR WALDORF: ‑-tell me how that is or is not affected by transit availability and transit demand strategies.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: We have made in these studies absolutely no adjustments for any mass ridership transit of any kind, be that bus or rail. We have made no adjustments for any pedestrian or bicycle movement that would be trips generated out of Meadowmont. We are assuming in a worst case scenario that all trips are automobile trips, and that's what we've shown.

MAYOR WALDORF: And that's what this chart reflects.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: That's correct.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: I would ask you, then, to note these things. Number one, this is a study that the town requires us to do. Number two, it is done in compliance with all established practices, standards and requirements of the town and of the industry.

Number three, it is similar in all critical respects to every other traffic study done in, by or for the town of Chapel Hill. Number four, it is based on input and assumptions discussed at length and concurred with by the town staff.

I would add parenthetically that I believe that the town staff would agree that I made it plain from the outset of this process that whenever we could not reach consensus the staff's assumption would be used.

Number five, we are required by the town to use professionals to do these studies, which we did. And those professionals expected that we would pay them for their work, which we did.

To have it suggested that this somehow taints the study is both unjust and cynical. And more than once I have found myself apologizing to Mike Horn and his associates for things that have been said during this process. They say it comes with the territory. Perhaps that is so, but I think that it should not.

And, number six, even though it has oftimes been misquoted, misapplied or misrepresented, I am not aware of any knowledgeable or competent party who has ever successully contradicted it. And I believe, therefore, that it stands.

The second issue that I wish to address with you briefly is something that arose at the last get-together here regarding drainage impacts on Burningtree Drive.

There was testimony that was offered regarding the expected impact of Meadowmont on storm water runoff on Burningtree lots. One of the presenters indicated in his presentation and offered testimony about storm water and mud flows which would inundate his property from over 1,000 feet away at a grade of 7 percent flowing downhill.

I wish to tell you that I believe that this information and this testimony is erroneous. In questioning this testimony at the time, I showed this illustration, pointing out the existing drainage patterns of the Meadowmont property.

And I'll highlight here. There is an existing drainage feature that runs from this point (indicating) generally northward. And you can see the contour is working its way down and off the property in this direction. There is another drainage feature that begins about right here (indicating) and works its way to this point.

Plainly, whether you are an engineer or not, it is a practical impossibility for any water moving from the east of these facilities to bypass them and to continue toward Burningtree lots.

That is why the storm drain pipes are currently located in N.C. 54 in this location. And it's why the storm water pond required by the town must be placed here. It's where the water goes, downhill.

This next‑-this shows an area of Meadowmont draining toward the property of Dr. Eischen and Mr. Wise to be about one and a quarter acres. The other 1.75 acres here (indicating) drains further to the north.

Even if this were not fact‑-and I assure you that it is‑-the road shown in this location would intercept water flowing from the east and reroute it to the drainage pond.

After our last session, I checked with the special use permit drawings that were prepared by the John R. McAdams Company to see if they describe this drainage pattern. Because I feared someone would stand up and say, "Well, Mr. Kirshbaum, are you an engineer?" and my answer would be "Well, no, I'm not."

I colored in orange what the John R. McAdams Company defined as the drainage area. I apologize that I was out of the lines just a little bit in the drawing that I did. But I trust that I will be forgiven for that.

You might, if you are not convinced of this, wish to discuss this issue with the town engineer, who was present earlier‑-I don't know whether he still is‑-to see if he concurs with this opinion. I frankly would be stunned if he does not.

This brings me to the testimony of Mr. Donald Sweezy. There has been various opposing testimony relative to information which we presented regarding comparable sales relating to the connection of Rainwater Drive to Spring Forest Road in the Northridge Country Club area of Raleigh.

I will tell you that I found a great deal of this testimony perplexing. A couple of people told you that this area is nothing like The Oaks because it's in a big city.

Another said that Northridge was nothing like The Oaks because there was a big mall in Northridge. Some have suggested that Kansas City would be a much better comparable. All are mistaken.

Let me provide you with a bit of background. The picture on the bottom of this transparency where you get a glimpse of a man walking his dogs is the point at which Rainwater Drive was continued from its original stub-out. The house in the other picture is 6900 Rainwater Drive, a subject house in the Rainwater sales study.

I used this unusual perspective because I wanted you to see how they look from my back deck. I moved to my present home in July of 1983. I have driven on Rainwater Drive virtually every day since, often more than once, both before and after the road was connected.

Here's what it looks like. Actually, Rainwater Drive is the one with the stripe. The other one is Pinehurst Drive. There is no mall in Northridge. The closest one is about four miles away. I also know a lot of people who live on Rainwater Drive.

Therefore, I was at a minimum perplexed and surprised when Donald Sweezy appeared before you discussing inflation and told you that after adjusting the Rainwater homes for inflation he found that, quote, "If we only look at homes which were clearly purchased before the traffic went up, that means those with purchase dates before 1992, each of them lost money. That average loss was thirty-eight thousand dollars ($38,000), and it occurred whenever it was that traffic went up sometime in 1991," end of quote.

Well, let me say parenthetically here that the connection was made in the summer of 1992. As I said, in listening to his testimony, I could not figure out why Mr. Sweezy, having looked at the Rainwater comps, had not taken the non-Rainwater comps, which we had provided, adjusted them for inflation and then beat us over the head with how much better they had performed relative to the Rainwater houses in the absence of any additional traffic.

The next day, after doing some calculations in my office, I understood why. But I also knew I was on shaky ground, since Mr. Sweezy has a degree in economics and I am an American studies major.

So I contacted Dr. David Gilkey, the chairman of the Department of Econonics at the University of North Carolina, and I told him of my concerns.

He referred me to Dr. Michael Salemi. Dr. Salemi is a full professor of economics at the university. His curriculum‑-and I think in Latin they say "vitae"‑-is a part of his report. The report will be submitted to you. His curriculum vitae is eight pages long.

He states early in his report, "My published research is statistical in nature. And I have written several statistical papers about the causes and consequences of inflation."

Although his entire report will be submitted, I would like to highlight briefly a few of his findings.

On the subject of inflation adjustment and the Northridge Country Club study Dr. Salemi says, "Mr. Sweezy argues that the failure of the Northridge Country Club study to correct house prices for the effects of inflation biases the study in favor of the position of East-West Partners. This is not correct. And I will explain in what follows.

"Mr. Sweezy is correct when he cautions against adding together prices of homes sold in different years. Mr. Sweezy proposes converting sales prices into constant 1982 dollars by using the Consumer Price Index. While there are better price indices for houses, I will concede the point and agree to Mr. Sweezy's use of the CPI."

Then he goes on to explain that in looking at the data presented, there was no statistical difference in the appreciation rates of the properties that were unadjusted.

And he says, "The finding of no significant difference in rates of appreciation for Rainwater and non-Rainwater houses is not likely to be affected by correcting for inflation.

"The reason is simple. One must correct both the Rainwater and non-Rainwater appreciation for inflation. The correction will approximately subtract the same number from both appreciation rates and leave the difference unchanged.

"However," he says, "to check out this situation, I converted all the sales prices in the Northridge Country Club study to 1982 dollars and recomputed the appreciation rates. And my findings are contained in a table below." And there is a table.

And he says, "Several conclusions are warranted. First, the Rainwater Road properties do experience a negative rate of appreciation on the average of one-half percent per annum. The sales prices of homes do not quite keep up with inflation. Mr. Sweezy gave great emphasis to this point during his testimony.

"Second, the non-Rainwater properties do even worse. Non-Rainwater homes on average appreciate at 1 percent below the rate of inflation. But the difference between the two appreciation rates is small and insignificant. Using standards tests, statistics and overall standard deviations, one could not reject the hypothesis that the rates of appreciation are the same whether adjusted or unadjusted."

He continues, "Mr. Sweezy also testified that the data supported the hypothesis that the value of homes on Rainwater fell in 1992 and then continued to grow from this lower base thereafter. This hypothesis is directly testable using the data reported in the Northridge Country Club study."

And he explains how he did his evaluation, and a table is included.

"The data support the conclusion that the average constant dollar price per square foot for homes on and off Rainwater Road were equal to each other before 1992 and remained equal to each other after 1992.

"The differences reported are not significant. In fact, they suggest that the Rainwater Road properties experience a slight increase relative to the non-Rainwater Road properties after 1992. The data thus support a conclusion opposite that suggested by Mr. Sweezy.

The net of this is that whatever, if anything, was influencing house prices in or around the Northridge area in 1992, it was not the added traffic on Rainwater Drive.

Further, I asked Dr. Salemi if he would consider Mr. Sweezy's comments about the on and off Franklin Street sales information which Mr. Heffner had presented. And Mr. Heffner referred to that a bit earlier.

The issues here were implied that different results had been arrived at by using‑-or could be arrived at by using inflation adjustments. And there was also a claim that certain houses need to be stricken from the data.

To this Dr. Salemi said, "Mr. Sweezy challenges the study of historic district prices prepared by Tom Heffner on two grounds." And I've explained what those grounds are.

He then goes through the adjusted price scenario, as Mr. Sweezy had suggested, and concludes, "The data show that there is no difference in inflation-adjusted price per square foot between the two parts of the historic district.

"Using standard statistical tests, one could not reject the hypothesis that inflation-adjusted price per square foot is as high on Franklin Street addresses as it is for off-Franklin-Street addresses."

Further, he says, "Mr. Sweezy's claim that 524 East Franklin and 604 East Franklin should be exlcuded from the study is, in my professional opinion, unwarranted and ad hoc. It seems completely arbitrary to call a home a classic home when it becomes 100 years old. I doubt Mr. Sweezy would expect the price to jump on its hundredth birthday.

"Once one begins throwing out data points that one does not like, all discipline vanishes from the exercise. These two homes provide valid evidence that properties on a high-traffic street can sell at a premium, and both should be kept in the sample."

Which brings me to Sue Sweezy. If you'll recall, Sue Sweezy testified that as a result of her expertise in statistical analysis she had established that the value of houses on Pinehurst had experienced a hundred-and-sixty-thousand-dollar ($160,000) reversal in value relative to the other submitted sales data for Chapel Hill and that this reversal took place in 1995 due to the mere prospect of Meadowmont.

Now, this claim is obviously very serious or utterly ridiculous. Well, I spent some time with Mrs. Sweezy's submission and quickly discovered that there was in fact a curious thing having to do with the tremendous annual variation in the number of houses used in Mrs. Sweezy's analysis between the high-dollar-per-square-foot homes and the low-dollar-per-square-foot homes.

Using Mrs. Sweezy's methodology and exchanging these housing prices for cholesterol units, I showed my wife how my cholesterol had dropped in 1995 due to fears of Meadowmont. She was not amused. So I didn't bring it tonight. But I did ask Dr. Salemi about it.

Dr. Salemi says, "In regard to Mrs. Sweezy's finding, this is a remarkable finding. It is difficult, a priori, to believe that the possibility of increased traffic on Pinehurst Drive could lower values there by over 30 percent.

"A careful look at the data will show, however, that the finding is false. The data contain no evidence of a dramatic fall in Pinehurst home values that occurred in 1995 and continue to the present."

He continues, "The problem with Susan Sweezy's analysis is that there are too few observations for a researcher to do a year-to-year comparison. Indeed, there is only one home sold on Pinehurst Drive in 1995.

"Moreover, it does not make sense to compare The Oaks properties to a changing mix of non-Oaks properties. Mrs. Sweezy's estimate of the Pinehurst Drive premium will be affected by the quality of the other Chapel Hill homes that sold in that same year. That quality is likely to vary from year to year.

"By considering only homes in The Oaks, variation in home quality can be kept to a minimum. My procedure permits a more focused look at the key question. Did the anticipation of higher traffic on Pinehurst lower prices there relative to comparable houses that would experience the increase in traffic‑-or would not experience the increast in traffic?

"The conversion of prices to 1982 dollars makes it a reasonable pool of data over the years. Indeed, inflation adjustment is precisely what Donald Sweezy says is necessary in order to compare sales prices in different years.

"When I adjust for inflation and pool the data, I find no evidence that the price per square foot of homes on Pinehurst Drive declined relative to the price per square foot of homes in The Oaks but off Pinehurst Drive in 1995.

"In my professional opinion, it is appropriate to adjust home prices for inflation before computing averages that run over sales in different years. The Consumer Price Index is a reasonable index to use, although there are indexes that focus only on housing costs.

"My findings are not likely to be sensitive to the price index chosen to convert home prices to constant dollars. I adjusted home prices for inflation in three neighborhood comparisons--the North Raleigh Country Club neighborhood, the Chapel Hill historic district, and The Oaks.

"In all three cases, I find no substantial variation in housing prices‑-I find substantial variation in housing prices, but I also find that there is present in these data no evidence to support the conclusion that the onset of higher traffic significantly lowers property values. Respectfully submitted, Michael K. Salemi."

Which now brings me to Kansas City. And I'd to spend my remaining time with you addressing what has become known as the Kansas City study. As you know, this study was done by Shaner Appraisal, Incorporated, for the Johnson County, Kansas, appraiser's office.

Now, Attorney Brough has told you that you should rely on it because it is unbiased. And Mr. Butzin weighed in that it is very significant and should be used because there isn't enough data in Chapel Hill.

Well, I would submit to you that the issue is not whether the study is unbiased or, as both Attorney Brough and Mr. Butzin have stated, tax assessors don't like to give away money. The issues are what does this study really say, how credible is it, and why does it have equal or greater application to Pinehurst Drive in Chapel Hill than, for example, the Rainwater Drive study in Raleigh.

Well, let's begin by looking at the market where the study was done. This is a map that encompasses the study area in Johnson County. This area is a seamless collection of cities which are completely grown together and are indistinguishable except that their street signs tend to be different colors.

Johnson County is largely a bedroom community for Kansas City, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri. And it's a pretty big bedroom. There are 119,000 owner-occupied homes in Johnson County.

Most of the heavily populated area is shown on this map, although the area continues to grow to the west and the south. The average appraised value of the homes in this area is a hundred and thirty-eight thousand dollars ($138,000).

As you can see from the map, the area is laid out in typical midwestern grid fashion, with each of these super blocks being one square mile. For general reference, this would be a super block area right here, another one here, another one here. And they block in one-mile grids.

With few exceptions, the areas within the super blocks are single-family residential areas. In the study area, the density is approximately four units per acre.

Residential traffic from inside the super blocks is directed to the streets on the edge of the block, and these streets become major arterial streets for the entire county.

Many super blocks also have half-mile collector streets. You'll see them in the middle of the super blocks in some cases, althought not in all.

These half-mile collectors generally run north and south in the direction of downtown Kansas City.

The area shown on this map is approximately 50 square miles. Each of the one-mile and half-mile arteries is essentially straight, and the north- and southbound arteries are 10 to 15 miles in length.

Some of the arterial streets are residential in character, some are commercial and some are a mix of both. Sound like The Oaks or Chapel Hill?

Well, what does this study‑-what about the study itself? In the study they looked at eight houses fronting and six houses backing on what the study described as busy streets and matched them with similar houses on nonbusy streets to determine differences in value. The study treats each group as a separate sub-study, saying that there is a difference between houses that fron and houses that back.

Now, was the Johnson County appraiser just looking to create a problem for himself and give money away? Well, maybe. But perhaps he was trying to solve a bigger problem.

Because there can be little reasonable doubt that houses located on streets with 20,000-plus cars per day are being devalued in that marketplace relative to comparable housing off those streets. And six of the eight fronting houses in the study fit that description.

Well, doesn't that confirm the embrace given this study by the representatives of Pinehurst Drive? Well, no. And here's why. There is absolutely no basis of comparison between these houses and Pinehurst Drive.

The average house in this study was 1,367 square feet. Sound like Pinehurst Drive? The average house was on a lot less than one-fifth of an acre. The average house in this study was 38 years old. The average sale price was eighty-seven thousand five hundred dollars ($87,500). There are literally dozens of houses which are virtually identical to the subject homes all over Johnson County. Sound like Pinehurst Drive?

You may recall that Mr. Butzin testified about the area having lots of cookie-cutter houses. And I know that he is correct, because I went there to see it for myself.

I would now like to show you some photographs of the subject houses which I took on Tuesday. This is 7821 Nall Avenue. Note the setback and the driveway. This house has 20,000 cars a day in front of it.

This is 7715 Nall Avenue, a typical Pinehurst Drive house, also with 20,000 cars a day in front of it.

This is Nall Avenue in mid-afternoon in the vicinity of the subject houses. With 20,000 trips, you might have expected a bigger road, but it is not. Maybe you can figure out how the people in the subject houses get out of their driveways during peak hours, but I cannot.

This is 9500 Horton, a nice-enough looking house until you place it on a road with 23,000 trips on it. And that's the house, which is about 30 feet from the edge of the road.

I do not have a picture of 9212 West 95th Street, but it's just down the road in that direction in between the two largest shopping areas in the county where traffic is approaching 30,000 cars per day.

This is 5517 Roe. It, too, looks pretty good until you begin to back away and see that it sits on a narrow, four-lane, divided road with 22,000 cars. A car backing out of this driveway blocks both northbound lanes until it clears the area.

Further south is 5538 Roe. Same problem, just the opposite side of the street.

Additionally, you might wish to see what is a few hundred yards from these houses. 5538 Roe is about right there (indicating). And if you can't read it, it says, if I'm not mistaken, "Mission Center Mall" right here. And this is the intersection of U.S. Highways 56 and 169.

Now, this picture is of 10125 Lamar, another subject house. It has about 5,400 cars in front of it. The study shows it to have 5 percent less value, about six thousand dollars, than this house on 9541 Riggs, which has essentially no traffic.

Now, the adjustments used on these houses didn't deal with market appeal of the architecture, nor the differences in the relative value of the architectural shingles on the Riggs house. It did, however, add a one-thousand-dollar adjustment to the Riggs house because it did not have a deck as the house on Lamar does.

So I went around to the back of the house on Lamar to look at the deck, and this is what I saw. This is not a creek. This is the storm sewer discharge point for about half the super block.

All the storm water and everything in it crosses a spillway and falls directly into a dirt natural ditch directly behind 10125 Lamar. This is their house, this is the edge of their yard, and this is the ditch.

Does this affect value relative to a substantially similar house without a ditch? Well, it would if I were the buyer. But the study doesn't think so. It is neither mentioned, nor is it adjusted for in computing values.

So this brings us to the crux of the argument and the need for some clarity. Mr. Butzin, who unearthed this study, told you in his testimony, and I quote‑-and I've listened to this three times on tape‑-"At 2,000 cars a day, according to this Kansas City study, there isn't any significant impact. There may be some impact, but it's pretty hard to measure," end of quote.

This is simply not true. The study makes no reference whatever to impacts or the lack thereof at 500 cars or 1,000 cars or 2,000 cars. It never mentions traffic below 3,000 cars per day.

So I called Bernie Shaner, who did the study. And I asked him how they settled on 3,000 trips as being a busy street. He said it was arbitrary.

I asked him if he had studied traffic volumes less than 3,000 cars. He said, "No." I asked him if he had studied any other subjects at the 3,000-trip level. He said, "No."

I quoted him the portion of Mr. Butzin's testimony that I just read to you and asked him if that was the conclusion of his study. He said he had no idea how Mr. Butzin could have gotten that from the study, because it wasn't in the study.

We asked Mr. Shaner if he thought it would be proper to apply this study to Pinehurst Drive. He said, "No." A letter to that effect is in our packet.

So what we come down to is that Attorney Brough and Mr. Butzin want you to reject this special use permit on the basis of one house in Lenexa, Kansas, which has 3,400 cars per day in front of it, and here it is, 12117 West 99th Street, this house.

This is a view from across the street. While I might suggest that the yellow house two houses up the street might be in itself cause for devaluation, I will not press the point.

For additional reference, this house is immediately behind the subject house. This house is the matched pair house on 10236 Canaan Street, the one that's said to be substantially similar to 99th Street. This is the house immediately behind 10236 Canaan Street.

You might infer from this that Canaan Street is in general a nicer area than West 99th Street, and you would be correct. But I would submit that it's not because of traffic. It's because of what's across the street from West 99th Street.

First you will note that there are no houses across the street, but, rather, there is a berm. The berm is there to try to hide something. Nearly 1,000 apartment units that stretch for a half-mile between 99th Street and 95th Street.

Stand in front of the house and look, and you will see in the right foreground‑-and this is the house right here‑-you will see in the right foreground the back of a commercial building containing, among other things, the U.S. Tae Kwon Do Center.

And standing at the mailbox of 12117 West 99th Street, one sees the Oak Park Mall, 1.6 million square feet, 170 stores. And in between the back of the other commercial property there is a strip of commercial property that includes‑-and my light touched on it‑-the Joy Luck Chinest Restaurant.

Now, you will note in this picture the curb line across the street, the light pole and the trees. This is not a super-zoomed shot. I am standing next to the mailbox at the 12117 West 99th Street address, and I am taking this picture as it is seen from that location.

I would also note that the living area of this house is about eight feet higher than where I am standing, allowing, I presume, for an even more picturesque view of the surroundings from the living room window.

So how much did the study adjust for this situation? It adjusted zero. There was a two-thousand-dollar adjustment to the Canaan house to account for the fact that the West 99th Street house has a hot tub, but there is absolutely nothing said about the relative location, surroundings, adjacent uses or anything else, as if among the citizens of Kansas the presence of a hot tub would influence the buying decision, but the demonstrated surroundings of 99th Street would not. If that is the case, then I'm glad I'm not in Kansas anymore.

The study says, and I quote, "We have compared these properties to other similar properties which have sold in the same subdivision. The, quote, 'busy street factor' has been isolated in each case so that the effect of this one variable can be tested."

I don't think so. I am unable to see how anyone could take the Kansas City study at face value and apply it to Pinehurst Drive. They are simply two different worlds. There is not one similarity between the houses, the neighborhoods or the streets.

Applied to Chapel Hill, the study would necessitate a 10 percent reduction in assessed values of houses on Franklin Street, Cameron Street, Erwin Road, Estes Drive, Elliott Road, Lakeview, McCauley, Boundary Street, Rosemary Street, Weaver Dairy Road, Ephesus Church Road and numerous others that have already exceeded the mythical 3,000-trip threshhold.

And it is mythical because the alleged value impact of 3,000 cars per day versus 2,000 cars per day or 5,000 cars per day cannot even be substantiated using this study in Kansas, given the subjects used.

Maybe 20,000 cars on a 27-foot-wide Kansas street in front of an eighty-seven-thousand-dollar house with a 20-foot-long driveway, which is virtually identical to dozens of other nearby houses, maybe then you can apply it. I'll concede that. But that's not Pinehurst Drive.

I thank you and will receive questions.

MAYOR WALDORF: One quick question. What's the date of the Kansas City study, Mr. Kirshbaum?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: I believe it's‑-

MAYOR WALDORF: Probably we've been told.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: ‑-1996, if I'm not mistaken.

MAYOR WALDORF: So it's very recent.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes.

MAYOR WALDORF: Are there any questions of Mr. Kirshbaum? Yes, ma'am. Madeline, please come to the podium.

Everybody who asks a question needs to identify himself or herself to help out the court reporter.

MS. JEFFERSON: I'm Madeline Jefferson. I want to ask you about your traffic studies on 54. Very shortly you're going to have a couple of special use permits for a hotel, a large hotel, and a large office complex. Were those projected traffic trips included in your figures?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes, ma'am.

MAYOR WALDORF: Other questions?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: All uses in Meadowmont, whether encompassed in the initial special use permits or not, were included in the total traffic impact analysis.

MAYOR WALDORF: So everything in the master plan.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes.

MAYOR WALDORF: At the maximum capacities allowed in the master plan?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes. That's correct. We used what for our purposes, I guess, would have to be described as the worst case in every situation, including treating what we anticipate to be a congregate care area as apartment units where there's a vastly higher rate of trips generated from apartments than congregate care, as you might imagine.

MAYOR WALDORF: All right. Yes, sir, Mr. Sweezy.

MR. SWEEZY: I'm Don Sweezy. S‑w‑e‑e‑z‑y. Did I understand correctly that Professor Salemi agreed that you need to convert to constant dollars in order to compare prices across a range of years?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: My understanding was that that is in fact what he said.

MR. SWEEZY: Did he compute constant-dollar figures for the Greensboro and Charlotte locations that you all presented?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: He did not. Because he was only responding to the presentation that you had made.

MR. SWEEZY: So we do not have before us, in his opinion, the information that would be needed to judge what happened on those locations; is that correct?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: That is correct in terms of if in fact that adjustment would make any difference in the results. And if you'll recall, in his opinion, he said that if the samples were randomly distributed over time, the adjustment would not be of any major consequence.

MR. SWEEZY: Are those samples randomly distributed over time?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: I could not say. I have not studied that.

MR. SWEEZY: Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Are there other questions of Mr. Kirshbaum? Please come forward, Mr. Goodman.

MR. GOODMAN: My name is Philip Goodman. The question I have is in regards to this‑-I'm not sure of the terminology‑-Northridge, I guess, in Raleigh. What were the values of the homes on Rainwater doing prior to the property‑-prior to the traffic increase and also the value of the homes in the non-Rainwater area prior to 1992?

MAYOR WALDORF: One question at a time.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: The values on Rainwater, according to Dr. Salemi, inflation-adjusted, prior to 1992, or the summer of 1992 on Rainwater were sixty-seven dollars and three cents ($67.03) per square foot, on non-Rainwater houses, seventy dollars and twenty-four cents ($70.24) per square foot.

After 1995, on Rainwater, sixty-three dollars and eighty-four cents ($63.84) per square foot and on non-Rainwater, sixty-five dollars and sixty cents ($65.60) per square foot.

The difference prior to 1992 was three dollars and twenty-one cents ($3.21) per square foot, and after 1992 was one dollar and eighty-two cents ($1.82) per square foot.

MR. GOODMAN: So the value of the homes had gone down after 1992?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: In terms of inflation adjustment, the value of all homes in that section of Northridge had gone down over that period of time.

MR. GOODMAN: Okay. And those were homes on Rainwater and non-Rainwater as well.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: That's correct.

MR. GOODMAN: So one might imply that the value of the homes both on and off that area went down because of the traffic increase?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Well, one could imply that if one chose, but one would be totally incorrect.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you. Other questions?

MR. EISCHEN: I'm Jeff Eischen. I live on Burningtree Drive near Highway 54.

MAYOR WALDORF: Is this a question, Mr. Eischen, or a presentation? I'd like you to ask questions, please.

MR. EISCHEN: It will be a question.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you.

MR. EISCHEN: This is a creek that runs from the proposed Meadowmont property into the backyard of Mr. Wise. My question is, does this creek show up on the drainage diagram that you have?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: How do you know this is a creek? Is it a perennial stream?

MR. EISCHEN: It's a creek that runs‑-

MR. KIRSHBAUM: No, it's storm water that runs off. It's not a creek, though. Is that what you're telling?

MAYOR WALDORF: His question was does this show up on the drainage pattern.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Well, the pattern that I showed showed that there is drainage that runs across those lots on Burningtree from areas of Meadowmont, in one case, about an acre and a quarter and in another case, about 1.75 acres.

If that's what he's talking about, then, yes, it does show that. But there's no creek that runs from Meadowmont to Burningtree at any point along that property.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you. Did you have another question, Mr. Eischen?

MR. EISCHEN: So have you personally walked to the property behind the fence where the houses lie on Burningtree to study the drainage?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: I have walked a number of areas. I don't know if I have specifically walked that area to study the drainage. To my recollection, no.

MR. EISCHEN: This is an area that's pretty much like a swamp behind the home that's next door to Mr. Wise. Does this area show up on the drainage diagram that you showed?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: The land, I'm sure, shows up. Whether or not it shows any water standing in it, I think, would be subject to the time of year and the point in time. So, no, it does not in terms of identifying a standing water.

MR. EISCHEN: This is storm water that runs between the two homes that are adjacent to Mr. Wise's property. The source of that water is that swampy area that I showed previously. Does this show up on your drainage diagram?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: That drainage runs across that property? Yes, it does. I mean, it's obvious that water runs downhill, so some drainage does run across that property.

If you're asking did we identify that there is a specific volume of water or route, no. But that's not what we do in our drainage calculation.

MAYOR WALDORF: Are there any other questions of Mr. Kirshbaum? Yes, sir.

MR. CARSANARO: My name is Joe Carsanaro. What was the dollar value of the house on and off Rainwater in 1992?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: I'm sorry.

MR. CARSANARO: You gave Mr. Goodman a price per square foot for homes on and off Rainwater in 1992. What was the price of that house?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Well, there were several houses. It wasn't just one house. Which house do you want to do?

MR. CARSANARO: The one that you said was sixty dollars ($60) per square foot.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: That was the average of all of the subject houses on Rainwater and the average for all of the subject houses off of Rainwater.

MR. CARSANARO: Do you know what the average cost per square foot for the houses in Kansas City were?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Well, I could compute it quickly if you want me to. It would be something, I think, in the vicinity of fifty-four dollars a foot.

MR. CARSANARO: Do you know what the average price per square foot for houses in The Oaks is?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Do you want it inflation-adjusted or‑-

MR. CARSANARO: Your choice.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Inflation-adjusted for all properties in The Oaks is seventy-seven dollars and forty-nine cents ($77.49).

MR. CARSANARO: So the average price per square foot for houses on and off Rainwater are closer to the average price per square foot in Kansas City than in The Oaks; isn't that true?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Well, I don't think so. But I can check it out to see. It appears to me that they're about in between.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you. Other questions?

(No response.)

MAYOR WALDORF: Does the council have questions of Mr. Kirshbaum? Joe?

MR. CAPOWSKI: George, will there be more presentations by your group‑-

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes.

MR. CAPOWSKI: ‑-pertaining to the traffic study and pertaining to other infrastructure items?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Not pertaining to the traffic study, per se, and no planned additional presentation on infrastructure items. If you have questions about either, it may be better to do them at this time.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. I do have several questions. Could you put up a map of the road network, please?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Inside Meadowmont?

MR. CAPOWSKI: Of the current Meadowmont proposal.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes.

(Map displayed.)

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. Please show Meadowmont Lane and please track it northward, please. Now, what happens at its northern end?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: It stops.

MR. CAPOWSKI: It stops.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes.

MR. CAPOWSKI: What exactly do you mean by "stops"? Is there a thermometer bulb cul-de-sac?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: It doesn't go any further.

MR. CAPOWSKI: No, I understand that. Is there a thermometer bulb cul-de-sac?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: I don't know that we've described it specifically. I think that the town required some type of turn-around be placed at the end of that road.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Is it contemplated to extend further?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: It is stubbed out on the presumption that someday it may extend further, and that provides the opportunity for it to be extended if the powers that be choose to.

MR. CAPOWSKI: So it is indeed stubbed out.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. Now, in your traffic counts on Raleigh Road, what did you assume about the northern end of Meadowmont Lane?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: That it stopped.

MR. CAPOWSKI: That it stops. In other words, no traffic comes from real far north down into the northern end of Meadowmont Lane.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: No traffic comes‑-in our study, no traffic comes on Meadowmont Lane beyond thisi point right here (indicating).

MR. CAPOWSKI: I understand.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yeah.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Yeah.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: I think we did, however, do a supplemental study at the town's request that showed what would happen if that were connected through. And I don't have a copy of that study with me. But I'm sure that you've been through all that information enough you're probably more familiar with it than I am.

MR. CAPOWSKI: I understand. But your traffic study, the one in this book, basically says there's a dead end up there, and no through traffic comes from the 15-501 area onto Meadowmont Lane.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: No, in fact, Mr. Horn is correcting me. And I would refer you to page 22. There was some additional information provided about the potential for Meadowmont Lane being extended.

MR. CAPOWSKI: I'm sorry. Page 22 is‑-

MAYOR WALDORF: Page 22. Here it is, Joe. Twenty-two of this report right here.

If you have that in front of you, George, you might want to just read it. It's only a couple of paragraphs long. You don't have it, do you?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Let's see. They say that certain background traffic-provided information showed that with a four-lane N.C. 54, which this study contemplated, that one, two, three, four, five, six peak hours at intersections were congested or failing and that two peak hours were acceptable.

Mr. Horn tells me that in the revisions that were done that are not in this report, six-laning N.C. 54, that all of those intersections perform at nonfailing levels of service.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. But the data‑-George, way back at the beginning of your presentation when you were reacting to other people's description of the total amount of traffic in the year 2006 on Raleigh Road‑-

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Okay.

MR. CAPOWSKI: ‑-you were working under the assumption that there would be no continuation up to the Chapel Hill-Durham Boulevard of the northern end of Meadowmont Lane; is that correct?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: That's correct.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Great. Now, without that connection to the Chapel Hill-Durham Boulevard, you summarized the background growth and you summarized the amount of Meadowmont-generated traffic and you summarized the total current traffic on Raleigh Road, but you never totaled those numbers up to give us the total traffic anywhere on Raleigh Road in the year 2006. Would you please do that?

(Calculations performed.)

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Mr. Capowski, it's about 57,500 trips westbound. That would be going through the Burningtree‑-57,500.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Fifty-seven‑-

MS. ANDRESEN: Would you repeat those?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Fifty-seven thousand five hundred (57,500).

MAYOR WALDORF: Would you repeat that again?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Fifty-seven thousand five hundred (57,500).

MAYOR WALDORF: Through what?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Through the Burningtree‑-that's the trips that would be through the Burningtree intersection.

MAYOR WALDORF: And this is 2006?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: That's 2006. That includes the current traffic‑-

MR. CAPOWSKI: Thirty-five thousand.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: ‑-it includes 2 percent per year background traffic‑-

MR. CAPOWSKI: About 7,000.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: ‑-and it includes about 14,700 of the Meadowmont trips which are assigned to be westbound. You might want to check our map, but I think we're pretty close.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. So your opinion is that there will be about 57,000 cars on Raleigh Road in 2006 at the intersection of Raleigh Road with Burningtree.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. Now, give us some visualization of some road in Chapel Hill that we can compare that to. The number 57,000 really doesn't mean too much. Because I don't stand out there every day and count to 57,000. Give me a road that I can relate to, please, a local, noninterstate, something with the kind of traffic lights that we'll have here.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Well, I'm not sure I'm familiar with the overall traffuc counts in Chapel Hill. Mr. Horn may have an opinion on that.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Mr. Horn?

MR. HORN: The closest one that I would say based on the year 2006 would be 15-501, which actually would be carrying more traffic than that. So we would say it's closer to 15-501.

MR. CAPOWSKI: That's not the question I asked, sir. I'm trying to visualize by today's standards what the number 57,000 cars per day means. So what road today can I look at that has 57,000 cars in the Chapel Hill area? Where would you send me to get a feeling for what 57,000 cars per day on a six-lane-wide road with traffic lights‑-

MR. HORN: There's not one in Chapel Hill that I can tell you to go look at.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. What's the most crowded road in Chapel Hill? In the Chapel Hill area.

MR. HORN: I think everybody would agree it's 15-501.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay.

MR. HORN: And that's approximately 45,000 today, if I remember the traffic count.

MAYOR WALDORF: At what point, Mr. Horn? At what point in the road is it 45,000?

MR. HORN: Right near the interstate on the Durham side.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. On the Durham side?

MR. HORN: Uh-huh (affirmative).

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. Well, our traffic engineer, David Bonk, gives us the number 41,700 there.

MR. HORN: Good. I did pretty good, then.

MAYOR WALDORF: Yeah.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. You did quite well. So what you're saying is with Meadowmont in the year 2006, by your calculations, that traffic on Raleigh Road will be about 25 percent greater than today's Chapel Hill-Durham Boulevard out near Interstate 40.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: That in part is true. What it's also saying is that without Meadowmont the traffic on four-lane N.C. 54 is going to be the same as traffic on 15-501 is today.

MR. CAPOWSKI: I understand that. But my point is‑-but we're here to discuss the infrastructure permit for this version of Meadowmont. So I'm trying to get‑-

MR. KIRSHBAUM: I thought we were here basically to discuss the connection to Pinehurst Drive. But‑-

MR. CAPOWSKI: I'm sorry?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: I thought we were here to discuss the connection to Pinehurst Drive.

MAYOR WALDORF: Actually, what we're doing right now is asking questions and getting answers.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay.

MAYOR WALDORF: You had some more questions, Joe?

MR. CAPOWSKI: Yes. I do have‑-thank you for these answers. I do have a couple of questions about the rail line. Is this a good time to ask them?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Sure.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. Mr. Perry and Mr. Sitton several times at the podium during public hearings have promoted the Meadowmont project as‑-I'll speak generally‑-the gateway to the rail line. Okay? In other words, one of the reasons we should approve this version of Meadowmont is because that will enable a light rail system from Durham to Chapel Hill.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: That would be one interpretation.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Well, what is a correct one, please?

MAYOR WALDORF: Do you have a question?

MR. CAPOWSKI: Yes, I do.

MAYOR WALDORF: That not approving Meadowmont as proposed would disenable the ability of the rail line to be connected in this location.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. What exactly is Meadowmont's role in the construction of the rail line?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: We have no role in the construction of the rail line.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: We provide, according to TTA‑-and they're the ones who identify us as a needed use along the rail line‑-we provide customers for using the rail line and the potential location for a facility where those customers can board and unboard.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Physically, what are you providing? A right-of-way for the rail line?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: That's correct.

MR. CAPOWSKI: What's called a transit corridor.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Correct.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. Now, there are other‑-there's many ways, of course, to develop a piece of property. But one other way that has been proposed by East-West Partners is a housing project on the north side of Raleigh Road that contains, as you said earlier, approximately 547 houses, just to pick a number out of the air.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: I didn't say that, but I think that was said, yes.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. Doesn't that‑-I'm not promoting that version, by any means. But doesn't that version contain a railroad corridor?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: No.

MR. CAPOWSKI: I'm sorry?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: No, it does not.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Then what is the function of the 210-foot-wide corridor that is exactly in the same location most of the way of the current corridor from Meadowmont Lane and the rail line in the current‑-in that Meadowmont proposal?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: I'll let Mr. Murray answer that question.

MR. MURRAY: My name is Scott Murray, with East-West Partners. What that represents, council member Capowski, is a thoroughfare road and buffers on either side of that thoroughfare.

MAYOR WALDORF: Excuse me. Can you speak up?

MR. MURRAY: It represents a thoroughfare right-of-way and buffers on either side of that. There is no rail corridor.

MAYOR WALDORF: In other words, a space for the state of North Carolina to come and widen the road later?

MR. PERRY: As you know, the Laurel Hill Parkway, which Mr. Capowski referred to earlier, on the transit plan is routed to the west of‑-excuse me‑-to the east of Meadowmont as opposed to through Meadowmont. We made that concession to route Laurel Hill Parkway and make it part of Meadowmont Lane. That particular corridor there is to pick up Laurel Hill Parkway if it's ever constructed from 15-501 so that it can then still intersect at Friday Lane. That corridor is provided there for a potential, future Laurel Hill Parkway. And that's the only use for that corridor.

MR. CAPOWSKI: But it is 210 feet wide.

MR. PERRY: No, it's not. I don't think it is that wide. Probably 100 feet wide.

MR. MURRAY: If I'm not mistaken, it's between an 80- and 100-foot right-of-way for the road plus additional buffer space outside of the road for a landscape buffer that would be owned by the Community Association.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Well, Scott, it's one and a sixteenth inches wide, and the scale is 200 feet per inch. And this map hasn't been reduced.

MR. MURRAY: I understand that.

MR. CAPOWSKI: I understand. And it says "Reserved right-of-way and 50-foot buffer on either side of it."

MR. MURRAY: Okay.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. So it's a 210-foot-wide strip that won't be built on with houses.

MR. MURRAY: Yes. That's correct.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Thank you. Now, so there is a wide swath through this 547 housing proposal that could be used for both mass transit and for a major road; is that right?

MR. MURRAY: That is incorrect. That proposal proposes a 110-foot-wide right-of-way, using your numbers, and two 50-foot buffers that would be landscaped and owned by the Community Association.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay.

MAYOR WALDORF: I feel that it might be important for me to say that this proposal is not a proposal that's before the council and it's not the subject of this hearing, which is property values and how traffic might affect them. So I think it's important to keep our questions on the subject of this hearing.

MR. CAPOWSKI: I think it is quite relevant, Rosemary. I'm sorry. Because indeed you are right. The subject is property values, especially as they relate to traffic.

However, one of the theses that Mr. Perry has repeatedly said with respect to the infracture special use permit is that we should vote for this version of Meadowmont because it will enable a rail system.

And my point, simply, is that by Mr. Perry's own proposal there are other versions of Meadowmont proposals‑-and certainly Mr. Perry would not present a frivolous one‑-that are economically viable and that also do allow a wide swath of land that could be used for mass transit and for infrastructure. So I think it is relevant.

MAYOR WALDORF: Did you have other questions?

MR. CAPOWSKI: Yes, I do. Let's stay with the rail line and let's go with the current Meadowmont proposal, the one that is on the screen right now, George. Okay?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Okay.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Now, the rail corridor comes down from the north and crosses over Meadowmont Lane just on the southwest corner of the Conference Center. Point to that, please. No, southwest, lower left.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Oh, you're talking‑-

MR. CAPOWSKI: Right. And from about where your little red pointer is now it goes adjacent to and down the eastern side‑-excuse me‑-western side of Meadowmont Lane; is that correct?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes. Generally, that's correct.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Specifically, it is by this map. Now, what does‑-

MR. KIRSHBAUM: What I meant to say here was that the location is not right here (indicating). The location is actually a little further down, I think, in the revised plan that TTA requested we put in so they could deal with grade issues.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. But, nonetheless, south of that road, say, that's called the residential collector‑-

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes.

MR. CAPOWSKI: ‑-the second major east-west road, yes, south of that‑-

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes.

MR. CAPOWSKI: ‑-the rail corridor is immediately adjacent on the west side of Meadowmont Lane going south.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: That's correct.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Great. Now, the rail corridor dead-ends into Raleigh Road; is that correct?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Well, that's the‑-we have no way of defining the rail corridor off of our property. So for our purposes, yes.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. And the place that it dead-ends into Raleigh Road, according to map number 2 on this plan, Raleigh Road is nine lanes wide; is that correct?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: That would be approximately correct, yes.

MR. CAPOWSKI: No, it's not approximate. It is correct by your map.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Well, I don't know exactly‑-I'm not looking at the map. I don't know exactly what the curvature of the railroad will be at that point. But I'll concede that you are probably correct.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. How would one cross a nine-lane-wide highway with a railroad line?

MR. KIRSHMAN: That's not my problem, Mr. Capowski. That's the TTA's problem. They asked us to put it there. That's where we put it. I am assuming from what they have said that they intend to cross in the air, but I don't know that for a fact. You probably need to ask them.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. So some sort of a overpass.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: I have no idea.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Well, you said, "in the air."

MR. KIRSHMAN: I am assuming if it's in the air, it would be described as an overpass, yes.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. All right. So the thing that‑-

MR. KIRSHMAN: But I don't know of any other way it would get across Raleigh Road now.

MR. CAPOWSKI: I'm sorry. I didn't understand.

MR. KIRSHMAN: I'm saying nine lanes or four lanes, I don't know any other way that it would get across Raleigh Road now.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. Right. I mean, there are three obvious ways. You build an overpass, you tunnel under it or you build a grade crossing like Main Street in Carrboro.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Well, my understanding is that the NCDOT has opposed the at-grade crossing. And I think people would drown if they tried to build it underground in that location.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. Nonetheless, the rail corridor comes south‑-the rail corridor on Meadowmont's plans comes south to and dead-ends straight into a nine-lane road.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. Thank you very much.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes.

MR. PERRY: That's correct as it relates to the Meadowmont plan. But TTA has a very specific routing across 54 that follows the‑-that comes down through the open Friday Center area that was originally intended for consideration as a performing arts center and then parallels our property and the university property on the south side of our property and the north side of the Friday Center property in that direction over to Finley Golf Course Road.

So if you look at the Mason Farm master plan that's been done by‑-the latest by Bruce Schornberg and the TTA, there very definitely is a corridor that extends all the way to Finley Golf Course road.

And then there's discussion as to whether that then goes up Finley Golf Course Road or potentially up Prestwick Road. So there is a corridor on the master plan beyond Meadowmont.

MAYOR WALDORF: Other questions from council members? Yeah, Kevin. Go ahead.

MR. FOY: On the Kimley-Horn traffic study, the single-family units are showing about 1,600 average daily trips for 340 single-family units. Is that just a typical‑-

MR. KIRSHBAUM: We'll be able to get that in front of us.

MR. FOY: That's Table 3. But my only question is whether that's just a standard single-family unit number that you would use for any calculation, whatever that is, four and a half per unit or something.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Let me be sure I'm looking at the right‑-are we talking about 342 units, single-family?

MR. FOY: Or three and a half trips‑-I guess. I don't know. Whatever that comes out to. Is that‑-

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Well, it's 1,601 in and 1,601 out. So it comes out to nine and a fraction trips per day per home.

MR. FOY: Okay. Whatever the number is.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes.

MR. FOY: That's just a number that you would use for any single-family unit anywhere in Chapel Hill.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Anywhere in the country as far I know.

MR. FOY: Anywhere in the country.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes.

MR. FOY: Okay. Thanks.

MAYOR WALDORF: Any other questions?

MR. CAPOWSKI: I'm sorry. I have one more about the rail line.

MAYOR WALDORF: Yeah, sure.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Mr. Kirshbaum, if the current version of Meadowmont were to be approved, this does not guarantee the construction of the rail line.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: No, sir.

MR. CAPOWSKI: All right. Correct?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: That is correct.

MR. CAPOWSKI: The most it could do would be increase the probability of its construction.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: I would say that is a reasonable assessment, yes.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. However, it does guarantee congestion on‑-however, the approval of this version of Meadowmont does guarantee, by your own figures, congestion on Raleigh Road with automobiles.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: No, I would question that. By "congestion" you mean failure of intersections to perform. With the six-laning of Raleigh Road all of those intersections perform at acceptable levels of service. So I don't think it would constitute congestion.

It would nice to be able, I'm sure, to picture it that way, but that's not what would happen.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Let me ask the question a different way, then. According to your own figures, if we were to approve this version of Meadowmont, traffic on Raleigh Road would increase in the year 2006 to about 25 percent greater than the current traffic on the Chapel Hill-Durham Boulevard up near I‑40.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: All right.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. And that's not a probability. That's a certainty.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Right.

MR. CAPOWSKI: So what we're saying here is that‑-what you are suggesting to us as a motivation to approve this version of Meadowmont is to accept the certainty of a lot of traffic, automobile traffic, on Raleigh Road simply to increase the probability of a rail line.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: No, sir. That is not correct. What we are saying, among other things, including increasing the probability of a rail line, is preservation of the meadows. If you will note on the plan that's shown, they're not preserved.

The creation of a park for town use, the dedication of a school site, the widening at our expense of N.C. 54, which is going to begin to fail shortly after the year 2000 in its current four-lane form whether there is a Meadowmont or not.

We are offering increases in the tax base, we are offering needed facilities, we are offering a number of things in this plan in addition to the rail line.

And to draw the comparison that the only thing you'll lose is the possibility of a railroad if Meadowmont is not approved would tend to suggest to me that someone has not been listening very carefully over the last four years.

MAYOR WALDORF: Other questions? Julie?

MR. PERRY: Joe, even if we build the 547-lot plan, you will have more cars on 54 in 2006 with the completion of that than you have on

15-501 today as well.

So it's not a matter of are you going to have as many as you do on 15-501 with Meadowmont or without Meadowmont. You will even have more than you have on 15-501 today if we continue to be unable to do anything.

MAYOR WALDORF: Julie?

MS. ANDRESEN: Yeah, I had a question for Mr. Horn or the other gentleman, whichever. In calculating the level of service and the impact of Meadowmont infrastructure permit on the existing roads, you said that all these intersections in front of Meadowmont will be an acceptable level of service because you are going to widen the road in front of Meadowmont.

Is the primary determinant of whether a road is working or serviceable or A, B, C, D, E, F, et cetera, turning movements or is it sheer number of cars?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: It is the performance of the intersection relative to turning movements and the amount of time that the traffic on the side streets have to wait to move through the intersection. The volume of cars is not a part of that equation.

MS. ANDRESEN: Okay. So‑-

MR. KIRSHBAUM: In a statistical sense.

MS. ANDRESEN: Right. And I think that's a significant point. Because if we're talking about the‑-how well 54 is going to function, we can talk about how well the intersections are functioning, which you say are acceptable levels, because the road has been widened to eight or nine lanes. And so, therefore, turning movements in and out can be dealt better, obviously, than if the road is four-lane. Would you agree with that?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes.

MS. ANDRESEN: But if we're talking just volume, then I'm just wondering how your traffic engineers put into the mix, whatever it is, 57,000 cars backed up, trying to get to the intersections on either end because the either end doesn't have the eight lanes.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Well, the middle doesn't have eight through lanes. It has only six.

MS. ANDRESEN: Okay.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: And from Meadowmont into the bypass it's six lanes all the way in. Now, granted that the number of lanes diminishes going to the west beyond Meadowmont. But, likewise, the influence of Meadowmont traffic‑-or going to the east‑-but, likewise, the influence of Meadowmont traffic going east is diminished.

MS. ANDRESEN: Okay. Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Other questions?

MR. FOY: On the projected 57,000 cars I think you said that it did not include the Pinehurst connector being open; is that correct?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: That's correct.

MR. FOY: So if the Pinehurst connector is open, does that reduce the volume on Route 54 and, if so, how much?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Well, the answer is yes, it would reduce the number of trips that Meadowmont generates and, presumably, then reduce the trips on 54. How much is directly in line with how many trips use Pinehurst.

MR. FOY: Then there's no calculation that the Pinehurst connector creates any kind of extra demand.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: No.

MR. FOY: Wouldn't that be a valid consideration, though?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: That it creates‑-

MR. FOY: Well, presumably, it opens up a market north of Meadowmont. So wouldn't it be logical to conclude that it would attract people to, for instance, the Village Center if they had easier access via Pinehurst?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes, but those would not be external trips onto 54. They would presumably come in through Meadowmont on Meadowmont streets to the Village Center and back out the same way. So I'm not sure I understand how they would influence 54.

MR. FOY: So the Pinehurst connector, whether it's open or closed, does or does not have an impact on the traffic volume on 54?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: It would arguably to the degree that trips generated from Meadowmont use Pinehurst Drive. Then trips on 54 could be reduced and would be reduced by that same number.

MR. FOY: Okay.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: And that number has been described in various ranges. But that would be‑-in terms of reduction on 54, it would relate directly to how many trips externally generated by Meadowmont chose to go up Pinehurst Drive rather than out on 54 to go wherever they might be going.

MAYOR WALDORF: Pat?

MS. EVANS: The 57,000 trips in the year 2006 moving to the west, you said that's the worst-case scenario?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Yes.

MS. EVANS: That does not include anyone taking a bus. It doesn't include anyone walking.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: No.

MS. EVANS: It doesn't include anyone biking?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: No.

MS. EVANS: Does it mean that everyone gets into a car by themselves and drives?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Well, it means‑-

MS. EVANS: Or does it mean car-pooling?

MR. KIRSHMAN: It presumes that all of those trips are made by someone in a car. Whether other people ride with them or presuming a true car-pooling situation, no. It presumes standard, single-family, multi-family utilization. There may be more than one person in the car when the trip is made. But I don't think it would qualify as a car pool situation.

MAYOR WALDORF: I guess I'm wondering why the applicant has not put together a set of numbers for trips, a set of traffic trip numbers, that account for local transit, possibility of regional transit, bicycling, walking. I don't know why you count apartments as‑-retirement residences as apartments.

I don't know why you don't have a companion set of numbers that would be a more‑-arguably a more realistic portrayal of what this proposed development would generate in terms of traffic.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Mayor Waldorf, I think that the term that you use, "arguable," is one of the reasons that we didn't do it. Because we saw it as a possibility for just more argument.

We have difficulty enough in getting people to believe the worst-case scenario that we put forward. For us to put forward something that only served to make us look better or make the situation look better, I'm sure would be attacked by many of the people in this room as self-serving and phony. And we have not done it exactly for that purpose.

We have chosen from the outset to present the worst case so that no one could quibble with the figures. And if people wish, then, to evaluate the possibility of improvement in that situation, we certainly welcome that.

But we've tried to deal with this in a way that did not leave us open to the accusation that we were cooking the books. And we've, therefore, not done those kinds of exercises, because we knew that that would simply give our opponents the opportunity for additional attack.

MAYOR WALDORF: I have a couple of other fairly minor questions. One of them comes from Table 2. I'm just wondering if you have some rough idea of how much it would change traffic counts if you didn't have drive-through windows at a fast food facility and at banks.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: I do not. I don't know whether‑-

MAYOR WALDORF: If we could just have that information later.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: Sure. I think we can do that.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Another question I have is on page 17‑-I guess I'd like a better explanation of where the 2 percent traffic growth rate comes from. Maybe our staff needs to provide that, and maybe that could come later. I'm sure there's a good reason for it.

And in your documentation, what's your definition of "congested"?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: In the case of the original study, which was the four-lane road, that generally was defined as failure of the intersections.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay.

MR. KIRSHBAUM: And that would have been Level of Service F or probably low D.

MAYOR WALDORF: All right. Thalnk you. Any other questions from the council of any of the applicant's representatives?

I thought you all were finished. Did you have somebody else?

MR. KIRSHBAUM: No. I didn't know whether there was another question coming.

MR. SITTON: Unfortunately, yes.

MAYOR WALDORF: Oh, you're not. Okay.

TESTIMONY OF LARRY SITTON

MR. SITTON: I'm Larry Sitton. I'm an attorney from Greensboro, and I represent Meadowmont and East-West Partners.

You've got one more witness besides me, and that's Roger Perry. But the points I want to make are just a few, and they relate to the legal questions involved.

You've been sitting here now for over 10 hours listening to evidence. You're very patient. I would not be as patient, I don't think. Somebody told me that in Chapel Hill you'll see democracy in action. I have seen it. You let everybody speak their peace and you listen to them.

But you are judges. In this hearing, which is an evidentiary hearing, you are acting in a quasi-judicial capacity in considering the special use permit. So think of yourselves as having on robes. Because that's exactly what you're doing.

You're considering the evidence. And that means that you can hear all kinds of evidence, which you have. But you've got to separate first evidence from emotion and from people being upset about a development.

Whether Meadowmont is a good idea or a bad idea, that decision in a way has been made. You made it when you or your predecessors approved the master land-use plan.

Now the question before you is are you going to approve special use permits and do they fall in line with that master land-use plan. And you look at those special use permits by looking at what your ordinance tells you to look at. You've been through this before.

The only question before you‑-and I simply say this to remind you to get it back in focus‑-is whether or not Meadowmont, the special use permit for infrastructure in Meadowmont, maintains the property values of contiguous property.

Now, much of what you've heard wants to look at the comparison between Meadowmont, or the property where Meadowmont is going, as it exists today and what it will look like when it's developed. That is not the comparison.

The comparison is between how Meadowmont could be used as a matter of right today. It has R‑1 zoning. Today, without any further action on your part, there could be 547 houses built in Meadowmont.

So regardless of the decision that's made today, Meadowmont will not stay as it is. Meadowmont will be developed. There will be houses built in Meadowmont. There will be increased traffic on Pinehurst Drive.

Pinehurst Drive below Burningtree has no traffic, virtually. There are eight houses there. The road dead-ends. If that road is opened, the traffic will necessarily increase. That is a given.

In fact, that could happen without Meadowmont. The town in its police power could decide to extend Pinehurst Drive and bring it down and connect it to Highway 54.

So it's not‑-you need to look at it in that light. Now, looking at it in that light, does the infrastructure special use permit decrease the property values below what they would be decreased by virtue of any other development that Meadowmont could do right this minute.

That's the question. And I think the answer is clearly "No." And I say that for a couple of reasons. One is the ordinance says maintain property values. There's been a lot of discussion about what that means.

Many of the witnesses would have you say in interpreting "maintain property values" that that means that the property has to keep up with inflation. In fact, some of the witnesses stated, if I understood it correctly, it's got to exceed inflation to maintain a property value.

There is no case in North Carolina that says that. There is no case in the United States which says that. We have looked. And unless our computer is mistaken and won't take word searches, we can't find a single case.

In fact, there's no cases on what "maintain property values" means. Now, why is that? Because "maintain" means what people commonly, ordinarily think it means. It means maintain as is, preserve.

I think if you go out and ask anybody "Well, if I bought a house for five thousand dollars (($5,000) and I sold it two years later for five thousand dollars ($5,000), have I maintained the property value of the house?" And they would say, "Yes."

That's what "maintain" means, keep the same value. But even if it means adjusted for inflation, which I do not think it means‑-and I think you've got to make that decision‑-then I think our evidence has shown that these properties have kept up with inflation. Certainly all the evidence before you has shown that increased traffic, especially on Pinehurst Drive, will not decrease these property values.

Now, let's look a little bit at the evidence. You've got two sets of evidence. You've got the evidence that has been relied on by the people that don't want you to approve this permit.

What's that evidence? It's the Kansas City study. It's the evidence that supposedly is the only independent evidence, and therefore you should rely on it because it's independent.

Well, interestingly enough, even at your first hearing before this series of hearings, the first hearing that went up, there was one other piece of, quote, "independent evidence" before you. That was from the Orange County tax office, which said that increased traffic does not decrease property values. But Judge Battle said that wasn't enough. So we're back down here again.

Now let's look at what you have before you now, the Kansas City study. You've heard at length about the Kansas City study. There's a serious problem with the Kansas City study.

The opponents of Meadowmont would tell you that the Kansas City stands for the proposition that if there's increased traffic, property values decrease.

You have seen from what Mr. Kirshbaum showed you‑-and we'll provide you with pictures, all those pictures with which houses they go to. And we're going to give you another submission tonight that has all the stuff we're talking about in it.

But there were a lot of other factors. It certainly wasn't traffic that caused any decrease in property values in Kansas City. And in fact, we contacted the person who did the Kansas City study. There is a letter in the packet from him.

And the last paragraph of that letter reads, "It appears to me that the Meadowmont development would not be an appropriate application of our study. Property values in The Oaks neighborhood will probably be enhanced by the construction of a through street such as Pinehurst Drive." The report is in here.

The next report from the opponents was a report from Analytical Consultants. And that report relied heavily on the Kansas City report. It's also been discussed that it was flawed, because the properties that were being compared were not comparable in the design, the age. The construction was different.

And I'm not going to replow that ground. But I want you to think about that as you deliberate and as you think about the question that's before you. What evidence is more credible?

Is Mr. Morgan's evidence credible? Mr. Morgan said that if you look at Pinehurst Drive, you examine the sales on Pinehurst Drive, starting‑-I think he said 1993 or 1994 the market started anticipating the development of Meadowmont so that every sale that's taken place since then, the sale price has gone down. The property has decreased.

He looked at three sales. There are eight sales, not three sales in the same time period. Three went down. Five went up. He showed you only the three. The five‑-all eight of them are in the study that we've given you.

The last is Mr. Hinnant's appraisal, the letter you've got on the Collins property. And as Mr. Heffner pointed out, Mr. Heffner never saw that property. He gave an opinion that the traffic increase on Pinehurst Drive would decrease the value of the Collins property.

But his comparison was between traffic as it stands today, which is zero for the Collins or maybe one if you count the Collins, or you count maybe people going down to turn around, and what will happen if Meadowmont is developed as it has a right to be developed. His comparison is invalid.

Now let's look at the other side of the coin. What evidence have we, the proponents, of Meadowmont given you? And you have it before you, and I'm not going over it in detail.

But we tried to show what the traffic was, in our best judgment, what the effect of the Meadowmont development would be, looked at properties in other cities that appeared to be comparable to see if properties on a heavily traveled street decreased in value compared to properties off the street.

The studies all show that that does not take place. If you've got a property that's a neighborhood that people want to be in like The Oaks, those property values even with an increase in traffic will not decrease. And all those are in there.

And one other thing. The question is whether or not the use or the development of Meadowmont as a multi-use development, is that a good thing or a bad thing.

Well, it just so happens that there was a study done in Greensboro. There's a similar property in Greensboro. It's out on New Garden Road. There were 435 acres owned by Jefferson Pilot. They planned to develop it.

The neighbors rose up. The neighbors in fact got 15,000 signatures on a petition to try to halt that development. There was a compromise reached after a series of lawsuits, and the development is going forward.

But a student at UNCG did a study, which we've included in our packet. And his study concluded that the development of a multi-use development very similar to Meadowmont will not decrease the properpty values in the surrounding property. It will in fact enhance them. And you've got that study to look at, to do with what you will.

You have a difficult decision. You are the judge. You should throw out the chaff, the nonrelevant evidence, and look at the wheat, the relevant evidence.

Questions?

MAYOR WALDORF: Any questions of Mr. Sitton? Yes, sir. Mr. Collins, please come forward.

MR. COLLINS: My name is Glyn Collins. Have you read the letter Mr. Hinnant did on the appraisal of my property?

MR. SITTON: Yes, sir.

MR. COLLINS: Then you were inaccurate with your statement. I believe if you'll reread it, he refers to the current study of 1,956 trips per day as the baseline.

MR. SITTON: I'm not sure I understand.

MR. COLLINS: Well, you suggested that he was using zero or almost no traffic in front of my house.

MR. SITTON: Well, how many--oh, excuse me. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

MR. COLLINS: You suggested he used zero. In his letter, if you read it correctly, he used the 1,956, which is the current trips per day on Pinehurst.

MR. SITTON: Well, just for my information, what are the current trips per day?

MAYOR WALDORF: Sir, he's not required to answer your question. You can‑-

MR. SITTON: I don't know what he used as the 1996, but‑-

MAYOR WALDORF: Well, the letter is a matter of record.

MR. SITTON: That's right.

MAYOR WALDORF: Any other questions of Mr. Sitton? Yes, sir.

MR. CARSANARO: My name is Joe Carsanaro. Hi, Mr. Sitton.

Do you recall in Reginald Morgan's appraisal of The Oaks he mentions, as you said earlier, that just the thought of Meadowmont has cast a cloud among The Oaks?

MR. SITTON: I haven't read that lately, but I'll accept your word for it.

MR. CARSANARO: In the presentation that I gave I showed property values for all of The Oaks, not taking the wheat or the chaff, but just showing everything from 1996 to 1997 for The Oaks, for Chesley and Silver Creek. Do you recall that, sir?

MR. SITTON: No.

MR. CARSANARO: In that‑-

MR. SITTON: You're going to need to ask somebody else about that. Go ahead.

MR. CARSANARO: In that report it showed the property values of The Oaks, using all the property of the MLS, from 1996, 1997 going down 1 percent when compared to Silver Creek going up 10 and Chesley going up 7. And my question is, is that maintaining or enhancing property values?

MR. SITTON: Well, I don't think you can compare that. Because I think it's apples and oranges. But I'd be glad for Mr. Heffner or Mr. Sprouse to respond to that. Because that's not my field.

MR. CARSANARO: Let me try this one more time.

MAYOR WALDORF: No, I think‑-let's‑-I think your question was clear. And I believe what Mr. Sitton said was he didn't want to answer it, but he'd like Mr. Heffner to or Mr. Sprouse, whichever one. So‑-

MR. CARSANARO: Okay.

MAYOR WALDORF: I think it's already‑-

MR. CARSANARO: It's clear.

MAYOR WALDORF: ‑-been spoken to. But let's‑-

MR. CARSANARO: It's clear. The question is clear?

MAYOR WALDORF: Yeah. Yeah. It was to me.

MR. SPROUSE: We've looked extensively at the comparisons that Mr. Carsanaro made. If you look at all of the sales that he used in The Oaks in 1996 and 1997, those are the sales that I'm telling you that have seventies vintage houses in them. They have Durham County houses versus Orange County houses. Some of them are on Cleland Drive, which is subject to flooding at times.

All of these factors have an impact on his analysis and the numbers that he comes up with in doing that analysis. And I don't think that you can make valid comparisons of information that has that type of data in it that's not similar whatsoever and try to compare it to Chesley where all of the houses are built, most of them, since 1990. They're all in the Chapel Hill school district. The same for Silver Creek across the street. It's just not a good comparison, in my opinion.

MR. CARSANARO: One more question.

MAYOR WALDORF: One more question? All right. And to whom are you asking this?

MR. CARSANARO: To Mr. Sitton, unless he refers it to someone else.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. All right. Go ahead.

MR. CARSANARO: In 1996 and 1997 the total sales of all the houses in The Oaks went down 1 percent. Is that, in your opinion, enhancing or maintaining property values?

MR. SITTON: If you use a strict definition and you're comparing apples with apples, if the price goes down, that's not maintaining the‑-but I don't think that's what Mr. Sprouse said. Because I think you're not comparing apples to apples. You're comparing apples to oranges.

MR. SPROUSE: I think a much more pertinent thing to look at would be the sales and resales that we had in The Oaks, in Chesley and in all the other neighborhoods if you want to see what the property values have been doing.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Did you have a question? Yes. Okay. Please come forward.

We still have some folks signed up to speak. So‑-

MR. KATZ: I'm David Katz. This is a very quick question.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay.

MR. KATZ: I'm a little confused. Because I thought I heard Mr. Heffner say that when you're doing comparisons you don't exclude houses because they may be a little different, that everything averages out. So I'm trying to reconcile this.

MR. HEFFNER: The kind of analysis we did on Franklin Street, if you will recall the chart, we looked at a number of different elements of comparison. For instance, we put down the age of each house. We then took the average age of each house and found for the houses on Franklin Street and off of Franklin Street that the average ages were similar.

We took the date of sale of each house. And this kind of addresses the issue of market appreciation and do we need a CPI adjustment. The reason we don't need a CPI adjustment in that kind of analysis is when you add up all of the dates of sale of the houses on Franklin Street and when you add up the dates of sale of the houses off of Franklin Street, you'll find that the average date of sale is essentially the same.

We looked at houses that had garages and didn't have garages. Actually, if you make that comparison, you'll find that the houses off of Franklin Street, more of them had the favorable characteristic of having a garage or having a basement than the ones that were on Franklin Street. So in a case of mass data evaluation like that it's not necessary to throw things out.

What Mr. Sprouse is saying is exactly right. What Mr. Carsanaro referred to‑-his analysis included sales that were outside of Orange County, sales in Durham County. As Mr. Sprouse pointed out, they included sales that were on Cleland Drive that were impacted by the flood area.

It's my opinion‑-I think it's Mr. Sprouse's opinion, too. I shouldn't speak for him. He can speak for himself. But my opinion, based on the analysis I've done, is that over the long-term period of time property appreciation in The Oaks has been similar to property appreciation in other areas of Chapel Hill.

Now, if you want us to study that in detail for you, we can do that. But I think that's the case.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant ready to wrap up this presentation?

MR. FOY: I have a question.

MAYOR WALDORF: Of whom?

MR. FOY: Mr. Sitton.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Mr. Sitton, we have a question for you.

MR. FOY: I wanted to‑-I was interested in the issue of how to interpret "maintain." And I wondered if in a hypothetical situation, if we had evidence before us that the value of all properties in Chapel Hill were declining at an annual rate of 10 percent and the properties contiguous to Meadowmont were also declining at that same annual percentage rate, do you think that we could conlude, then, that Meadowmont maintained the value of contiguous properties?

MR. SITTON: No. Because my opinion would be‑-my interpretation of "maintain" means as is. So that means it doesn't decrease, it doesn't increase.

If you had an overall deflation‑-

MR. FOY: Right.

MR. SITTON: ‑-it would be if you bought a house for a hundred thousand ($100,000), sold a house for a hundred thousand ($100,000).

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF ROGER PERRY

MR. PERRY: We're all tired of this debate, and I am, and it's time to get it over with.

A few weeks ago you asked your town manager and your planning director to come visit with me and ask me to reduce the density of Meadowmont by 50 percent. I declined to do so. And I want to tell you tonight that I continue to decline to do so and that I take the fact that I'm under oath seriously. And we'll never do that. Ever.

There are a number of reasons why we won't. The most important is that it will not work. One-half Meadowmont is the same old, same old that we've been doing, creating suburban sprawl, for the last 30 years. One-half Meadowmont is 300 large, single-family homes, a 300-unit apartment complex and a strip shopping center. And I'm simply not going to do that.

That's not right. That's not what you've led us to do. That's not what your leadership before you and you have said we should do. And I'm not going to do that.

There are other reasons. And, Joe, you raised the issue about transit. Recently‑-and I'm going to give you all a copy of it‑-recently, the Triangle Transit Authority came out with its station area node density guidelines as to the minimum of densities that are required to justify transit and a transit stop in a certain area.

And you will see from this as I pass it out that Meadowmont barely and in some cases really doesn't meet the density requirements for transit. In neighborhoods within a quarter-mile radius they call for 10 residential units per acre. We have 8.55. In the one-quarter to one-half-mile radius of the transit stop TTA calls for a minimum of four units per acre. We have 3.7.

As it relates to nonresidential density, within the quarter-mile radius it says that the floor area ratio needs to be .3. In Meadowmont it's .26. Only in the neighborhood quarter to half-mile radius do we meet the criteria where they say a minimum of .15 up to a maximum of .30. And we're at .24.

So you can see that Meadowmont becomes unviable as a transit stop at lower densities, which, in my opinion, makes transit less viable. And we're not going to do it.

In addition to that, if we reduce Meadowmont by half or even if we do the single-family neighborhood that Joe brought out, which we're prepared to do, which we are going to do, we can make lots and lots of money doing that scenario.

And we will do it if you don't allow us to do what we've proposed. We will reluctantly do it. We'll think the town has missed an enormous opportunity. But we will do it. It's financially feasible. We'll do it. And we'll do it nicely.

And we won't make that straight shot from Pinehurst to 54 like that plan shows, either. We'll move that road around and make it difficult to get from Pinehurst to 54 and make that a good neighborhood and a good plan. And we'll do that.

But what's the consequences of that to the town? You get no school site, you get no transit corridor, you get no protection of the entranceway corridor whatsoever, you get no public park, you get no swimming, recreational complex open to the entire town, you don't get six million dollars in taxes a year for schools and for property. You get two.

So is that really in the town's best interest? And that's what you're charged to do is to say what's in the town's best interest. And that's the judgment you've got to make.

And we'll talk about property values in a minute as it relates to contiguous property. In fact, let's talk about that now.

I think even Mr. Brough has said and agreed that when you really get down to it the only real properties that you can justify as being contiguous properties to Meadowmont are the five homes on Burningtree Drive that back up directly to Meadowmont and perhaps‑-you can certainly say Mr. Collins's is.

But I'm willing to go even further than that. I'm willing to say that all the homes in The Oaks south of Burningtree Drive‑-I'll concede that they're contiguous.

Here's what we would propose to do about those two situations to make those folks a little moe comfortable. And we'll do these things with the understanding that you would find them minor changes in the SUP and this would not reopen the entire SUP process.

If you don't make that determination‑-we've asked for an opinion from the manager and the planning director. And I think they're prepared to give you that if you want their opinion. But it's ultimately your decision.

But these are things we will do if you consider them minor changes in the SUP and that they don't necessitate the opening of the entire issue.

The first one‑-what have you got first? Burningtree? The first of the five homes on Burningtree where the folks on Burningtree have complained rather vociferously about the fact that we're putting cluster housing, cluster, single-family housing, directly behind them and that we're putting a small buffer of only‑-is it 20 feet?‑-a 20-foot buffer of vegetative buffer behind it.

Here's what we propose to do if you consider this a nonsubstantive change to the SUP. We will take all of those lots and reconfigure them into larger lots. The lots will range‑-instead of ranging in the 4- or 5,000-square-foot area, the lots will now range from 10,500 feet to 20,000 square feet, almost half an acre for some of them.

We will increase the buffer from 20 feet to 40 feet. We will, further, put the setback on the houses back a minimum of 25 feet. And in some cases it reaches as much as 60 and 100 feet, total.

What that means‑-in addition to that, we will put a minimum square footage requirement of 2,500 square feet by deed restriction on those homes so that those homes in terms of size and price are equal to or greater than the price and value of the homes on Burningtree, which will then mean, with the setback lines you see there and with the setbacks that the Burningtree homes have, the closest one house juxtaposed to another will be is about 70 yards.

And that's pretty good‑-that's two-thirds of a football field. That's longer than Oscar Davenport can pass it and most anyone. In addition to that, if the Burningtree residents so desire‑-by town ordinance we are permitted to build up to a nine-foot fence.

If they would like for us to construct a wood-clad, nine-foot fence that's satisfactory to them, we will build that across the entire length of the back of those five lots to protect them from whatever we ultimately put on those lots.

But those lots now, I submit to you, are large, single-family lots. They will have large, single-family homes. They will have additional buffer and setback. And we'll build a big old fence back there if they want it. By any stretch of the imagination, I can't see how that would affect their property values if you made this change.

As it relates to the folks south of Burningtree, as you know, that is now the current plan that we have shown you for the extension of Pinehurst Drive from The Oaks into the initial portion of Meadowmont. And as you can see, it's a straight shot down to that intersection which says "Road C."

We would propose to make the following change in the routing of Pinehurst Drive. We would propose where it enters our property, instead of becoming a straight shot, it would take a hard curve to the right, come up to an intersection that would be a four-way intersection.

And then to get to the Village Center or to get out of Meadowmont, you'd take a left, come back to the point right‑-show them where the original point of entry was‑-to that point there. That would then become a three-way stop. And then you'd proceed on out to the rest of wherever you're going.

In addition to that, we'd be willing, as we've told the Pinehurst residents a number of times‑-they submitted to us a long time ago a plan for traffic-calming on Pinehurst Drive. We told them we'll implement that plan. We'll still implement that plan, the entire plan, assuming the manager will approve it.

In addition to that, we'll implement any reasonable plan that the manager approves or suggests once you get into Meadowmont with the same kind of traffic-calming measures that would be employed on Pinehurst within The Oaks.

And, finally, we are prepared to offer to all of the residents who live on Pinehurst Drive south of Burningtree who have existing homes in The Oaks‑-we'll choose an appraiser that is satisfactory to them and to us and have their home appraised, and we'll put up the proper bonding instrument to guarantee that the price of their home will be maintained either at its current appraisal value or what they paid for it, whichever is greater.

I can't see how possibly there is then any further risk‑-I don't think there was, anyway‑-any further risk to their property values.

One aside. You've heard from‑-now, you haven't heard much from them. You heard from them the first night‑-the Little Creek residents from Rogerson and Oakwood. Whether Meadowmont is ever developed or not developed, in my opinion, you have an obligation to those people‑-they live on substandard streets. There is no question about that. They have an unsafe and unhealthy situation, in my opinion‑-of developing neighborhoods and trying to protect the safety of the people who've lived in our community for 25 years. And I think they have an unsafe situation. And that's if there's never a car that comes out of Meadowmont. And I think you owe those folks sidewalks and street improvement. And you ought to consider making those after you get through deciding about Meadowmont.

Let's talk about the property values. We've addressed‑-we've offered some solutions to that and tried to make some solutions that, hopefully, will make those folks feel better about their property values, if that's really the issue. But I submit to you it's not. The property value issue is really a red herring and has been since day one.

The evidence is clear, as Mr. Sitton said. When you take the time between now and the time you must make your decision to go through and weigh the evidence, the fact from the fiction, the wheat from the chaff, it's clearly demonstrable that there is no example of any time where anyone has demonstrated that increased traffic has impacted property values.

We've even gotten to the point now Meadowmont's being blamed for lowering values as it sits there undeveloped, which I find even more ludicrous.

As Larry said, the connector will be made one way or another. There's going to be increased traffic on Pinehurst Drive, and that traffic's going to be over 3,000 cars per day whether we build the 547 houses or whether we do all of Meadowmont.

You've heard about the Kansas City study. I think it's pretty clear there's nothing relevant whatsoever in the Kansas City study to Meadowmont and Pinehurst.

No one's mentioned the fact‑-and I would submit to Mr. Collins that from what he said in his first address, he's right. If what you want to do is live on a dead-end street or a cul-de-sac or a place where there's no traffic, you're not going to find his house as valuable and as appealing when Meadowmont's built and connected through.

I would submit to you, however, that there are a lot of people and maybe even a lot more people who would value his house higher because it's close to a school and close to parks and is pedestrian-friendly and there's nearby shopping and there's nearby recreation.

Let's talk about the traffic a minute. One of the things that we seem to forget, I think, in Chapel Hill is that‑-I made this analogy earlier‑-we're a lot more like Cambridge, Mass., as a university town than we are Charlottesville. We are part of a major metropolitan region of more than one million people.

And if you think Chapel Hill is not part of that, I think you've got your head in the sand. We are part of the Triangle region. We're not a village unto ourselves. We're a community and a neighborhood that's part of a major metropolitan area.

I kind of agree with Bill Davis, who put‑-if you all remember the infamous picture from the Washington Post of the parkway in Washington with 75,000 cars on it‑-I think Bill was a little disingenuous by putting it up there on Christmas Eve, a picture from Christmas Eve. My guess there were probably a hundred-plus thousand cars that day. But let's just say that's a typical day. And I think that some day, 2010, 2012, whatever, there will be that many cars on Highway 54.

If we cut Meadowmont in half, you could pull one car out of seven out of that picture. Still six out of seven of them would be there. If we do the plan that Joe picked up a few minutes ago, you can take another half-car out. But at the best, you'll still have five and a half out of seven of those cars there.

So I guess the question is, is that worth it? Is that worth it to the contiguous property owners and is that worth it to the people in town? And I'd submit to you it's not.

Mr. Brough asked everybody to use their common sense. And I think your common sense says that reducing the traffic on Highway 54 from 75,000 cars to 60,000 cars is not going to make much difference in terms of the perception of that road and its impacts on values.

The question is, is will Meadowmont offset that growth in traffic on Highway 54 that's going to come with or without Meadowmont? As you pointed out, our assumptions don't assume that anybody will walk, anybody will ride a bike, anybody will ride the bus, anybody will ride the train.

And I guess I ask you, is Meadowmont‑-whether you like it or not‑-is it a community that promotes that? And I think, clearly‑-I think, clearly, you have to say that, yes, it is a community that's designed to promote that.

You know, the 1,300 families that are going to live in Meadowmont and the people that are going to shop in the shops and work in the offices at Meadowmont, they are coming. They're coming to Chapel Hill, they're coming to the region, they're coming to the Triangle.

If they don't live in Meadowmont, they're going to live somewhere else. They're going to shop somewhere else, they're going to work somewhere else here in the vicinity, in the nearby proximity.

I guess my question to you would be, will those 1,300 people take more or less trips, drive more or less miles if they live in a scattered, helter-skelter manner in typical suburban sprawl around Chapel Hill or will they drive more or less miles and make more or less trips if they're concentrated in a small area like Meadowmont? Use your common sense. I think the answer to that is clear.

So what's best for the values in the town and what's best for the contiguous property owners as well? I would contend to you that this piece of land‑-and we've talked about this before‑-is where this growth should be managed and handled.

No one is going to move to the Triangle and no one is going to move to Chapel Hill from Ithaca, New York, so that they can live in Meadowmont. That isn't why they're coming. They're coming because of great universities and a great quality of life and proximity to the mountains and the beach and a great climate and all of the other things that we love about the Triangle. There's not anyone going to relocate his family to come live in Meadowmont.

So the issue is, is this a good place to concentrate and put a large group of people? Meadowmont's already served by water and sewer in sufficient quantity to handle the density that we're proposing with no additional increases in any infrastructure to the town.

It's served by roads of which we're going to make the improvements and extend the lifespan of Highway 54 by approximately seven years beyond what its lifespan will be if we don't make the improvements, which will then fall upon the taxpayers of the area and North Carolina to make that improvement.

It's not in a critical watershed. It's not an especially sensitive piece of land environmentally, recognizing that all land is sensitive environmentally. But it's not a critical piece of land in terms of water quality or watershed protection. It's at the bottom of the hill in Chapel Hill.

It's not going to create one ounce of extra runoff problem in the rest of Chapel Hill, because it's at the bottom of the hill. All of Chapel Hill's water that's in our drainage basin gets dumped on us. Water doesn't run uphill, it seeks its own level. It's all coming to us, and then go beyond us. So I would submit to you, this is where it should occur.

Your choices are clear. I went over them a minute ago. I won't go over them again. But think about the benefits. Think about the school, think about the soccer fields, think about the parks, think about the preservation of the entryway, think about the improvements on 54. Think about all of the other things, entryway, mass transit, tax benefits.

And let me ask you this. If we have more money for schools and we have more property taxes being generated out of a piece of land than otherwise might be the case, isn't that real good for property values? Isn't the cost of a home what you have to pay for the home and what your mortgage is plus what you have to pay in property taxes?

And if you've got a community that is more than self-sufficient‑-and it's very hard to deny that Meadowmont will be more than self-sufficient in terms of revenue‑-doesn't that enhance property values? I think that it clearly does.

In addition to that, innovative engergy and landscape programs that we've explained to you that are trend-setting, national trend-setting. We have‑-you might like to know we have three major national manufacturers of heating and cooling systems who want to make Meadowmont the prototype for the energy program and the energy plan that we've proposed. They're not interested in that if all we are is 547 single-family homes.

Connections to greenways, 135 of the 425 acres preserved in some form of public or greenway space. Over one-third of Meadowmont is greenway. Almost a third. Not quite. Between a quarter and a third.

Affordable housing. Kevin, you were quoted recently in The Independent as saying that the amount of affordable housing in Meadowmont is a disgrace. Well, it's the largest affordable housing project ever built in the town of Chapel Hill. And I'm not ashamed of that and I don't think that's a disgrace. I think that's trend-setting. I think it's innovative.

And we are prepared to look and consider‑-if we get approved, we're prepared to look and consider additional affordable housing. We have more density than we'll use in terms of residential. And if we get to move ahead, we have other parcels that we'll consider additional affordable housing on.

I think the other thing and the last thing that needs to be mentioned is, you know, we didn't develop this plan and approve this plan in a vacuum. The fact of the matter is we got to this point arm in arm.

Seven years ago we began to have discussions with Roger and J.B. about what this piece of property should and ought to be. They told us that even though it was zoned for R-1, that there had been‑-that that was a holding zone and that there had been a lot of discussion about a more intense use.

We began to do some work on that and began to have conversation, even came to you. And then you appointed a study group of some of the best and brightest people in Chapel Hill to analyze this piece of property and the eastern entranceway and determine what should be done with this piece of property.

And what that group came back with in its proposal by a wide majority‑-it wasn't unanimous, but by a wide majority‑-was a template for Meadowmont with just about the exact kinds of uses and densities that we later submitted to you.

Your predecessor council believed in what that study group gave to you so much that you've changed the comprehensive plan to reflect uses that are almost exactly what we have proposed to you.

After that you adopted a master plan and changed our zoning‑-which becomes that master plan right there‑-I submit to you that was the point to say whether this is what should be done or shouldn't be done.

You said it should be done. No one challenged that. Everything we have submitted you is virtually a carbon copy of that master land-use plan. No one can fairly and arbitrarily say that what we have submitted is in deviation from that master land-use plan. It's almost a carbon copy.

In addition to that, after long deliberation, you approved our SUPs. And just as during the master land-use plan and the zoning plan, not only did you approve it, you did it with the recommendation of every single one of your boards and commissions. At both the master land-use plan stage and the special use permit stage every single board and commission that you have voted to support our plan. And so did you.

So I'd submit to you that this has been a team effort, that the town and we have evolved this plan together. And I guess the question is‑-it's up to you‑-are you going to abandon that? Are you going to set the bar high for the town and have the courage to do something innovative that's well conceived and that tries in a different and creative and thoughtful manner and serious manner to address the problems that we all recognize of growth that's inevitably occurred and will continue to inevitably occur?

We think that this is a clear way for the town to improve itself, to get what it deserves, to be innovative, to be progressive, to receive enormous benefit as opposed to continuing business the way it's always been done, building large houses on large lots in a very exclusionary manner that are very expensive, that basically bar any but the wealthiest of us living in them, as opposed to a plan that brings you enormous public proffers, enormous new diversity in housing, and a new energy and vitality that hasn't been seen in Chapel Hill perhaps since the days when Franklin Street was developed.

It's your choice. It's time to get on with it. We're not going to come back to you with another infrastructure special use permit. You have the right to tell us what we can and can't do. You do not have the right to tell us what we must do. Thanks.

MAYOR WALDORF: Any questions of Mr. Perry? Yes, Mr. Goodman. You need to come forward, please.

MR. GOODMAN: My name is Philip Goodman. I have a few questions. One is I'm not familiar enough with this possible plan of 547 homes because I haven't seen that, but is that necessarily tied into a connection to Pinehurst? There must be a connection to Pinehurst with the development of 547 homes in that property; is that correct?

MR. PERRY: Yeah, Pinehurst is designed as a collector street. It's always been shown as a collector street. And I would assume that it does.

MR. GOODMAN: So my question is, is that true? Does the Planning Department‑-can I ask Roger that? Is that true that a submission of a plan for individual homes in that property must have a connection to Pinehurst?

MAYOR WALDORF: Roger, do you want to answer it or do you want me to answer it? It would be up to the council.

MR. HORTON: We would make an evaluation of that‑-

MAYOR WALDORF: Yeah.

MR. HORTON: ‑-based on a specific proposal and would not comment--

MR. GOODMAN: So that isn't necessarily‑-

MAYOR WALDORF: Yeah. There is no proposal‑-

MR. GOODMAN: There's no proposal‑-

MAYOR WALDORF: ‑-for 547 homes before the council. So‑-

MR. GOODMAN: But there's been an implication that that might come forward. Also the implication has been that with it will come a connection to Pinehurst. And I wasn't sure if that was an absolute or not.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Mr. Goodman, I think your question‑-that question was answered. Did you have another one?

MR. GOODMAN: Yes. In Mr. Perry's statement he said that doing half the size of Meadowmont, given the fact that they didn't meet the immediate minimum requirements for‑-I think it was a transit corridor‑-collection now in certain areas, that if you were to cut that development in half, the implication was that at that point you certainly wouldn't meet the minimum requirements.

But couldn't you, since that's based on square footage of dwelling and office and whatever per land area, couldn't you cut down the area of land that was used, meet those minimum requirements with half the floor space of office and commercial and homes and apartments, and preserve more open space and still meet that transit corridor or transit requirements?

MR. PERRY: That's financially unviable.

MR. GOODMAN: Then if it's financially not viable, yet you will, as you say, do quite well just building homes, is there any way of explaining that? Okay.

MR. PERRY: You know, the fact of the matter is there's a minimum amount of demand for highly concentrated, dense housing. I mean, there's only‑-and they don't pay you as much. You can't sell a one-bedroom loft over a shop for the same thing that you can sell a large, single-family home for. And so there's some major ecomonic considerations that you eliminate there.

And in addition to that, you lose the synergy necessary to make the whole community viable with that kind of density. It simply is not of a mass large enough to create its own vitality and engery necessary to make it sustainable if you go into that kind of density.

But it's an irrelevent question. We will not do it.

MR. GOODMAN: Another question is one of your mention at least twice in the presentation of the value of having this tax base there. Is there any‑-and I understand your feelings about that. But is there any data to support the contention that a diverse tax base offers any benefit to the town of Chapel Hill?

Because my understanding in hearing Ted Abernathy speak not long ago at a meeting was that there was no evidence. And if there is evidence, do you have that evidence?

MR. PERRY: I think, once again, I'll draw on Mr. Brough's comment. Use your common sense. Does an extra two million dollars of revenue to Orange County schools because of the amount of office and commercial that we're proposing in Meadowmont benefit the town financially? I don't know whether there's an official study or not. I think I could make a deduction about that.

MR. GOODMAN: So there is no evidence, as far as I can tell, given your answer.

The other point I have is just pretty much a comment to your summing up that the recommendations of the boards and commissions and town council were to all vote and support this plan. And I will add that it was all done illegally. And that's why we're here tonight.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Are there any other members of the audience who would like to ask a question of Mr. Perry?

MS. WIGGINS: Joe, what was that last two sentences Mr. Goodman made? I kind of missed it.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Phil, would you please repeat that?

MS. WIGGINS: Yes.

MR. GOODMAN: My point was that the planning board and the other boards and commissions and town council that approved that special use permit, thus, theoretically, indicating the approval of the town and members of the town for that plan, was done illegally. It was done without competent information regarding the effect of this development on property values.

That's what went to court. That was decided in favor of the plaintiff seeking that. So it was done illegally without consideration of that by members of the town council and the planning board, et cetera.

MR. CAPAOWSKI: Okay. Mr. Sweezy, do you have a question for Mr. Perry?

MR. SWEEZY: Yes, I do. Does your offer of the bond extend or include the five houses on Burningtree?

MR. PERRY: No, it does not.

MR. SWEEZY: Okay. And would you go so far as to guarantee that the home prices that you are including would keep up with the average appreciation in the town?

MR. PERRY: That's not what the ordinance says. And the answer to that is no.

MR. SWEEZY: Okay. Thank you.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Any other questions from the audience for Mr. Perry?

MS. BROOKS: Suanne Brooks, 1135 Burningtree. I would hope that the council would consider the modifications behind at least my property on Burningtree as a good attempt by the developer to respond to the concerns on the trees. And whatever it is you could do to consider part of the SUP without a major modification, I would encourage you to do that.

Second of all, would you consider putting the five houses in Burningtree in the package?

MR. PERRY: I'll pass on that.

MR. FOY: I'm sorry, Ms. Brooks. I did not understand your question. I did not hear it.

MS. BROOKS: My question to him was whether he would consider adding the five houses in the package proposed for the appraisal or purchase price differential in the other package that he described, if he would consider putting the five houses. His response was "No."

MR. CAPOWSKI: I understand. And Mr. Perry's answer was "No." Okay.

MR. PERRY: I think the reason for that, by way of explanation, is that with the modifications that we're proposing to the property behind these homes, I mean, there is no logical reason why these homes would ever be impacted by Meadowmont. Even with our proposal, the amount of traffic on Burningtree only goes up 100 cars a day at the total build-out of Meadowmont. So I don't think there's any basis for doing it.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Are there any other questions from the audience for Mr. Perry? Mr. Wise?

MR. WISE: Edmund Wise, Burningtree. Where is this nine-foot fence? I don't understand the placement of the fence that you propose.

MR. PERRY: On the property line.

MR. WISE: On the property line where‑-on the other‑-

MR. PERRY: On the property line of your lot and Meadowmont.

MR. WISE: Not 40 feet in.

MR. PERRY: No.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Further questions for Mr. Perry?

(No response.)

MR. CAPOWSKI: None. Any questions by council members for Mr. Perry?

(No response.)

MR. CAPOWSKI: Mr. Perry, I have one question, a very simple one. On a dozen occasions during public hearings you have simply said that you really didn't care one way or the other whether Pinehurst Drive was extended; is that correct?

MR. PERRY: That's no longer correct.

MR. CAPOWSKI: I'm sorry?

MR. PERRY: That's no longer correct. My understanding is that your ruling has been that you can only vote for our special use permit with an open Pinehurst. And so I now think Pinehurst should definitely be open.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Perry?

(No response.)

MR. CAPOWSKI: We'll turn to‑-we have five people who are signed up yet to speak. And I'll just take them in the order‑-Ellen Ruina.

TESTIMONY OF ELLEN RUINA

MS. RUINA: Yes. Actually, you'll be glad to hear that that's two of us. Bernadette Pelissier, who was with me, decided she couldn't stay for the remainder of the time.

I'm here on behalf of the Sierra Club. My name is Ellen Ruina. Bernadette, who just left, was a former chair of the Sierra Club, and I am on the Orange County Executive Committee and conservation chair now. And I'd just like to make some very brief comments about Meadowmont at this point.

I don't think the Sierra Club has been heard from for a while. We're, as you know, a national conservation organization. And you might wonder what our interest is in this topic.

Housing and the urban environment have an enormous impact on the natural environment, and therefore these issues are conservation issues. In recent decades urban sprawl around existing villages and towns and cities has created a national phenomenon, an amorphous spread from previously well-defined urban areas that's dominated by large expanses of low-density residential areas, automobiles and strip malls.

As a response to this kind of growth, which is inhospitable to humans as well as to wildlife, the Sierra Club has launched a national anti-sprawl campaign to protect and enhance the quality of urban life as well as the natural environment.

The Sierra Club policies call for housing and urban development areas to include some of the following things. First is high-density housing, preservation of open spaces, an environment conducive to walking, biking and use of public transit for transportation or recreation, affordable housing and mixed-use areas for residential, commercial and civic purposes, which traditionally have been laid out in a grid that's centrally placed and within walking distance of most of the residential areas in the community, and, finally, less dependence on fossil fuel, specifically, cars.

With the realization that development is predominantly a local issue, the national Sierra Club organization encourages state and local organizations to become advocates for good land-use planning. And that's why we have an interest in this.

In North Carolina the trend is clear now. We know that this area is growing and the population is increasing whether we like it or not. We also know what the trend is within the state.

In the Raleigh area alone, the number of people living in an acre has declined in this century from over 12 per acre to under four per acre. And in Chapel Hill and in Orange County the Sierra Club feels that we need to move quickly and be vocal in helping to preserve the quality of life while accommodating the growth that's inevitable in this area.

The Meadowmont project‑-and you've been listening to this for a long, long time‑-represents a challenge and an opportunity for the community at this point.

What we're asking the city council to do only is to consider the objectives in light of what the Sierra Club's interests are. And those were the policies that I stated earlier.

Meadowmont is not going to appear full-blown overnight on a field. So we encourage you as decision-makers to take a long-range view of how best to manage our resources.

It's clear that Meadowmont is going to have an enormous impact on the community, regardless of how the plan proceeds. And, clearly, one of the major concerns is the impact of traffic around this development, especially on Highway 54.

The increase in the amount of traffic is going to have a significant impact on the entire area and goes well beyond just the specific Meadowmont area to having impact on the town as a whole.

And we've heard a variety of numbers on how much this is going to increase. But we're already talking about widening Highway 54 and the amount of traffic that's going to be on that.

The widening of 54 and the increase in traffic and the possible congestion on that road would not be considered at all desirable from the point of view of the Sierra Club.

So whatever form Meadowmont takes, we encourage you to think about ways to manage what is going to be an overabundance of use of private automobiles and the emissions that will be a result.

I would like to add, however, that one facile response to thinking about the increase in traffic is to propose lower-density housing in Meadowmont, creating a traditional development of single-family dwellings on more spacious lots, as the East-West people mentioned, R-1 zoning standards with the possibility of 547 houses.

This kind of traditional suburban development is also not consistent with the Sierra Club's policies and desires. So you can't construe our concerns as in any way an endorsement of a low-density, R-1 development.

All we would like to say at this point is that we're concerned about the impact of the development, and that we'd like you to consider these concerns in making your decision and with the future growth in the community.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you. Any questions?

(No response.)

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you. There are a few other people signed up to speak. I want to reiterate what I said earlier, which is that tonight it's appropriate for the council to hear new evidence in response to the applicant's rebuttal, new evidence and evidence that's relative to property values.

Mr. Brough, did you wish to speak?

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL BROUGH

MR. BROUGH: Madam Mayor and members of the council, I'm very disturbed by what I've just heard from Mr. Perry as it relates to the questions that are before you this evening and the process that‑-and the premises under which this entire matter has been heard by you.

I'm concerned because he's pitched the question to you as if it were whether or not Meadowmont in its concept is a good idea and whether or not the council wishes or doesn't wish to have what he argues to you are the advantages of Meadowmont as opposed to other developments.

I'm concerned because at the eleventh hour and almost at 11 o'clock he now comes before you and says, "Well, there are changes that we can make in the permit that's before you or in the plan that's before you."

And he lists a number of those changes as changes to the lots on Burningtree. He's even suggested now that‑-at least, implied‑-that perhaps there can be additional affordable housing.

He's indicated that there can be changes in the configuration of the road system that would be beneficial to my clients, the folks on Pinehurst. He's indicated, even, that he would propose to guarantee the values of the properties.

He's indicated a number of things in terms of proposed changes in the plan that came back to you before the court‑-from the court.

The reason that bothers and concerns me, members of the council, is because this council decided early on that the question of whether there could be changes in the project that would make Meadowmont a better development, something that we certainly‑-my clients certainly would have encouraged‑-because, you recall, they've never opposed Meadowmont, per se. My clients have never opposed Meadowmont, per se.

My clients have opposed the impact of Meadowmont on their way of life and their property values and the safety to their kids. That's what they've opposed.

My clients have wanted to come before you and argue to you that there are changes that could be made in the Meadowmont project and that there are changes that should be made in the Meadowmont project that could make Meadowmont a different and a better project, changes that we believe Mr. Perry could live with.

But this council decided that was not the issue that was before you, that, indeed, the permit was not the issue‑-the question of whether to issue the permit was not before you.

By this council's determination‑-and I'm reading‑-I assume this is correct. It's from the press release. The issue‑-it refers to "After receiving legal advice, the council agreed that based on the order of the Superior Court, this issue," meaning the property values issue, "related to the infrastructure special use permit as it is currently designed is the only issue left open by the council to determine."

So, in other words, this council has decided you're not voting on the permit. Because if you were voting on the permit, you'd be voting on all four findings, and you have concluded that you're not.

Now, again, I argued‑-submitted something to you orally and in writing that argued that you in fact should consider the permit as a whole, should make findings on all four factors, and should, in essence, consider the validity of this proposal that was before you. But you chose not to do that.

You chose‑-for reasons that were sufficient to yourself and to your counsel, you chose to conclude that the only issue before you was not the issuance of the permit, but the question of the property values and the effect on property values. That was the only issue. And that that was to be determined based upon solely the permit as it is currently designed.

And so I'm very troubled by the concept that at the eleventh hour the developer is allowed to come before you and suggest that changes ought to be made, changes will be made and changes could be made, and indeed hint that additional changes might be made down the road that you should take into account somehow in deciding whether or not to issue that permit.

I certainly concur that changes need to be made in this project. And if the council would consider taking a different approach, we would certainly welcome that. Because changes could be made in this project.

But the way that you have decided to handle this matter, it seems to me that nothing that Mr. Perry said can be considered by the council with respect to the issue of the impact on property values.

So I want you to consider that very carefully.

It's very troubesome to us to be in the posture where‑-"us" meaning my clients‑-where we have wanted to urge this council to make changes in this project, but are told that's not before you.

If it were before you, if you were making a vote on all of the conditions, on all of the requirements of the permit, you could then also by condition impose additional changes on this project to make it a better project.

But it's interesting, isn't it, that when Mr. Capowski asked Mr. Perry about the change‑-one change that we certainly urged the council to consider, the question of some sort of restriction on the entranceway, that change is off limits.

It seems to me that Mr. Perry wants to have it both ways. And I submit that that simply‑-that can't occur, in fairness to my clients. You've got to have it one way or the other. You're either voting solely on that one finding based upon the proposal that came back from Superior Court or you're going to open this project up and consider different changes in it. It can't be both ways. It can't be just those changes that Mr. Perry wants to suggest to you.

Now, let me focus on the‑-assuming that the council will continue with the premise upon which we have approached these many hours of hearings, that the only issue is the question of whether this project as proposed, as it came back from the Superior Court, will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property.

The first point I want to make on that is simply this. The burden of proof on that matter is, was, and remains with the applicant. We don't have to disprove anything. And that's an important point when you consider all of the hours of testimony and the very diametrically opposed testimony that you've had from a series of experts about the impact of property values.

The significance of it is simply this. If you are not persuaded one way or the other by all of this evidence, then you can't issue the permit. Because the burden of proof of convincing you that this project as proposed will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous properties is on the applicant, not on those who are taking the contrary view.

It was also suggested to you by Mr. Sitton that the appropriate comparison is not between this project and the current situation, but between this project and some hypothetical other project which might occur.

I would submit to you that that is not the standard. We know and recognize that certainly at some point this property will be developed. In all likelihood, there will be an extension and there will indeed be some additional traffic.

But I would call to your attention that if to the extent that that project were to come before you as a subdivision, this question of property values simply doesn't come before you at all, period. Because that's a different approval project‑-different approval process.

It's only in the special use permit process that you are required to consider the property values issue. And that issue is whether or not this project will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. Not in comparison to some other hypothetical project, but this project.

As an aside to that, even if it were to be developed as a subdivision, as a subdivision of even 600 houses, that would be by their testimony approximately 10 trips per day. That's 6,000 trips. That's as opposed to the‑-pick your number‑-thirty-some-odd-thousand trips per day.

So it's quite clear that while there will be some additional traffic at some point down the road, the distinction between that level of traffic and what is proposed by this particular project is an extreme difference.

Now, the second point is a very important one. And that is that the burden of proof which they have is not met by showing you that the values of properties in the contiguous area, which would be the area of Pinehurst that is below Burningtree Drive‑-that those property values will even continue to rise over a period of time or be maintained over a period of time.

The reason that can't possibly be the standard is that if it were the standard in Chapel Hill, you might simply do well to take that standard and throw it in the trash, just strike it from your consideration.

I would submit to you that if you even looked at the property values adjoining the sanitary landfill in Orange County without comparing‑-I'm not trying to draw a comparison between Meadowmont and the sanitary landfill.

But what I am trying to suggest to you is that if you looked at the property values in that area 10 years ago and the property values now, I would suspect very strongly that you would find that the property values out there have in fact maintained or increased.

But the question is not whether the property values go up, but whether this project, the project that's before you, will maintain or enhance those values. In other words, what is the impact of this project on those values?

And if you conclude that the property values will rise, but they would certainly rise much faster in the absense of this project, then they haven't maintained their burden of proof. That's the question you have to ask yourself. What is the impact of this project on those adjoining property values? And we would submit to you that on any rational basis and the basis of common sense and the basis of the evidence the impact of this project on contiguous property values is certainly going to be negative.

I suggested to you at my last presentation that certainly if you came back 10 or 20 years, the property values will be more than they are today. But they would certainly not be where they would be if this project were not approved.

Third, you have heard so much conflicting evidene that, again, I would come back to the question of what is the objective evidence. And I made the point to you the last time that the Kansas City study is significant because it was an objective study.

And I think, really, the evidence that was brought before you this evening in the letter which I just heard an excerpt of, have not seen, I think proves the point.

I think I suggested to you last time that probably we could hire 10 appraisers and they could hire 10 appraisers, and we'd have 10 completely opposite opinions.

I think it is extraordinary that they were somehow able to contact and retain the appraiser that did this study for Kansas City and now come before you with a letter suggesting, without having evaluated the property or presumably ever having seen Chapel Hill, that somehow Meadowmont will in fact increase the values, not just maintain or enhance, but increase the values of the properties contiguous to this project. I submit that's utter nonsense.

But it does demonstrate the point that it's not too difficult to go out and find appraisers who will take the point of view that you want them to take. And that's why I think it's very significant that the Kansas City study, when done for the objective purpose of determining the impact of property values, reached the conclusion that it did.

I didn't contact the folks who did this appraisal study, but I did contact the Kansas City‑-not the Kansas City, but the Johnson County, Kansas, tax appraisal office to find out what they've done with that study.

They found the study significant enough that they actually plug it into their property analysis approach, and they do discount the values of properties that adjoin busy streets.

That's the objective evidence from someone who certainly doesn't have the inclination to want to do that. But that's what they've done. They found that study significant and material to their decision-making process. And I think it has a significant amount of weight.

I would also suggest to you that the relevant question is not whether the specific houses that they looked at looked a lot like the houses on Pinehurst. Of course they don't. The question is in comparing one comparable unit to another comparable unit, what is the impact of property values.

And that study concluded, based upon analysis which was done not with a preordained conclusion, not for a client who wanted a specific result, but for an objective reason, they concluded that property values are impacted in a negative way by a significant amount of traffic.

There is another piece of what I would consider objective information. And I would ask you be kind enough to pass that down. And what I'm passing to you now is‑-and I hope I have copies enough for each of you‑-is a study entitled‑-or an analysis entitled "Adjusting House Prices for Intra-Neighborhood Traffic Differences."

And this is an excerpt or an article taken from the Appraisal Journal, which is the journal of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. And, again, it is a study not, apparently, commissioned for any particular individual or client. And it reaches exactly the same kind of conclusion that was reached in the objective Kansas study.

And I'm obviously not going to read it and I'm not going to analyze it for you. I will only bring to your attention that the essential conclusions of this study‑-again, it's important to note also that this study also uses that paired analysis approach and something called regression analysis, which I don't even presume to understand. But I can read the conclusions in it.

And what this study says is‑-in the second paragraph on the first page, it states what is intuitively self-evident, that real appraisers have long recognized the effect of traffic on residential property value.

The Appraisal of Real Estate, eighth edition, which is the book that's published by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, says appraisers are cautioned that, quote, "excessive traffic, odors, smoke, dust or noise can limit residential desirability."

And on the next page it states that this article provides the results of a study that shows selling prices for single-family, detached homes are affected by traffic values.

And the final conclusion is one, again, that comports with what I think is virtually self-evident, and that is that intra-neighborhood traffic is a factor in the valuation of residential property and the market does make does price adjustments for increased traffic flow.

And then it states that an appraiser should consider this effect when evaluating residential property. And in the sample described in this study the traffic effect is a negative one.

Now, again, we could hire 20 more appraisers and they could hire 20 more appraisers. But here is an additional study out of the Appraisal Institute's own journal and citing the Appraisal Institute's own Bible, their Appraisal of Real Estate Property, that specifically states what we're submitting to you, the obvious fact that when you live on a street with a lot of traffic and you take those paired analyses, it does have a negative impact. That's the issue that's here before you. That issue, it seems to me, again, is supported by the objective evidence.

And, finally, we come to this question of common sense. We've heard a lot about that. And I do think that despite all of this evidence or perhaps because of all this evidence, common sense really has to come into play in this situation.

Again, I would ask you‑-in order to support their concept that this project, the Meadowmont project, maintains or enhances the value of contiguous property, you would have to put yourself in the position of someone who's out on that road, out on Pinehurst Drive, and looking at the surrounding‑-the contiguous property and ask yourself the question, "As I stand here today as the average buyer looking at this house‑-" and whether Mr. Collins's house is 2,000 or 20,000 square feet doesn't affect anything.

The question is, "As I look at these contiguous properties and as I evaluate them‑-and I'm a buyer. I want to buy this property‑-am I going to be more likely to buy this property in its situation as it sits now or perhaps with a residential subdivision next to it or am I going to be more likely to buy it, want to pay more for the property, or at least as much for the property if I look to my left or my right," depending upon which side of the street you're on, "and I see Meadowmont with six or seven hundred thousand square feet of commercial space and another 1,300 dwelling units and 5,000 vehicles per day?"

That's the question. And only if you can honestly answer to yourself "Yes. I as the reasonable buyer looking at this property would certainly pay at least as much for this property, knowing that 5,000 cars are going to be going by here next to this project."

Only if you can do that in all honesty can you support the proposition that this project will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous properties.

I submit that that is self-evidently absurd. Even Mr. Sitton in his very opening comments at the first hearing said, "Well, intuitively, if you're looking at a piece of property and you have a choice of a lot of traffic or very little traffic, you know, we're going to choose a little traffic."

He's exactly right. What he is intuitively saying is supported objectively and empirically by the Kansas study and by the principles of the American Appraisal Institute themselves.

It doesn't have to be‑-it seems to me very unfortunate that you have been put in the position of having to vote this question, the Meadowmont issue, sort of up or down, so to speak, on this finding. It doesn't seem to me that that should have to be the case, but unfortunately it appears to be the case in the way that this has now been structured.

But I would submit to you that despite what Mr. Perry has said, that "We will not come back to you with a Meadowmont light or a half-project," that that isn't the only option that's before you.

If you vote in fact as I think you must vote based upon this evidence and the common sense that goes with it, that you cannot make the finding that this project as presently proposed would maintain or enhance the value of contiguous properties.

There is a project which would accomplish the objectives and the goals and some of the desirable things that Mr. Perry has submitted to you which could be done. Unfortunately, we can't do that this evening and we couldn't do it before this evening, given the way that you have structured this.

But if you make those findings, there is a project. Mr. Perry has made a number of suggestions just this evening for the first time that would suggest ways in which this project could be approved. It could be approved in a way that would not have a negative impact on the adjoining properties and still provide the kinds of amenities that he has spoken to you about.

But the only way we get there, members of the council, is if you vote to find that this project will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous properties.

If you make that finding, as I submit you must, based upon the evidence, we can get where he wants to be in a way that will not adversely affect the adjoining property owners.

MAYOR WALDORF: Any questions of Mr. Brough?

(No response.)

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you. There are three speakers left. They are all folks who have spoken before in this hearing. The council is now closing in on its twelfth hour of this hearing. I ask these three speakers to have mercy on the council. Please only say things that have not been said before, only new evidence relative to property values.

Mr. Eischen? Eischen. Sorry.

TESTIMONY OF JEFF EISCHEN

MR. EISCHEN: Thank you, Madam Mayor and members of the town council. Again, just to remind you of who I am, I'm one of the five contiguous property owners here along Burningtree.

And to try to get a handle on this problem, specifically dealing with traffic, I've identified that the main impact of the traffic in our area is due to the noise on Highway 54.

Just to remind you very briefly of something we talked about last time‑-

MAYOR WALDORF: We've seen that before. I hope you're going to be making a new point with it.

MR. EISCHEN: I am.

MAYOR WALDORF: Good.

MR. EISCHEN: Out of the Road Engineering Journal, another totally independent piece of evidence, the title of the article, "Factors that Determine the Reduction in Property Values Caused by Traffic Noise."

Now, I didn't discuss last time‑-deeper down in the paper‑-and you have a copy of this paper from an earlier letter that I submitted‑-is that there's a threshold level of noise above which the property values will be decreased if the traffic noise goes up.

And so to try and understand how this article relates to our property, Mr. Wise and I made a noise study in our backyards. And this is the result of the noise study.

What we did is measure noise levels using a decibel meter. And I'm sure a lot of people have probably heard of this type of device. When somebody says how loud a rock concert is or a jet going overhead, they'll use a decibel scale.

On the 31st of March, just a couple of days ago, we measured noise levels in our backyards and measured minimum values, maximum values and average values. The average value is really what we should pay most attention to.

And you'll see that generally the level along here is between‑-somewhere between 50 and 60, the average. Now, what does that mean?

There's a book that I have in my office at work called Noise Control for Engineers. And there's a table in the book that discusses what reasonable noise levels are for various activities and locations.

The top line in this table talks about residential with outside space and farm residences. And if you go to the outdoor category, you have activities‑-activity interference occurs when you have noise levels at 55 decibels or above.

Now, interestingly, that's the same number above which you'll have decrease in property values, according to the Road Engineering Journal. This number is not purely a number that you read off a decibel meter. You have to do a calculation that averages the sound level over a 24-hour period. It's called the LDN, or long-term day and night value.

And we computed that value from the data. And it's probably impossible to read unless you're very close to the screen. But that average sound level for our backyards is 57.3. It's above the 55 level, which indicates that there's a problem with noise coming from Highway 54 in our vicinity.

There's another way of looking at the data. The Federal Highway Administration has noise standards for new highway construction. And they break activity categories into three. I believe we fit into Category A, tracts where serenity and quiet are especially important.

There's another level of noise. I don't want to be too technical here. It's called L-10, which is the noise level that's exceeded 10 percent of the time during any hour period.

We took some more data over short time intervals. Instead of measuring over an entire 24-hour period, we took what I call burst data over periods of time that are listed in the table here between about three minutes and nine minutes. And we computed average noise levels. And they range from 54.9 as the lowest up to 59.4.

So how do you interpret that? Go back to this table where the Federal Highway Administration says that the noise level can only be 60. And the way this works is that you can't get money to build a federal highway if the noise level is going to be above this level.

And so Highway 54, I realize, is not a federal highway. And I haven't had enough time to do the research to see if there's standards such as these for the town of Chapel Hill or the state of North Carolina. I suspect there are, but we'd have to look into that.

The highway, again, by this measure is right up against the acceptable level of noise. So one thing that could be done about that if you were to decide to approve the project would be that there would have to be some noise remediation along Highway 54, since that's the source of the noise for these properties.

Another issue that came up at the last council meeting, I was asked the question, what do I see when I look out of the front of my house directly across Burningtree Drive. And I said, "I see trees." But the implication was that I'm looking directly into The Oaks townhomes.

And this is a picture I took from my front porch, looking‑-here's Burningtree Drive. And The Oaks townhomes are somewhere over there behind all these trees. They are 240 feet from my front door, about 70 yards, which is the figure Mr. Perry has quoted for the new setback for the homes behind ours.

And, lastly, I was asked what I see when I look out the front of my house down towards Highway 54, the implication being that I've got a terrible view of Slug's Restaurant area.

And this is what I see when I look out the front porch of my home. And you do see some of Highway 54. But Slug's is over in here somewhere. It's well shielded behind a very‑-you know, a good distance of trees and shrubs in the neighbor's yard. So I'm not looking directly into townhomes or restaurants in the current situation.

Another interesting picture is if you walk onto the Meadowmont property up onto the top of the hill, you can see the University of North Carolina. So this gives you some sense as to how high that hill in Meadowmont is and the problems we may have with the view looking up that hill at office buildings, restaurants and so forth.

That's all I have.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Eischen by the council?

(No response.)

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you. Oh, you have a‑-well, you're next to speak. Just come on up.

MR. WISE: I'm not going to speak. I was going to--

MAYOR WALDORF: You want to ask him a question?

MR. WISE: I want to ask him a question.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. You're going to need to identify yourself, Mr. Wise, for the court reporter.

MR. WISE: Edmund Wise, Burningtree. Do you think a formal noise study should be done at this point? I mean, these are preliminary, are they not?

MR. EISCHEN: This study is very preliminary. We really have no idea what the sources of noise would be from the development itself. We could make some assessment as to the increase in the noise level due to the increased traffic that's been discussed tonight. But the noise that would be generated in the development itself would also be important. And that would impact the noise level in our area.

One feature of the noise in a development like this would be what we categorize as low-frequency noise. Trucks coming to the restaurants, coming to the office buildings and so forth, even buses going in and out of the area generate a much different type of noise than is now present on Highway 54.

There would also be a concern as to‑-I've been in areas at night where cleaning trucks come in, vacuum trucks come in around these office buildings and restaurant areas. They're extremely noisy and produce a lot of kind of low-frequency rumbling, which does transmit very directly to not only the outside of a home, but inside a home.

So that type of a noise study could be very useful.

MR. WISE: Isn't it something that's really almost required? Shouldn't it be required for this project?

MR. EISCHEN: I don't think that that's my judgment to make. That's probably up to the council to determine something like that.

MR. WISE: The condominiums, did they preexist your buying your house? Were the condominiums there when you moved in?

MR. EISCHEN: Yes.

MR. WISE: Was the value of your house determined at all by the condominiums?

MR. EISCHEN: No. The fact that the condominiums or townhomes are there and Slug's Restaurant and the motel that's across the street on Highway 54, it's really irrelevant. Those properties are already there.

The effect of those properties on my value and all the values of the contiguous properties are built into the current prices. That's really not‑-it doesn't have anything to do with the question that the council is trying to address.

MR. WISE: Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Mr. Sweezy?

TESTIMONY OF DONALD SWEEZY

MR. SWEEZY: First let me say that I'm looking forward to my old professor's review of the work that I presented last time.

But based on what I heard tonight and my knowledge of what is in the numbers that I presented earlier, my opinion has not changed. I think that you still do not have before you evidence that traffic does not reduce property values.

And Mr. Brough is correct in what the basis of comparison should be. It should be compared‑-the property values should be maintained relative to what the property value would be without the project.

But I would also want to say that Mr. Perry's offer of the bond is a big step forward. He hasn't gone quite far enough. He should be guaranteeing property relative to appreciation in the town.

But it is a big step forward. And I want to thank him for taking that step. And that's enough to keep me from speaking against the project anymore.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sweezy. All right. We don't have any more speakers signed up. Are there further questions that the council wishes to ask?

I think what we ought to do is‑-if the council has any questions they want the staff to follow up on, we ought to try to get those asked now and then continue the hearing until‑-I just checked with the manager, and he says he thinks that the staff could best get the final report done by May 11. So continue the hearing until May 11. Does that seem reasonable to everyone?

MR. FOY: Does that mean that we would vote on it on May 11?

MAYOR WALDORF: It means we would have the opportunity to vote on it May 11. We would continue the hearing until May 11. At that time we would receive the staff's final report, which would then become part of the record.

There might be other letters that come in to us in the interim. They would then become part of the record. We could discuss it and not vote on it or we could discuss it, close the hearing and vote on it.

MR. FOY: Well, the reason I'm asking is because I expect that it will be‑-the staff analysis will probably be pretty voluminous. And I would like to have some time to look at it before the scheduled meeting and not just two or three days.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay.

MR. FOY: I mean, I would like to have, you know, a week or so, if that's possible.

MAYOR WALDORF: Well, that's a reasonable‑-Mr. Manager, do you think it could be done a few days ahead of the normal agenda preparation time?

MR. HORTON: No, ma'am. I think we'll be having to push very hard to get it done on the regular schedule. We've got spring break, with the staff taking time off. We've got a budget that we've got to get done in the same period of time.

MAYOR WALDORF: Well, I guess my feeling is we ought to go ahead and schedule it. And if we can't vote on it on May 11, then we'll just do it at a subsequent time. I don't know. Does the council have a different preference?

MR. HORTON: It would not be unusual for the council, looking at its past history, to have some discussion at that first meeting at which we report back, but then to continue for further discussion to another time.

MAYOR WALDORF: We've done that several times before.

MR. HORTON: Yes, ma'am.

MAYOR WALDORF: Are there any other questions that the council wishes to ask now to have answered between now and then? Mr. Wise, yes. What is it?

MR. WISE: A great number of documents have been submitted by the applicant, and we have not been privileged to see those documents. I think that the public needs a chance to comment on those documents after we've read them.

And the second thing is I would like to see them put in the public library, if that's at all possible.

MAYOR WALDORF: Yes, sir. We'll be glad to do that.

MR. WISE: Rather than down in the Planning Department, which is a fine place, but it would be more helpful in the library.

So, anyway, I think the public should still have a further chance to comment.

MAYOR WALDORF: We wouldn't deny the public the opportunity to comment, Mr. Wise, as long as it is new rebuttal evidence related to the subject of property values.

MR. WISE: Okay.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thanks. So were there any other questions before we recess for tonight? Joe?

MR. CAPOWSKI: I have three questions of the staff. The first one has to do with maintenance of the infrastructure, especially the detention ponds.

Please review the process that is established in the special use permit application and please give your opinion based on what we've seen lately in other projects as to whether the homeowners associations‑-I guess it's plural‑-would do a good job on maintaining the infracture or whether we should start to think about some other way.

And the second question has to do with‑-it's actually to the town attorney. Mr. Perry proposed what I'll call a wiggly Pinehurst Drive within the Meadowmont‑-within the current Meadowmont proposal.

Now, Ralph, you have given us your opinion that if the Pinehurst connector were indeed closed, that you would find that to be a material change that would require the reopening of all four findings.

Do you also intrepret a wiggly Pinehurst‑-or let's call it a severely traffic-calming Pinehurst‑-as a material change? Because, obviously, it's trying to achieve the same effect, or approaching the same effect.

And my third question is, would the town accept a severely traffic-calming Pinehurst Drive into the town? The most likely process here is the developer builds the streets and then we‑-builds them to town standards, and then we must accept them as public streets. So the question is, would we be willing to accept such a street as a public street?

Those are my questions.

MAYOR WALDORF: Other questions?

FLICKA BATEMAN: I don't have a question, but I want to say something and hope that we'll just sleep on it. I'm not expecting a response, and I'll apologize, because I'm going to read it so that I can make sure that I'm saying what I want to say, because I'm sort of tired, too.

To me, the evidence as presented so far suggests that the project could have a negative impact on values. However, I believe the evidence could be presented that would satisfy me otherwise.

I would like to ask the applicant to come up with a collection of adjustments that, taken together, could reduce traffic on 54 between 20 and 25 percent. I believe that those reductions might allow evidence to be presented that could actually show the property value issue in another light.

And I'm not asking for anybody to respond. These are just my thoughts.

MAYOR WALDORF: I have a question to ask Mr. Perry. Have you all already made copies for us of the new materials that you presented tonight?

MR. PERRY: Yeah, we‑-

MAYOR WALDORF: I was just going to see if you had some extra ones for public use.

MR. PERRY: I don't know. Rod, do we have extras? We have 18 copies.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you.

MR. PERRY: Can I give you all a dozen?

MR. HORTON: How about 18 of them?

MR. PERRY: Okay. If you'd like. And then you can distribute them to the public.

MR. HORTON: All right.

MAYOR WALDORF: We'll put them in places where they can get access to them.

MR. PERRY: Excuse me for usurping your powers, Mr. Manager. I'm sorry.

MAYOR WALDORF: Any other questions? Keven?

MR. FOY: Joe was asking about‑-this is for our staff‑-about any comparable place that has 57,000 cars on it. And I was wondering if the staff could see if you could locate something that would be comparable in the Triangle, not necessarily in Chapel Hill, but something that we could all have some familiarity with. That's it.

MAYOR WALDORF: Is there a motion to continue this hearing until May 11?

MS. ANDRESEN: So moved.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you. Is there a second?

MR. CAPOWSKI: Second.

MAYOR WALDORF: All in favor, please say "aye."

(Ayes respond.)

MAYOR WALDORF: All opposed, "no."

(No response.)

(Whereupon, the public hearing was adjourned at 11:10 p.m., to

reconvene on May 11, 1998.)