P R O C E E D I N G S

MAYOR WALDORF: This is a continuation of the reconvened hearing on the Meadowmont infrastructure special use permit. And we will tonight receive further comment‑-the public hearing is still open, of course‑-we'll receive further comment from citizens, the applicant, and we'll receive the staff report.

Once again, I'd like to ask that comments be relevant to the property values matter before us. Once again, we will not put a time limit on speakers. But we just want to remind everyone that we've already had 12 hours of public hearing on this and we have document that, you know, measures, I don't know, eight inches or so. So please be concise. Please speak to the issue at hand.

And I would propose as the order of presentation that we let the staff present their report and then we let the applicant present their response to questions that were put to them at the most recent public hearing, and then we go on to the citizens who signed up to speak. So far I have about seven.

All right. So, is that all right with the council?

MR. CAPOWSKI: Uh-huh (affirmative).

MAYOR WALDORF: All right. Then let's go ahead. Mr. Manager?

MR. HORTON: Thank you, Madam Mayor. First I need to note that apparently some of the copies of material that were placed in the rear of the auditorium this evening copied only the odd number pages. So we're having some additional copies made, and they'll be available shortly.

Tonight the council comes to a stage where you have a lot of information before you prepared by not only the staff and the applicant, but by members of the public who have a strong interest in the issues that are before you.

We have prepared material in accordance with the ordinance requirement that we provide you an analysis and a recommendation. You'll notice that the town attorney and I both are listed on this memorandum. Now, that's because there is a blend of legal issues and administrative issues before the council.

Roger Waldon will touch on the key points of the memorandum. And of course we're available to respond to any questions that you may have. Roger?

PRESENTATION BY ROGER WALDON

MR. WALDON: Thank you. We meet again. This hearing is reconvened. You last recessed it on April 2, having heard three evenings of testimony. The item is back before the council for the purposes of receiving evidence and testimony on the finding that the council has to make with respect to the Meadowmont infrastructure special use permit.

The finding of course is the one that reads that no special use permit shall be approved by the council unless a finding is made that the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property.

What we did in our memorandum and in preparing materials for tonight was to first go over all of the evidence that had been presented during your last three evenings of hearings on this.

And we have collected what we believe is the full set of documents that was presented to the council as evidence and made that available to council members, and put copies in the public library over the weekend, as we told you that we would.

The memorandum that precedes all that is the manager's and attorney's summary of the evidence. What we have done here is to give you a listing of all of the documents to summarize the key points of the evidence that were presented with respect to the question of property values.

And we note that the form that the evidence takes includes statements and letters of support from citizens, testimony and reports from appraisers based on case studies in a number of communities, testimony from adjacent property owners, and then letters of opposition as well. So we tried to put all that together for you here.

And then in this memorandum we summarized the key points of the evidence. We particularly focused on the evidence that was presented by real estate professionals and appraisers on the question of value of contiguous property. We offer some of our comments about the definition of "contiguous." So we've got that in your memorandum.

And then we conclude our memorandum with a recommendation in which we offer our opinion that we believe that the weight of the evidence favors a finding that the Meadowmont infrastructure special use permit application does propose development that is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property.

If the council agrees and decides that it can make that finding, our recommendation is that you adopt Resolution A, which would approve, again, the Meadowmont infrastructure special use permit.

If you find that you cannot make that finding, then we would suggest that you adopt the Resolution B that we have included in your packet that would deny the application.

I also note that council members have at their places tonight an additional couple of pages. In going over the transcript of the three nights of hearing, particularly focusing on the April 2 meeting, we noted and it was pointed out to us that there was a collection of council questions that we hadn't addressed in our memorandum that we prepared last week and sent to you. And so we've tried to provide that information with a supplemental handout as well.

With that I will step down, and you will be hearing from the applicant and others. As the mayor and manager have suggested, as always, we stand ready to answer specific questions if you have them.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: I have a specific question. But shall we wait till later or not?

MR. CAPOWSKI: Yes. Let us hear from the applicant now. Mr. Perry?

MR. PERRY: Thank you, mayor pro tem and council members. Our presentation will be brief tonight. We're going to make a presentation to you that responds to the question posed by council member Bateman at the last public hearing about ways to minimize and reduce the traffic impacts of Meadowmont.

And we will do that within the context of this as a proposal subject to you and/or the manager recognizing this as a minor change in the special use permit and in the master land use plan. George Krischbaum will make our presentation.

PRESENTATION BY GEORGE KRISCHBAUM

MR. KRISCHBAUM: Mayor pro tem and members of council, my name is George Krischbaum. I'm the director of develop operations for East-West Partners Management Company.

We were asked to consider how we might reduce the total trips generated by Meadowmont by a range of 20 to 25 percent over those which we have been historically showing as being generated in our traffic impact analysis.

You have received a packet of information on this subject which outlines how we propose to make these reductions through a combination of selective density reductions and tighter definition and limitation on certain parcels within the community.

In so doing we have been careful to confine our efforts to what we feel reasonably should be considered to be minor changes in accordance with town ordinance.

And I take note that one of the folks who covers us in the press when we discussed this referred to these as minor changes. They are in fact minor changes. Two words.

Rather than belabor the presentation that you were given about this information, because I think it is self-explanatory and, I hope, clear, I would simply pause for a moment to support the belief that we have that these are in fact minor changes in accordance with town ordinance by referring specifically to the ordinance that suggests that changes to a master land use plan can be made one of two ways, either as minor changes or as modifications.

And the ordinance is very clear as to what constitutes a modification, which is not approveable by staff. And it says that a modification may be determined that (a) a change in the boundaries of the site approved by the counsel shall constitute a modification. We are making no changes in the site boundary.

(b) A change from the use or uses approved by the council shall constitute a modification. And we are making no changes from approved uses.

(c) A substantial change in the floor area or number of parking spaces approved by the council shall constitute a modification. And we are not making substantial changes in floor area or parking spaces. In fact, to my knowledge, we are not making changes at all in either of those things.

(d) That substantial changes in pedestrian or vehicular access or circulation approved by the council shall constitute a modification. We are making no changes in pedestrian or vehicular access or circulation that you have approved.

And finally, that substantial change in the amount or location of landscaped and open areas approved by the council shall constitute a modification.

Again, we have made no changes in landscaped and open areas which you have previously approved, and for these reasons submit to you that this is in fact in all instances a minor change approveable by staff and not a modification.

Having said this and being aware of the lateness of the hour and the fact that you have had this material before you for some time now, I would be pleased at this point to answer questions.

I will refer you to a comparative that we have that shows the original Table 3 of trip generation from Meadowmont. Beside it is the revised Table 3 we refer to as 3(a).

And in each case by code type of use, we summarized the modifications that have been made in terms of trip generation, and indicate at the conclusion that there is in fact a net reduction in new trip generation as a result of these minor changes in the range of 25 1/2 percent.

MAYOR WALDORF: Is that it, Mr. Kirschbaum? Are there questions? I'm sorry. Krischbaum. Are there questions of Mr. Krischbaum at this time?

MR. CAPOWSKI: Actually, I do.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay, Joe.

MR. CAPOWSKI: George, the current master land use plan specifies a maximum of 1,298 housing units.

MR. KRISCHBAUM: Yes.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Are you willing to reduce that number?

MR. KRISCHBAUM: We have reduced that number.

MR. CAPOWSKI: To what number, total?

MR. KRISCHBAUM: If my addition isn't faulty, which is certainly possible, the new number would be 1,061.

MR. CAPOWSKI: I'm sorry. One-oh--

MR. KRISCHBAUM: Mr. Perry does remind me that there is an either/or in the number, that we had indicated that we would prefer to do the congregate care area as it had originally been shown as congregate care. We have asked to reserve 350 congregate care units.

And I don't have my copy of that information in front of me, but I think it was two-sixty‑-

MR. PERRY: Why don't you put that overhead up that shows the master plan, showing where the changes have occurred?

MAYOR WALDORF: The revised proposal of apartments on that 50-acre tract that would either be congregate care or apartments, was it 265 or 245? I forget.

MR. KRISCHBAUM: I think it was 265, if I remember correctly.

MAYOR WALDORF: Two sixty-five. So‑-

MR. KRISCHBAUM: As opposed to 350 congregate care units. For purposes of the traffic generation, we used the apartment units because they were higher-traffic generators.

For purposes of setting a cap on density, obviously, we would prefer to use the 350 congregate care units until such time as we know that the concept of doing congregate care is either viable or not.

MAYOR WALDORF: But let's answer Joe's question. Joe's question was what is the density reduction. And what you're going to have there is two answers. You're going to have one answer if the apartment option is exercised and a different answer if the congregate care option is exercised. So let's just answer the question.

MR. KRISCHBAUM: I think for purposes of setting a cap, the number that we would be willing to reduce is to 1,146.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. So the cap would be 1,146 dwelling units of all kinds.

MR. KRISCHBAUM: That's correct.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay.

MAYOR WALDORF: So that is the cap that would be in effect if you exercised the congregate care option.

MR. KRISCHBAUM: That is also correct.

MAYOR WALDORF: And if you exercised the apartment option, it would be‑-

MR. KRISCHBAUM: One thousand and sixty-one (1,061).

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you very much.

MR. CAPOWSKI: But that option is at their choice.

MAYOR WALDORF: I understand that, yes.

MR. CAPOWSKI: My second question, George, is the current maximum number of square feet of office and commercial space is now 785,000. Will you reduce that? Seven hundred and eighty-five thousand square feet. I'm sorry.

MR. KRISCHBAUM: We are willing in the nonresidential category shown on this list to commit to the square footage shown there.

MR. CAPOWSKI: What is the total‑-what is the cap of office and commercial square footage that you are willing to reduce it to? I hope my question is clear.

MR. KRISCHBAUM: Well, it's clear. We're just going to have to add it up again.

MR. PERRY: Council Member Capowski, we're willing to commit to each specific site to those limits that you see there, but we're not prepared to‑-we don't know what that number is going to be. We're not prepared to reduce the 785,000 square feet.

We are prepared to implement on each of these parcels the usages that we are promoting to you here as methods of reducing the traffic. So there's no way to predict.

Now, I will tell you that there has been a significant reduction in the amount‑-these changes result in a significant reduction in the retail shopping space in Meadowmont.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Mr. Perry, I have read the table. I just asked you a simple question.

MR. PERRY: Well, there's no simple answer to that, Joe. There's not a simple answer to that. It is a significant reduction in retail space, some of which has been substituted by office. But I don't think there's a simple answer to that.

MAYOR WALDORF: Are there other questions of the applicant at this time?

MR. PERRY: For one thing, I don't know what the square footage is, Joe, of the hotel. It's within the guidelines that were approved for the master land use plan. But I can't tell you‑-I don't even know exactly how many square feet the hotel is.

MR. CAPOWSKI: I have a couple of more questions, if you don't mind.

MAYOR WALDORF: Sure. Go ahead.

MR. CAPOWSKI: This is for Mr. Horne, if he is here. Mr. Horne, in your traffic study, this one‑-you know it well, I'm sure.

MR. HORNE: Yes.

MR. CAPOWSKI: You talk about level of service. You show in a table the current level of services of the near-to-Meadowmont intersections.

MR. HORNE: Can I get the report real quick?

MR. CAPOWSKI: Of course.

MR. HORNE: Which table on which page?

MR. CAPOWSKI: It's on page 8, and it's called "Table 1." But that's not what my question is about.

MR. HORNE: All right.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay. This table shows the level of service of these several intersections today, or current conditions. Yet I don't see a similar table for the year 2006 post Meadowmont build-out by the current proposal. All I see is some calculations way back in the appendix, which are quite incomplete.

So would you please tell me what‑-we're trying to visualize what Raleigh Road is going to look like in the year 2006. Could you please tell me what the level of service of the intersection of Friday Lane and Highway 54 will be with the current Meadowmont proposal?

MR. HORNE: Yes, I can. First of all, for the record, my name is Mike Horne. I'm with Kimley-Horne & Associates. The address is 3001 Weston Parkway, Cary, North Carolina.

This report was performed at‑-first of all, it was the third generation performed back in May of 1996. What you see in Table 1, page 8, is the level of service anticipated or actually at each of these intersections as of 1996. Because that's the date of the report.

What we then looked at was the projected year 2006. And let's go to what I believe you're referring to, a comparison table, page 19, where, again, we have each of the intersections listed for the a.m. and p.m. peak.

In that, we don't have a level of service that you've indicated. What we show is congested and noncongested. Congested is an unacceptable level of service. Again, May, 1996. That was for a four-lane N.C. 54.

I think everyone has understood that with a four-lane of N.C. 54 we had an unacceptable level of service. There was never any trying to, you know, persuade anyone that was anything other. Congested, definition, is that it is an unacceptable level of service.

With the commitment by the applicant to six-lane the road and with the turn lanes involved, what we essentially have is a level of service C. There's D in one particular peak hour at the intersection of Meadowmont Lane. But for all major purposes, the year 2006, we will maintain a level of service C as in "cat" on N.C. 54.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Is there any intersection along Highway 54 that is level of service D or poorer?

MR. HORNE: Today?

MR. CAPOWSKI: No. In the year 2006 with the current Meadowmont proposal, with the current road construction as proposed.

MR. HORNE: Poorer than level of service D?

MR. CAPOWSKI: Poorer.

MR. HORNE: No.

MR. CAPOWSKI: D or poorer.

MR. HORNE: No.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Okay.

MAYOR WALDORF: Would it be all right with the council to hear from the citizens who signed up now? Let's go ahead and do that.

The first person signed up is Rebekah Ziade. Ms. Ziade?

MS. ZIADE: Madam Mayor, I signed up in case I wanted to speak, but at this time I would like to decline.

MAYOR WALDORF: You've changed your mind?

MS. ZIADE: Yes.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. All right. Thank you. Mary Reeb? And after Mary, Glyn Collins.

TESTIMONY OF MARY REEB

MS. REEB: I'm not rising to speak for myself. I'm rising to introduce two documents to the record. I'm going to add a couple of inches to your eight inches, I'm afraid.

One of them is an article that appeared in the Herald that probably some of you have seen, by Michael Salemi, who's a professor of economics, and his analysis of three comparable neighborhoods, two of which are in town, relative to property values and traffic.

And I only have one copy of this. I presume you can copy these for everybody's records.

And the other is a series of copies of the ad that we put into the paper, a group of us, all of whom are feeling, I think, somewhat weary and also recognize some of the ways in which this particular development can in fact be a positive element in our community.

Many of these people are here tonight. We're on record now and wanted to be in your record as having positive feelings about Meadowmont and would like you to see it again. Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Glyn Collins? And then Philip Burke.

TESTIMONY OF GLYN COLLINS

MR. COLLINS: Madam Mayor and town council, my name is Glyn Collins, and I live at 1020 Pinehurst Drive in The Oaks. And my property is adjacent to the proposed Meadowmont. And I'll be brief.

The memorandum we received about the continued hearing tonight on Meadowmont, some information in this memorandum is misleading about my position and needs some clarification.

If you'll go to page 10, this was in the review that I believe was presented earlier. The second paragraph is about the letter from Property Data concerning the Collins property. And I won't read the whole thing.

But down in the paragraph it says, "We believe that it is reasonable to assume that traffic would necessarily increase in front of the Collins property if Pinehurst were continued as has been planned, regardless of what development were to occur on the Meadowmont site."

Then, again, over on page 11 in the first three paragraphs, but it's really referenced by the second paragraph. "The mere fact that a proposed use will result in some additional traffic is not grounds for denying a permit. This is so because virtually any use of property will generate some additional traffic on the surrounding streets."

And then later in the next paragraph, "Mr. Collins suggested that the opening of a currently stubbed-out Pinehurst Drive will increase the vehicle trips per day in front of their homes from eight to a figure between 3,500 and 5,500. And this level of increase represents a situation that will lower the value of that home.

"We believe that the appropriate comparison is not from eight vehicles to 5,500 vehicles per day. It is from volumes that would be expected under conditions of a connected Pinehurst with the Meadowmont property developed according to use by right and the post Meadowmont projected volume of 5,500 trips per day."

The memorandum basically says for traffic on Pinehurst in front of my house that our comparisons are from eight vehicles per day to 5,500 vehicles per day, and does not take into account that if not Meadowmont, there will be something else. This is not accurate.

The letter from Mr. Hinnant and Property Data says there will be two possible levels of traffic increases. One, Mr. Hinnant is using 1,989 trips per day as a base, in other words, if Pinehurst is developed as single-family housing.

And I quote from his letter which I presented to the council the first time I spoke. In the third paragraph, "Based on the traffic count from the Department of Transportation, the estimated current traffic count is 1,989 cars per day."

Now, that 1,989 cars per day is from a traffic count of a survey authorized, I believe, by the city and requested by the city.

And then the second is that with Meadowmont, Mr. Hinnant in his letter said, "The increased development, this traffic flow on Pinehurst will be greatly affected."

The inference in the memorandum is that my position, in the opinion of Property Data, should be discounted because whatever is developed, there will be traffic increases.

Our position is that with single-family development as Pinehurst is on the north, traffic on the south of Pinehurst will be approximately the same, 1,989 trips per day or less. But with Meadowmont, traffic is not at the less-than-2,000 trips per day, but at 4,500 and 5,500 trips per day.

I spoke to Mr. Hinnant just before this meeting to clarify these two points. And his opinion is as it's stated in the letter, based on traffic increases from the 1,989 trips per day to the 4,500 to 5,500 trips per day.

The additional 2,500 to 3,500 trips per day are the developer's and city's estimates of traffic from Meadowmont, using the formula that 10 percent of the total trips per day generated by Meadowmont will use Pinehurst when connected to Meadowmont.

Mr. Hinnant wrote in his letter, dated March 19, 1998, and I quote, "It is my opinion based on these documents that the overall monetary value of your home will be negatively affected by the development of the proposed Meadowmont development," unquote.

Well, the memorandum suggests that based on the assumption that there is going to be a development at the end of Pinehurst that my complaint should be dismissed, shouldn't be taken seriously.

But the letter proposed by Mr. Hinnant says that we are looking at the base level of traffic on Pinehurst today at the north section of Pinehurst as a basis for determining what the traffic would be later on.

Those figures, the later-on figures, the 30,000 possible trips and the 10 percent, were formulated by other people, not by us. And so the increase in traffic that he's saying will happen is from the 2,000 level to the 4,500 or 5,500.

Thereby, that amount is creating another level, or a level that will create a negative impact. So one of the positions is saying that the opening of Pinehurst will create no negative impact. We're not disputing that opening of Pinehurst into the level of the 1,989.

See, my section of the street, there is a very small‑-because we're at the stub-out‑-there's a very amount of traffic. So we're not saying there should be no traffic. We're not asking for a cul-de-sac.

We're saying that that traffic should be what the traffic on Pinehurst is on the north end of Burningtree, which is 1,989 trips per day. And that is the comparison from that point to the trips per day with the Meadowmont. This is what the consideration should be. And that's a legal point.

MAYOR WALDORF: I think you've made your point.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: I believe there was a question for you, Mr. Collins.

MS. EVANS: Yes. Did you send your appraiser the proposed new convoluted alignment of Meadowmont that's being--the minor change that's being proposed by the applicant?

MR. COLLINS: No, ma'am, I did not. But I have an appointment with him tomorrow.

MS. EVANS: With who?

MR COLLINS: The appraiser, Mr. Hinnant. See, I did not receive this memorandum, myself personally, until today. And I wasn't able to get anything in writing from Mr. Hinnant because I've been out of town. And I wanted to be here to let you know that I did speak with him to clarify the one point about the traffic.

MS. EVANS: Well, this was proposed at our last public hearing. That's why I wondered.

MAYOR WALDORF: We didn't have it in writing.

MR. COLLINS: No. I haven't seen it.

MS. EVANS: We had a diagram.

MAYOR WALDORF: We had a diagram.

MS. EVANS: We had the diagram.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Mr. Collins, are you saying that the town did not mail you a copy of this proposal, or the applicant or no one sent you a copy of this proposal?

MR. COLLINS: No, no. I said I received it today. It was at my mailbox either Thursday or Friday, but I've been out of town. I just came back in town.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you very much. Mr. Philip Burke?

MR. BURKE: I don't have specific--you mentioned property valuation. What I have would be redundant.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Arnold Loewy and then Philip Goodman.

TESTIMONY BY ARNOLD LOEWY

MR. LOEWY: I have a couple of comments in regard to the report that's been submitted to you. And, Ralph, I think they are legal comments, so I guess you're the person who drafted them.

Specifically, I want to speak to the definition suggested in the report as to the word "contiguous" and as to the word "maintain."

Ralph, I totally agree with your quotation from Strong's that the common and ordinary meaning is what we ought to look at of these words. I do not agree that the meaning that is suggested in this memo on pages 7 and 11 represent what the common and ordinary meaning is.

Specifically in regard to the word "contiguous," I see no sense of proportion in the definition. And yet I think that really is a part of the definition of the word "contiguous." And let me illustrate.

We think of the United States as being contiguous to Canada. We think of North Carolina as being contiguous to South Carolina. We think of Orange County as being contiguous to Durham County. And I think of my house, 109 Waterford Place, as being contiguous to 107 Waterford Place.

We don't typically think of, say, North Carolina as being contiguous to some small piece of land in South Carolina. And I think we need to think of Meadowmont that way.

I think that if we were talking about one parcel of land in Meadowmont, then we would look at the impact of one parcel of land in The Oaks. But if we're talking about a project the size of Meadowmont, it seems to me when we say "contiguous," we mean property of approximately, not perfectly, but approximately the same size.

Certainly, if I understand the size of Meadowmont correctly, all of The Oaks and all of Little Creek are smaller than Meadowmont. And, consequently, to the extent that a project like Meadowmont impacts on areas such as The Oaks and such as Little Creek, it seems to me that it clearly impacts on something that is contiguous in the common and ordinary meaning of the term.

In regard to the term "maintain," the suggestion on page 11 of your memo is that maintain should have nothing to do with expectation. Now, of course, it doesn't have anything to do with abstract expectation. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what's happening in the rest of the community. But I think it does have something to do with what the standard would be without the development as opposed to what the standard would be with the development.

After all, this is essentially a good neighbor policy ordinance. The reason we have this ordinance, the reason we have to follow it, is to be a good neighbor.

And what we're saying is if you make it better, enhance it or keep it the same, maintain it, that's fine. After all, it is the applicant in this case that is asking for a variance. And we say, "If you want a variance, you have to not make things worse."

Well, in terms of whether it should be defined as, say, if a property is worth four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) today, will it be worth four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) five years from now, let me try a couple of hypotheticals on you. Imagine that we're in a period of deflation, depression, say. You've got a four-hundred-thousand-dollar house. Every house in the neighborhood is going down. So you would expect them to be worth three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000).

But because of some wonderful project which is put in, this house will only go down from four hundred thousand ($400,000) to three-fifty ($350,000). Well, if you only go down to three-fifty ($350,000), you'd say, "Gee, you didn't maintain the value of the property. It went down fifty thousand ($50,000)."

But there's no causation there. It didn't go down because of the project. It would have gone down more without the project. So that project actually enhanced the value.

Well, now, let's take a counter- hypothetical. Let's assume we're in an area, say, similar to what I understand Silicon Valley is now where houses are going up by leaps and bounds, at least according to a newsmagazine show I saw.

And let's assume the city tries to do something outrageous. I'll use as an illustration my old neighborhood--Mr. Pavao, it's actually your current neighborhood, of Lake Forest.

Assume the city decides it would be a wonderful idea to drain Eastwood Lake and make it into a shopping center. And let's assume that because houses are getting so scarce in the community that most of the four-hundred-thousand-dollar houses are going up to five hundred thousand ($500,000).

And let's assume after the lake is taken by eminent domain and it's made into a shopping center, the houses on the lake are still worth four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000), while all the others are worth five hundred thousand ($500,000).

Could we say that that maintained the value of the property? I don't think so. Not in any usual or ordinary definition of the term. That's not common and ordinary. That's not the way I think.

No, I'm not saying Meadowmont will do anything that extreme, but I am saying that that's the standard that you need to look at. The question is whether or not the property is better or worse off because of Meadowmont. And if it's worse off, then under the ordinance it's not supposed to be enacted.

Let me suggest in closing, you folks have a really difficult decision. And I must say I've admired your patience throughout all of this.

You've got evidence that was submitted to you by Ms. Reeb that some of the finest people in this community, people who you would normally give a great deal of credence to, are saying, "This is the most wonderful thing since sliced bread."

You've got other people in the community of equal merit, I think, who are saying, "This is terrible. This will destroy the community."

Let me suggest to you that under the question that you're considering, unless you can in good conscience say that this will not adversely affect contiguous‑-and I think that has to have a realistic meaning‑-contiguous property, unless you can honestly say that, which group of citizens are correct really doesn't matter.

Because the law says unless you are sure, unless you are convinced this will not adversely affect contiguous property, you've got to say no.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you very much, Mr. Loewy. Philip Goodman, and then Edmund Wise.

TESTIMONY OF PHILIP GOODMAN

MR. GOODMAN: Good evening. I'm speaking tonight to address a couple of issues. One is on the question that was raised in the initial decision by Judge Battle to review the special use permit in regards to traffic. And that question is‑-or property values to contiguous properties.

And that question is, despite the posturing that has been going on since the last public hearing in regards to reducing traffic flow or whatever else might be stated, that question with evidence pertaining to that issue, and that is what is happening to contiguous property values needs to be addressed.

The developer may have implied that by reducing traffic to a certain level that the question of contiguous property values may have been addressed, that in fact now the property values will be maintained or enhanced. But I think it's owed the citizens of this community the opportunity to actually test that with appraisals, for instance.

That gets to my second point, which has to do with process. As we've already seen, Mr. Collins has an appointment to see his appraiser tomorrow to discuss some of these issues.

He hasn't been able to show him the winding road of Meadowmont, which may have been shown on a slide, may have been proposed, but was never officially proposed nor documented in any of our material that we received until a Friday package was received in the mail.

And that Friday package said that a number of amendments were available at the library. But I, like Mr. Collins, didn't have an opportunity to get to the library this weekend to review that packet.

And I think it would be unfair to expect the citizens of this town to comment on proposed changes that they haven't had a chance to observe, to actually see in writing, documented, presented by the town to the citizens.

And as was discussed at the last town meeting, there was a question that came up when all of this came about, this idea of this works in progress as far as this special use permit goes. Something's changing. We're not quite sure what.

A question was raised by one of the council members‑-and I can't remember who it was‑-asking if when that material‑-if that material could come in sooner than they've always come in in the past, that is, the Friday before the Monday meeting.

And the town staff at that point, as I recall, said, "No, we don't think so. There's too much material to go through." And, sure enough, it didn't come in.

But the question that was posed at that time, "Shouldn't we plan to allow the citizens an opportunity to review this material?"

I think everybody has put a lot of time and effort and diligence into this process over the years that have gone by. The developer certainly has. The council members have, and the citizens have. And the citizens deserve that right to review the material that is at the library or at town hall and make some specific comments about that material.

All I've had to look at‑-and that was just this evening‑-was this memorandum. And when I looked at it, I pulled out my copy of the development ordinance‑-this makes great bedtime reading‑-and found that, much to my surprise, in this memorandum the public hearing was being continued for the council's receipt of the manager's written analysis and recommendation for action.

And then I looked at my development ordinance, and it says that this written analysis and recommendation for action is supposed to be submitted to the town council after completion of a public hearing.

Well, the public hearing hasn't been completed. It's still going on. And it's this jumping ahead of the gun, this disregard of process, that really distorts what's going on with the town and this particular project.

We shouldn't be having a written analysis and a final recommendation until the entire public hearing has been concluded. What if there were some information that Mr. Collins wanted to present tonight, which he does? That needs to be considered. It needs to be considered by the town manager and the town attorney, who wrote this recommendation. They need to consider that after completion of the public hearing, 18.4.7, before they can come up with a written analysis and their final recommendation.

There were some other points. Mr. Loewy touched on some of them as far as "maintain" and what that actually means. I didn't look at it the way he did in regards to inflation or deflation in the economy.

I kind of looked at it in regards to the salary discussions at the beginning of the year when the town budget was being talked about. Should we have maintained the salary of the staff at that time?

Are they modifications or are they minor changes to what we've seen presented? The implication is that these are minor changes. The implication also is that these are minor changes in a works in progress again.

When it's discussed in the development ordinance in regards to minor changes and what the town manager may make in regards to minor changes, it states that the town manager is authorized to approve minor changes in the approved final plans.

We don't have a set of approved final plans in regards to a special use permit or master land use plan--it seems because it's always changing. If we had a final version of that, then perhaps we could make some minor changes to it.

The other question, though, becomes one of are they modifications or minor changes. Modifications, as was read to you by Mr. Krischbaum, in‑-let me see. I think that's Section 19.7.6, item C. It says, "A substantial change in the floor area or number of parking spaces approved by the council shall constitute a modification."

And it seems that at least in one area here in some disagreement to Mr. Krischbaum's statement that they're not making any changes in floor area, on page 5 of the memorandum, right in the middle of the page, "Reduce and restrict the use of a third outparcel, which was authorized in the master plan be 27,500 square feet, to a 4,000-square-foot bank and 4,000 square feet of office space." That's 8,000 feet.

So there's been a two-thirds reduction in floor area there. Now, I'm all in favor of reducing the floor area there. On the other hand, it seems like this is a substantial reduction in floor space in this particular area.

I don't have all the numbers to add up all of the floor space that's there to see what it means because I haven't had a chance to look at this revised formula.

But if it is in fact a substantial reduction, maybe even in that one area it would constitute a modification of the plan, which is different than the minor changes.

So in just these few minutes I hope to at least instill in you the fact that there is much to be looked at, this just on the memorandum sheet. Again, I have not been able to look at the full packet that you've all got sitting there that measures about two and a half inches thick in order to go through it. But I can look at it and perhaps find some other comments to make in regards to what is going on in this proposal.

The bottom line was that Judge Battle asked us to‑-or asked you to look at contiguous property values in regards to the special use permit that he saw. Now we've got a different special use permit.

We've got to see what those property values are doing now. And we can't just accept the evidence generated by the developers, assessors and appraisers. But we need the citizens, who have been equally hard at work in this process, an opportunity to respond to this change in material. Thank you for your time.

MAYOR WALDORF: Mr. Wise, Edmund Wise.

MR. FOY: May I ask him a question?

MAYOR WALDORF: Sure. Mr. Goodman, there's a question for you.

MR. FOY: Or, actually, maybe‑-I just want Mr. Goodman to be there. I'd like to ask the staff a couple of questions in regard to your testimony, which is, first, what are the library hours on Saturday and Sunday?

FROM THE FLOOR: Nine to 6:00 on Saturday, and 1:00 to 6:00 on Sunday.

MR. FOY: They're 9:00 to 6:00 on Saturday and 1:00 to 6:00 on Sunday.

MR. HORTON: That sounds about right.

MR. FOY: And what about Mr. Goodman's observation with regard to the development ordinance 18.4.7, the town manager's report to the council?

MR. HORTON: I think if you interpreted that exactly literally, it would never be possible for the process to conclude. And so what we have done as a matter of practice is hold open the hearing for the purpose of receiving the manager's follow-up report so that that evidence can be considered by the council.

Would you offer any further comment, Mr. Attorney?

MR. KARPINOS: No, that's basically it, that it's necessary to have the hearing record stay open so that the manager's report can be part of the evidence that the council considers. And then when the council is ready to vote and everybody is finished presenting all of the evidence, then the hearing is closed.

But for all practical purposes, the completion of the hearing means the completion of public testimony, which was intended to take place at the last meeting.

MR. FOY: And what about Mr. Goodman's comment on Section 19.7.6, where he discusses the modification of the master land use plan?

MR. KARPINOS: Well, I think the manager's report that you have points out that what's before the council this evening is the special use permit. And these are just proposed changes to the master land use plan. And the manager has indicated what he would be inclined to do with those.

But it's the infrastructure special use permit and the changes to that which are before the council. And the manager has said and I agree with him that these are minor changes and do not require the council to reopen the hearing on the infrastructure to all four special use findings.

MR. FOY: Is there something in the material that we got today that refers to Section 19.7.6?

MR. HORTON: On page 6 we make a brief reference to it in the short paragraph above the final paragraph.

MAYOR WALDORF: Page 6 of what, Mr. Manager?

MR. HORTON: Page 6 of the follow-up report.

MAYOR WALDORF: Which is what we received on Thursday, correct?

MR. HORTON: Yes, ma'am.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you.

MR. FOY: So which‑-the two are similar, 18.5 and 19.7.6. Which applies in this situation?

MR. HORTON: The issue that is before the council, I believe, is‑-as the attorney has said, that the special use permit is before the council. And so 18.5 would be what would apply specifically. I welcome the attorney's correction.

MR. KARPINOS: That's as to the changes that have been offered by the applicant with respect to the infrastructure.

MR. HORTON: Right.

MR. KARPINOS: And those are essentially the reconfiguration of the connection to Pinehurst and the adjustment to the number of lots along the back side of Burningtree.

MAYOR WALDORF: How about the other?

MR. HORTON: The other changes would be in the master land use plan.

MR. KARPINOS: The other changes would be in the master land use plan.

MR. HORTON: That is correct.

MR. KARPINOS: So Mr. Goodman is correct when he says something that you left out in your report, that a substantial change in the floor area or number of parking spaces approved by the council shall constitute a modification. I don't see that in your report to us.

MR. HORTON: I don't believe it would be a substantial change in the floor area. Typically, the guide would be 5 percent.

MR. FOY: Well, there are no changes in the floor area being proposed in the infrastructure. The proposals that we have before us now make certain changes in floor area in the square footage in the master plan. That's correct.

MR. KARPINOS: Yeah, but that's not what's before the council for voting tonight. That's just something for your information, but it's not‑-as the manager says, it's not directly related to the issue that's before the council.

MR. GOODMAN: Might I say something in regards to that? It seems to me in reading this memorandum that there is a lot of material that's placed in here that did not directly address Judge Battle's kind of‑-at least the narrow interpretation of Judge Battle's order, and that was that what was to be considered were property values in contiguous property.

And instead, what has happened was there's been a lot of information provided that should be, in quotes, "disregarded" by the jury, that is, all of this material about reducing density and apartments and this other living dwellings and all of these other things.

If we are planning to bring that in, why not bring in the floor area? Why not bring in the entranceway plan? Why not bring in the whole ball of wax again?

And in looking at this memorandum, there is all of this material that comes in. And they say, "Well, you know, the special use permit, Judge Battle really wanted us to deal with the contiguous property values."

Well, the wanted the council to deal with the special use permit that he saw before him. That should be the decision that the council is making, how did that special use permit impact on contiguous property values, not all of this last-second manipulation that, again, the citizens are shut out of in regards to commentary because of the lateness of the material.

MAYOR WALDORF: Kevin, did you have any further questions of the staff on this point?

MR. FOY: Well, I'm just wondering if this special use permit is approved, then will the master land use plan be changed. Will you then make a determination as to whether they're minor or major changes? Is that the procedure?

MR. HORTON: Based on the information we've received, it would be my opinion already that they would be minor changes in the master land use plan.

MR. FOY: Despite the fact that it says, "A substantial change in the floor area or number of parking spaces approved by the council shall constitute a modification."

MR. HORTON: Specifically taking that into account, it's my opinion that the changes that have been proposed would not involve a substantial change in floor area.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: I have a follow-up question.

MAYOR WALDORF: Well, Joyce had her hand up, and Joe and then Julie. Joyce.

MS. BROWN: I think Mr. Perry had something to say. If he wanted to respond to this, and then I'll be glad to.

MAYOR WALDORF: Oh, okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Goodman.

MR. GOODMAN: Well, before I go, the point I wanted to make was that I think the council ought to give the citizens some more time to evaluate the new material that's there before a vote be taken. And that was somewhat of an implication that was made at the last public hearing. I believe the mayor actually said, "We'll see about that," in asking if it couldn't be speeded up as far as delivery to the citizens.

This material was not speeded up to the citizens. A number of people who have some important thoughts about it have not had a chance to look at it. And I think they deserve that chance.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you. Roger, you had a point?

MR. PERRY: A point of rebuttal, Mayor. The master land use plan authorizes Meadowmont to have up to 785,000 feet of commercial space. It has no minimum amount on it. It says nothing about the fact that we have to do seven eighty-five. It merely states that that's the maximum that can go there.

There is no limitation on reductions or the total amount of square footage. There clearly is no significant change here. We could choose to build zero square feet and still be in compliance with the master land use plan.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Joyce and then Joe and then Julie.

MS. BROWN: I'd like to follow up with the staff on something that Mr. Goodman alluded to. He didn't actually quote this, but I would like to have staff comment on this. And this is in the development ordinance 18.5, the modifications.

And it states that "Any change requiring evidentiary support in addition to that presented at a public hearing on applications for the original special use permit or subsequent modifications of special use permit shall constitute a modification of the special use permit."

And I think that we've heard from citizens tonight that they would like to examine this and present evidence that they would feel important.

And so it seems to me that this would require evidentiary support. Is that the case? Could you please comment on that?

MR. KARPINOS: The purpose of pointing out what would be a minor change and what would be not a minor change was for the purpose of discussing initially the issue about how many findings are open before the town council.

When the issue was remanded to the council from the Court, the Court said there was not substantial evidence as to the question of whether or not the project was designed and proposed to be operated and located so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property.

And what I advised the council at that time was that that was the only finding before the council as to this project. I further advised the council that if there was some material change in the project that was offered by the applicant, then that would open up the deliberation as to all four findings.

Then the question became what was such a substantial change. And there was a memorandum that is in your materials that I wrote in response to a request from Council Member Andresen, which identified by giving some examples of what was a material change, what would I consider to be a material change.

And I used‑-for purposes of analyzing what would or would not be‑-I used the language in 18.5 as some guidance, because it was logical to use that for the following reason.

That language established once an application for a special use permit were approved, then if there were going to be changes to that application after the fact, certain changes could be approved by the manager without going through a special use process. Other changes would have to come back to the council.

It was reasonable to me to use that language for purposes of determining what could be done at this stage in this unusual case where you have an application which has received three-quarters of an approval, in effect. Three of the four findings have been established, and one is still open.

What could happen to that application without reopening it to all four findings? The applicant has proposed two changes. One is in the configuration of Pinehurst. The other is reduction of the number of lots.

In each of those cases, in looking at the 18.5 standards for modifications, had this application for a special use permit been approved as initially designed and all four findings been upheld and then the applicant came in and proposed this change to Pinehurst and the alignment and the change along the back side of Burningtree, those changes could have been presented to the manager after approval, and the manager would have been able to approve those without any evidentiary hearing, without this coming back to the council as a modification to the special use permit.

On the basis of that, it was our recommendation that the council could make those changes in this design without reopening the hearing and hearing evidence on all four findings. And it was on the basis of our‑-it was on that basis that the applicant has proposed these.

My understanding is that if these changes require a reopening of the hearing and evidence as to all four findings, then he would withdraw them as proposals and leave the initial design as it is.

Now, he can clarify that himself if he wishes. But it's my understanding that these minor adjustments are being offered with the understanding that they would not reopen the special use process.

MS. BROWN: I would like to ask you, please, Mr. Attorney, further, quoting from your memorandum of April 1, when you say that if the applicant makes a voluntary change on the floor during the hearing‑-and I assume that that's what this is, because we're still in the public hearing--and this was not presented at the first, but it is during this particular period‑-makes a voluntary change on the floor during the hearing and that change is not a material change, the council should allow further testimony from witnesses who wish to present evidence related to the specific modification offered and its effect on the one special use now before the council.

MR. KARPINOS: Right.

MS. BROWN: So it seems to me that either way that we only by way of sending out this particular information have indicated that there is some change. But there is change. And the public is only given this small opportunity, which is contrary to what we normally do. But it seems to me that either way, whether you are talking about requiring evidentiary support or whether you are talking about making voluntary change and then allowing further testimony, which seems to me to be more significant than tonight.

MR. KARPINOS: Well, I think that these changes were made at the last meeting, were proposed at the last meeting. They were part of the record as of the last meeting. And if you're asking‑-I'm not sure what your question is to me.

If your question to me is whether or not the citizens have had an opportunity to see these proposed changes and to comment on them, I believe that they have. I believe that they have been presented at the last hearing.

We're out there in public, and we're available for cross-examination at that time. They've been in the public record since the last meeting. And the citizens had an opportunity at the last meeting and at this meeting to present evidence and comment about them. So I believe that there has been that opportunity.

MS. BROWN: All of the changes? Because I read about some of them in the‑-

MR. KARPINOS: All of the changes to the special use permit infrastructure. And those are the only ones that the council is being asked to vote upon. The master plan changes are not before the council for voting.

MAYOR WALDORF: But they are before the council for information. And my understanding of the presentation from the manager and attorney is that if we ever get to that point, you would like the council's consent to rule them as minor modifications.

MS. BROWN: What I'm hearing you say is that there's no relation. But there seems to me to be a direct relation. Is that not the case?

MR. KARPINOS: For purposes of whether the council can make the finding that the infrastructure special use permit will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, the question before the council is whether the evidence as to the design of the infrastructure satisfies the council on that issue one way or the other.

And that's the issue that's before the council and the resolution that you have to choose from‑-the resolutions. It is not related to the master plan.

MR. CAPOWSKI: If that is true, Ralph, how then can applicant-proposed changes to the master plan be relevant tonight?

MR. KARPINOS: I think they're for your information. I think they are matters that you are being made aware of, but they're not changes to the infrastructure special use permit. The changes to the master plan are not part of this infrastructure.

MR. HORTON: I think it falls in the same category as a number of other items of information that may not be directly related to the question before the council, but which have been placed on the table before the council, either volunteered by citizens, the applicant or by the staff in response to questions by the council.

MR. CAPOWSKI: May I follow that? If an applicant, Ralph or Cal, says "I would like to make a change in street network"‑-and it is you or it is Ralph or it is the council that determines whether it is a minor or a major change.

MR. HORTON: The ordinance sets forth the standards that we would apply. And most of the time minor changes do not rise to the level of consideration by the council. There have been exceptions.

And there have been occasions when the council may recall that I've come to you and told you what my interpretation of the ordinance was in regard to a specific issue, and explained how I intended to proceed absent a different direction from the council. And I always respect the council's direction on matters of that nature.

MR. CAPOWSKI: But who is the decision-maker in this case? It is you?

MR. HORTON: In the end, the ordinance sets forth the manager as the decision-maker, yes, sir.

MR. CAPOWSKI: If that is the case, then why does your proposed Resolution A say that, quote, "That the council finds to be of a minor nature," referring to these infrastructure changes?

MR. KARPINOS: Well, I explained that to you before.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Well, I'm sorry. I missed it.

MR. KARPINOS: The distinction is that this application has gotten three-fourths of the way to approval and the fourth finding is still before the council, and that minor changes can be made at this point and can be incorporated into the design, which the council can approve, and that the incorporation of those minor changes does not reopen the design of this application to all four special use permit findings. The council is making the determination in this case as to the infrastructure minor changes being minor. And therefore, allowing them to be made without having to reopen the case to all four special use findings.

MAYOR WALDORF: Did you have another question?

MR. CAPOWSKI: Actually, I had‑-the whole thing started when I had a question for Dr. Goodman.

MAYOR WALDORF: And Julie has her hand up, and we still have two citizens signed up to speak.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Okay. Well, I can hold one of my questions. Then let me just‑-okay. I'll just hold it till later.

MAYOR WALDORF: Let me ask Joe‑-do you have a question for Phil Goodman?

MR. CAPOWSKI: I do.

MAYOR WALDORF: Would you please come forward, Mr. Goodman?

MR. CAPOWSKI: Phil, we were talking about information that you as citizens did not get in the‑-or you were talking about that and the disadvantage that it puts you at.

Well, one of the issues that has been‑-one of my issues has always been what will the impact on Raleigh Road be of Meadowmont. And one of the things we're always trying to do is to look in advance by comparisons.

Well, today at my place, finally we got a measure of what a 57,000-vehicle Raleigh Road would be. And it is that Glenwood Avenue in front of Crabtree Valley Mall has 54,900 vehicles per day.

Now, I received this at 7:00 p.m. this evening. I don't think you or any of the interested citizens who are on the mailing list ever saw that. Certainly that would sway public opinion if you ask the question, "Would we want to manufacture another Highway 70 in front of Crabtree Valley?"

So my question to you is, did you receive this information?

MR. GOODMAN: No, I did not receive that information.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you. Julie?

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Yeah, I have a couple of questions. But why don't we finish with‑-

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you. That would be good if we could do that. Mr. Wise. Are you still with us?

TESTIMONY OF EDMUND WISE

MR. WISE: I'm Edmund Wise of Burningtree. Madam Mayor and council, I have four things to talk about in short order.

In Mr. Perry's presentation at the April 2 meeting in discussing Meadowmont houses that would be just behind the Burningtree abutters, he listed the new building setbacks proposed.

My question is, does the word "setback" mean the same as the "no building, no parking line," a term that he previously used in this area? That's a simple question.

MAYOR WALDORF: Could we just have an answer to that now for the record?

MR. PERRY: Yes, Mr. Wise, that's correct.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you.

MR. WISE: My second point is that none of the abutters of Meadowmont on Burningtree Drive received any kind of handout in the mail at all. My third comment is Professor Eischen and I made a presentation on noise at the last meeting. In addition, we put in a document, a simple, one- or two-page document on noise, trying to get at the heart of the matter and why we think that we need a noise barrier along 54, paralleling the land on Burningtree and running into Meadowmont. And that letter does not seem to have been considered.

The fourth thing, if these are very minor changes, which let's assume they are for the moment, that have been presented by the applicant‑-and they've been presented just less than a week before the meeting. We've had five weeks since the last meeting, I think it is. And these are minor changes that are now just coming to the fore‑-if they are minor changes, why have they been made so late?

To an amateur like me, it's kind of a silly argument as to whether we're dealing with master land use plan changes, which these minor changes are, when we're really discussing the special use permit.

I think it's obvious that those changes, those minor changes, to the special land use plan have extraordinary import when we're considering the special use permit.

And I think along with Mr. Goodman we need more time to think about this. I've been away since last Wednesday. I've been assiduously looking for documents in the library relating to the last meeting.

The transcript of the last meeting was not in the library by the time that I left last Wednesday, the transcript of our last meeting that was four weeks before that.

The applicant's comments and changes, minor changes, were not in the library last Wednesday. As I say, I was away until last night. I went to the library today, hurriedly looked at things that were in the library.

We need more time on this. We need to think about these things. Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you, Mr. Wise.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: A quick point on that, Mr. Wise. We did receive a letter today at our place from George Krischbaum on the subject you've raised, kind of replying to your previous testimony.

MR. WISE: On noise?

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Yeah. On noise. So you might want to see a copy.

MAYOR WALDORF: John McCormick?

TESTIMONY OF JOHN MCCORMICK

MR. MCCORMICK: Yes. My name is John McCormick. I understand that the purpose of the council in holding this hearing is to hear evidence on the impact that Meadowmont has on the values of surrounding properties.

And I just have a simple statement that I'd like to make to that end. I own property at 23-A Littlejohn Road, which is at the intersection of Littlejohn and the service road that is parallel to 54.

Since the initial approval of the concept of Meadowmont, I've had two unsolicited offers to purchase that property at values that I thought were substantially more than the property is worth.

And they were from people who cited the increased value of all of the property in the area as a result of the approval of Meadowmont. And it seemed self-evident to me‑-I was not surprised by this, others I've talked to have not been surprised by the enhanced value of properties all around the Meadowmont development.

And one point in particular that I would like to make is that I think that the neighbors, many of the neighbors, feel that the proposed middle school that was to add a new neighborhood school to our system was a significant factor in people thinking that Meadowmont improved the values of properties by creating a neighborhood and a neighborhood school.

I'm convinced that the value of my property has been enhanced by the approval of Meadowmont. I just wish that we could get on with it. But I thought that was the purpose of this hearing. So I thought I would come and make those comments. Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you, Mr. McCormick. That's all the folks I have signed up to speak.

Mr. Perry, did you have something you wanted to say?

MR. PERRY: Mayor, let me make one quick closing statement, if I may.

CLOSING STATEMENT BY MR. PERRY

MR. PERRY: All of the minor changes that we have proposed to the special use permit and to the master land use plan clearly inure to the benefit and concerns that have been raised for the last seven years about Meadowmont.

In all due respect to Mr. Goodman and Mr. Wise, they're not empowered nor allowed to vote on this issue. That's your responsibility.

Clearly these proposals we have made improve and enhance the situation in and around Meadowmont. What you have heard is more disingenuous mumbo-jumbo in an effort to stall, delay and put off the action that you need to take.

And I'm asking you in all sincerity that the time is now. Vote yes, vote no. Just vote. Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: For the record, I asked the staff to give me some information about when were these materials put in the public library.

On Thursday morning at‑-I believe that's 10:15‑-the initial materials were put in. That means this and the manager's memo, which is not really not very long. And then Friday at 5:45 supplementary materials, which I believe must be this.

And this packet consists almost‑-I believe it consists entirely of documents from and to the State Department of Transportation that I think now have been entered into the record for the third time. So I just wanted to get that information in the record.

Joyce?

MS. BROWN: I'd like to get some information into the record, too. I have gone over all the correspondence that we've had in the record from the DOT.

And I think that I would like to have this clarified for the record. And there's been a number of figures thrown out about the traffic.

And in one of the DOT documents the statement is made that the proposed development could be expected to generate in excess of 31 [sic] trips. And that is in and out per day. And that is referring to the Meadowmont Drive-Friday Lane intersection.

I think that a lot has been made about the number of new trips per day this project will generate. But it's my understanding that the significant number which determines the level of service is the total number of trips in and out of an intersection.

So when we're thinking about the trips, then it would be this 31,000-plus trips. That's still an accurate figure for what is before us. Because I gather that what is before us is without any changes.

MR. HORTON: I'm not sure to which document you're referring, Council Member.

MS. BROWN: There's an August 2 memo from Mr. G.C. Faulkner, who is the design review engineer for the congestion management section of NCDOT.

MR. HORTON: August 2 or August 5?

MS. BROWN: I think it's August 2. He does refer to it in the August 5. I'm sorry. It is the August 5 document. There might be something in the August 2, too. But there is‑-it's on S-7‑-generated in excess of 31,000 trips in and out.

And that is my understanding of what determines the level of service. And that's the significant figure‑-whether the number of new trips per day generated. But it's the actual number of trips in and out, which could include pass-by trips, which is the significant number.

MR. HORTON: We can comment on that either through our traffic engineer or through the applicant's traffic engineer. I think the key point that I make in preface to that is that there have been some changes since August 5 that this letter would not take into account. And we would need to comment on that as well, perhaps.

MS. BROWN: I believe that there are subsequent letters in here which indicate that they recognize the changes that have taken place, but that they stand by the statements other than the changes that were made by NCDOT.

I don't know that I can get to that one right now, but I believe that that is part of what is in our--"The geometric improvements recommended in our previous review of the site should still be considered valid." I don't think that's the one.

But there is a statement in here, I believe, subsequent to this, which says that this is still a valid figure as far as the trips in and out of Meadowmont Lane, Friday Lane.

MR. HORTON: The numbers that we have reviewed and accepted are those that are in the transportation impact study that was conducted by the applicant in accordance with methods that we agreed were reasonable, and taking into account assumptions that we agreed were reasonable.

And if there are differences between the results of those studies and the state's studies, then we could comment on the particulars of them, I'm sure.

MS. BROWN: I believe that that figure is also in the traffic impact analysis of the consultant, is it not, 31,000 trips in and out?

MR. KRISCHBAUM: Ms. Brown, first of all, the 31,000 trips, I think as we went over it the last meeting that we attended of this group, was the total gross generation of trips assigned to Meadowmont. That was pre-pass-by, that was pre-internal capture.

The actual number of trips ascribed--new trips assigned to N.C. 54 was 24,514. That is approximately 12,500 in and out--not 24,500 out and 24,500 back in. Okay, that's a total, assuming total trips in and returning back out, either starting in Meadowmont going somewhere and returning, or coming to Meadowmont and going back.

So I want to first make sure that we understand that when we talk about what is the trip generation, if you'll look at your tables, it will show that wherever there is a total number like 31,000, that there are approximately 15,000 of those trips showing as in, and 15,000 showing as out.

Secondly, with all due respect to Mr. Faulkner and the North Carolina Department of Transportation, they are in the business of building the biggest roads that they can possibly build, so they use the biggest numbers that they are supplied. And they picked out the number that we sent to them and chose to seize on the 31,000 number as opposed to the 24,500 number. Why they do not wish at that stage to acknowledge pass-by trips or internal capture, I cannot tell you.

But I can tell you with a substantial degree of certainty that the 24,514 trips is the number that we have constantly talked about since 1996 without any exception, and that number is now reduced by the minor change proposals that we're talking about making.

MS. BROWN: I would like to ask you one further question. And that is about the Laurel Hill Drive. That was not included in your traffic projections, my understanding.

MR. KRISCHBAUM: There was an amendment that was made where we were asked to consider that. And the understanding--and I may be incorrect about this, but my understanding is that based on NCDOT's own traffic generation numbers for an extension, whether we call it Laurel Hill Parkway or whatever route it takes from our proposed Meadowmont Lane to someplace north toward Durham, that those trips were such, and the roadway network that they were showing in the transportation plan for the area was such, that that was considered to be essentially a wash in terms of what would go out the back of Meadowmont versus what would pass through from some other place, and that whatever trips were being added by that possible connection were being offset by Meadowmont trips that were not coming out on 54 to go either toward I-40 or toward 15-501, but were going north directly on whatever the connecting route turned out to be.

MS. BROWN: Then the figure 18,000 new trips per day for the Laurel Hill Drive, that is my understanding from the documents, and also I thought from other information that I received--18,000 new trips per day, Laurel Hill Drive.

MR. KRISCHBAUM: I'm not familiar with the number. I'm not--

MS. BROWN: Eighteen thousand new trips per day, if--when that connection is made down‑-

MAYOR WALDORF: To 15-501.

MS. BROWN: Through the Meadowmont Lane.

MR. KRISCHBAUM: And--I'm sorry, the source of that information is--

MR. CAPOWSKI: From a letter from Mr. Faulkner of the DOT. It's on supplemental page S-27.

MR. KRISCHBAUM: And what is he saying?

MR. CAPOWSKI: Eighteen thousand trips per day.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Is it 18 [sic] additional trips? Is that what you're saying?

MR. HORTON: I think we can get a clarification. I believe that that is not new trips; that's average daily traffic, as I understand it.

MS. BROWN: I think that you're right, it is--they would all be new since it wasn't built, and I was using that assumption, and I was using the wrong technical terms. I believe that that is the way it is designated.

MR. HORTON: Council Member, there are so many technical terms associated with this, I think every one of us must have made at least twice as many errors as you.

MS. BROWN: Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Do council members have other questions at this time?

MS. BROWN: Well, it seems to me significant that this was not added in, because it does seem that there is the possibility of a project being developed in Durham which would begin the Laurel Hill Drive part of that project.

And so it's making the connection likely, which could have an impact on this development, too, eventually. And I think that's the point that I'm making, these 18,000 trips per day.

MAYOR WALDORF: Julie had--you were holding another question.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Yeah. I wanted to come back to this question of whether we should be voting tonight or not. And that has to do with whether we're following due process here.

We've made, really, I think, great effort over the last few public hearings, particularly, to allow people to cross-examine witnesses, from whomever wished to do that. And I think that has really added quite a lot to the public hearing process.

You know, I'm concerned that there are a number of changes that are being proposed to this project, and the staff has come back to say that they consider these to be minor. And the two for the infrastructure permit, the twisting road and the larger lots, I can see where those might be considered minor.

But there are also a number of changes that are proposed for the master land use plan, which isn't on the table now, as I understand it--but a number of significant changes which also are being suggested to be minor.

And we set the rules here in the council about how we would conduct these hearings at the very beginning. And we consulted our attorney and consulted other attorneys, and the council voted‑-I didn't agree with it, necessarily, but to interpret the judge's order to focus on the question of property values, which is the third special use finding.

And I think it's very confusing to the public now. A lot of the conversation tonight has been on things other than property values. And they all came to these previous public hearings with the idea that's what they were supposed to talk about, and we said, "You can only talk about that." And now we're talking about all these other things.

So, it's almost as if we have the four findings on the floor, even though we said that we wouldn't do that. So that, taken with Dr. Goodman's concerns about not having the material and having a chance to react to it, I just want to ask the council, is this a good step for us to take, to--or wouldn't it be a good step to take, to give the public an adequate time to digest these changes?

I didn't really know--that slide may have been flipped up at the last meeting, but I didn't absorb those changes. I read a little bit about them in the newspaper, but it wasn't until I got my packet that I knew what the changes were that were being proposed.

So I think this is a due process issue, and I want to raise that, and kind of ask for some discussion on that issue.

MAYOR WALDORF: Before we talk about‑-the question you're raising is whether we should close the public hearing or not. Before we talk about that, could I just see if there are other questions anybody has to get answered? Joe?

MR. CAPOWSKI: I have a question to the staff, actually to Roger Waldon.

Roger, in your analysis of the evidence, you didn't even comment on how noise affects property values. Do you have a recommendation about this, based on the evidence that's been presented?

MR. WALDON: In my review of the evidence presented at the hearing, there was no evidence presented on the question of noise as it affects property values.

There was information presented about noise, and in particular, there was some material presented about guidance for engineers in designing new roadways, about what kinds of noise levels should be striven for--should try to achieve in what kinds of circumstances, in areas that are particularly sound sensitive, another category that included residential areas, and then another category that were areas that were not sound sensitive, particularly.

And so it was guidance for engineers about what decibel levels they ought to shoot for. But there was nothing in that material that spoke to the question of property values. And so that's why we didn't in our analysis of the testimony and evidence from real estate professionals and appraisers about property values, that's why we didn't comment on that.

There were a number of things in here that we've included in your packet. We gave you everything that had been handed up to you, but we didn't comment on every piece. We tried to focus on the evidence that was very specifically related to property values.

MR. CAPOWSKI: I understand what you've said. If you agree that there will be 57,000 cars per day on Raleigh Road in the year 2006 if Meadowmont is constructed as proposed--do you agree with that?

MR. WALDON: That's what the projections show.

MR. CAPOWSKI: And that there's 35,000 or 36,000 right now--then I think you would have to agree that there will be a substantial increase in the noise around Raleigh Road.

Do you have a recommendation to us one way or another about the construction of a sound wall or some other gadget for deadening noise?

MR. HORTON: Council Member, I don't think we have enough data to be able to know what kind of a change in the noise level, or what intensity there might be, what duration there might be. We just haven't been presented with any data that would allow us to know that. And we do not have any recommendations in regard to noise barriers.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Let me then ask Mr. Perry, would you be willing to build a sound wall parallel to Highway 54 from the Burningtree intersection several hundred yards to the east?

MR. PERRY: First of all, let me say that if there are 57,000 trips there, Meadowmont--which means about half will be going west and half will be going east, so that number is about 28,000 along there--which will be responsible for about 9,000 of them, which is roughly a third of them.

We want to be good neighbors and we want to be good citizens. We certainly aren't creating even a serious percentage of the noise, if there is any noise problem. But we'd be more than happy to work with those property owners and participate with them--if they chose to build a wall, we'd be glad to be good citizens and work with them on that. But by no means would we feel any responsibility to pay for a wall. We're not causing--if there is a noise problem, we are a very minor portion of it.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Any other questions? Joe?

MR. CAPOWSKI: This is actually for George Small. Is George still here?

Way back when, George--I don't know, 7 o'clock or so, we talked about traffic calming in general in the town, and you said that in your opinion, traffic calming for roads greater than 3,000 trips per day was not desirable. Is that a reasonable summary?

MR. SMALL: Roughly.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Now, what will the traffic--the wiggly Pinehurst connector that was proposed at the last public hearing is a form of traffic calming. That's why it's proposed. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the proposed traffic volume on that road will be somewhere in the 5,500 cars per day range?

MR. SMALL: I think that's correct, yes.

MR. CAPOWSKI: So therefore, I don't understand why you would allow a traffic calming device such as a winding road with two extra forced left turns at that volume of traffic.

MR. SMALL: Well, that's what we were saying, on existing streets that are carrying X amount of traffic, we want to try to move traffic. If your objective is to try to not have traffic go on a road, then that's a decision you can make, that you want to allow traffic calming on it.

So I haven't said that we have to put the traffic calming on there. It's an option that you would have. We set those limits for existing roads around town that we consider necessary to carry traffic. So if Pinehurst Drive carries 5,500 and you decide that you want a traffic calming policy that has a limit of 3,000, then Pinehurst Drive would not be a candidate for traffic calming.

MR. CAPOWSKI: No, I was asking your opinion as a professional licensed--licensed professional engineer, whether traffic calming is appropriate for a road greater than 3,000 cars per day. And your answer was no.

And yet the town staff is recommending the approval of the infrastructure special use permit with the wiggly Pinehurst connector and the two enforced left-hand turns going from the north. I read this as inconsistent operation of the staff. Maybe I'm wrong. Please help me.

MR. SMALL: I can't explain to you‑-I tried to explain to you the situation, that we set a figure that caught certain streets we felt had to carry traffic. And if you decide you don't want a street to carry traffic, then you would approve an idea that Mr. Perry would suggest for traffic calming.

And you've suggested necking down that section of Pinehurst Drive extension, and he's suggested a curvature in it. And all of those things would have some effect, probably, on at least speeds, if not volumes.

MR. HORTON: I think the key point that I would offer, Council Member, is that there is a difference between roads that exist now and have received a certain customary use over a period of time by citizens of Chapel Hill, and roads that don't yet exist and can be designed for purposes as desired by the council.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: Any other questions?

MS. MCCLINTOCK: I have one. I just wanted to clarify, go back to the master land use plan, which I just would like to have the answer before we close the public hearing, because I think that they are related.

Mr. Perry has suggested that he would agree to--or change the master land use plan in these series of different ways--moving square footages, changing from retail to office, so on and so forth.

Could you explain to me again, Mr. Manager, how are these changes to be memorialized? He just comes into the office and says, "I want these changes, Mr. Manager," and you just say, "Okay. I change them on the map." Or how does this happen?

MR. HORTON: You would actually have to formally apply for those changes, and then we would record them in the same fashion that we record other documents that run with land.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: So we could vote on this, for this infrastructure permit tonight, and if he chose not to come in with those changes, they wouldn't be made? Is that right?

MR. HORTON: If he chose not to come in with those changes, then I would not issue permits, because the council would have instructed me differently.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: So all the changes that Ms. Bateman was looking for would not be brought to fruition, basically.

MR. HORTON: If he did not--

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Correct. I just want to be clear.

MR. HORTON: Yes, ma'am, that's correct.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Yeah, just want to be clear. Thank you.

MAYOR WALDORF: But is it clear? I believe what the manager is saying is that without‑-that if this permit were issued by this council, and then if Mr. Perry failed to come through on his proposed minor modifications, that the manager would not issue the permit. Isn't that what you're saying?

MR. HORTON: That's correct, Madam Mayor, yes, ma'am.

MAYOR WALDORF: Nothing could happen.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: If he failed to come through with the minor modifications on the master land use plan--is that what you're saying?

MR. HORTON: If he fails--what I was commenting on was in regard to the special use permit.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: No, I wanted to clarify about the master land use plan.

MR. HORTON: I understand. If he fails to come forward with the master land use plan proposals, then I think that that would raise a question about any further permits, in my mind.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: In your mind--

MR. HORTON: Yes, ma'am.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: --but the council is the one that has to vote on them, right?

MR. HORTON: The council ultimately would have to vote on the others, yes, ma'am.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: But when you say "any further permits," what are we talking about? The infrastructure permit, or what?

MS. EVANS: Zoning compliance permit?

MR. HORTON: The other special use permits.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: The other special use permits, meaning which ones?

MR. KARPINOS: The ones that incorporate those parts of the master plan that haven't already received special use permits.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: So the ones that are coming down the pike--

MR. KARPINOS: Which is where he's proposing to make these changes.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Okay. So let me follow up on that, then. So a lot of the changes, then‑-that was something I wanted to ask about. A lot of the changes that were proposed in the manager's--excuse me, proposed by Mr. Perry, but in the manager's memo‑-changing a three-story building which is authorized in the master plan to be either retail or office from all retail to one story retail; restrict the use of two outparcels in the master plan authorized to be the retailer office; reduce and restrict the use of a third outparcel authorized in the master plan to be 27,500 square feet of mixed use to approximately a thousand square feet of office; restrict potential size of a project--all these pertain to the master land use plan, right?

MAYOR WALDORF: Roger, do you want to clarify all this?

MS. MCCLINTOCK: I want to ask the staff. I'm directing my question to staff. You can ask the‑-

MAYOR WALDORF: That's who I meant, Roger Waldon.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: All right, sorry. Two Rogers.

MR. WALDON: Too many Rogers. The procedural point I wanted to make is that the applicant has already come in with a request for those changes. You have in your packet the applicant's request for approval of those changes. So all that's left, really, on that point is for the manager to say yes.

MR. HORTON: The distinction I would offer, Roger, they are not on the table unless it's clear that the council would accept those as minor changes. Until such time as that is done, they are not effectively submitted.

MAYOR WALDORF: And if the special use permit is not granted, they are immediately withdrawn.

MR. HORTON: They are withdrawn. They are not valid, yes ma'am. That's why I phrased it in the future tense.

MAYOR WALDORF: Joyce had her hand up, and then Pat.

MS. BROWN: We were told earlier that this was simply information, and that we are not basing any decision tonight on that at all. Is that not what I heard you say?

MR. HORTON: Yes, ma'am.

MS. BROWN: And yet I'm hearing you say something very different for the future. So it's not real clear, because on the one hand--

MR. HORTON: I certainly agree.

MS. BROWN: --we are being told that this is not part of what we are saying, and on the other hand, are disscussing tonight or making decisions tonight, on the other hand we're told it is.

MR. HORTON: And the council has to make a choice about how it wishes to consider that information. I agree with that, Council Member.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay, let's see. Pat had her hand up, and I have one latecomer citizen who wants to speak.

MS. EVANS: Then let that person speak next.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Mr. Eischen? I'm sorry, I have trouble with your name. Eischen. I've got a block against being able to pronounce it right.

TESTIMONY OF JEFF EISCHEN

MR. EISCHEN: My name is Jeff Eischen. I live on Burningtree Drive. I just needed to clear something up. I submitted an article to the council three times, out of the Road Engineering Journal, the title of which was "Factors that Determine the Reduction in Property Values Caused by Traffic Noise."

And I think this article probably deserved at least one sentence in the memorandum. So I'll submit it again. Council Member Capowski asked whether there was any consideration given to these types of issues, and apparently there wasn't, and I think there probably should be.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you. All right. Pat?

MS. EVANS: Yes. I will move to close the public hearing.

MAYOR WALDORF: All right. There's a motion to close the public hearing. Is there a second?

MS. HIGGINS: Second.

MAYOR WALDORF: All right. Discussion is in order on whether to close the public hearing. Julie?

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Yeah. The question is, then, in my mind whether it's appropriate to vote on this, given the procedural problems that have been pointed out, and does the council want to make that decision before we vote to close the public hearing? Does that make sense or not? Does it make sense to make it after the closed public hearing?

MAYOR WALDORF: You mean decide whether we'll vote tonight or not vote tonight?

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Yeah, right.

MAYOR WALDORF: I think they're separate issues. I think you can close the public hearing and vote tonight, or you can close the public hearing and vote at a subsequent date. The motion on the floor is whether--I think we ought to discuss whether to close the public hearing right now, if that's agreeable. Joyce?

MS. BROWN: I think that there has been new information. And it's clear that there has been information that has not been in the public domain for a very long period of time, not since Wednesday. And I think that a lot of people probably don't know about this. People are beginning to take vacations, a lot of people are away.

This is a significant issue and it has significant implications for the town. I don't think that we should close the public hearing. I think that we should recess it and have people given the chance to comment on this new information that has been received.

I think it would be a serious mistake to close the public hearing tonight. I think that we should recess it.

MAYOR WALDORF: Any other comment? Pat?

MS. EVANS: This is not--I think some of what Joyce said had to do with whether the decision was going to be made tonight. I think that you even said yourself that information is in the public record, and it is. We've got it in the public record. It's not that it's not in the public record.

I also wonder how much material can we have in the public record. I mean, we've got 880 pages. I have two boxes of material at home. If I got ten more boxes, would it enter enough more information that my decision would be a more knowledgeable decision? I don't think so.

I think you reach a point in which you have to stop asking for more and more information. I mean, delay is a wonderful tactic to make issues go away, because many times applicants cannot tolerate the kind of delay that we tend to put them under.

We have now had 12, 13, 14 1/2 hours of public hearing. We have had an immense amount of public input on the issue, and much of it not on the issue. There are other issues that depend upon whether we move forward with this tonight.

If any of you listened to the school board meeting--and I guess some of the residents who are complaining of not getting the material were probably out of town--all of this is having a huge impact on whether a middle school will be constructed, how it will be constructed, where it would be constructed, and how long our middle schools are going to tend to be overcrowded.

And I think that we need to represent the entire community. I am very tolerant and I have listened patiently to a handful of citizens. But I think that no matter how much more information would come before us, I cannot believe that they would ever change the viewpoint which they speak to.

So this is why I'm saying, I guess, enough is enough. And I move to close the public hearing.

MAYOR WALDORF: Julie.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Yeah. I think, actually, Pat, I don't think the issue is whether--even whether we change our minds or not, so much as whether we've given folks a chance to respond to the new evidence that's been offered.

And I think it's really important that procedurally we cross the T's and dot the I's. That's what we're supposed to be doing. And I think the process is very, very important to preserve. And perhaps you need no more information.

The point here is that we need to allow the citizens to respond to the new project that is now on the table.

MAYOR WALDORF: Kevin?

MR. FOY: I'm not sure we need more information on this topic, but this is news to me. When we got our packet, whenever we got this information on Friday, that we've been going through this process with the understanding that we were only looking at property values.

And those are the rules we have asked everyone to play by. Now, there's a distinction being made between the master land use plan and the infrastructure permit.

Apparently, changes to the master land use plan can be initiated--I'm not sure on what basis--but they can be initiated without any particular relevance to property values. This seems to me to be new information that I heard for the first time.

And I think that Julie may be right, that other people are hearing this for the first time as well. I don't really want to delay this, but I wonder if there are other changes to the master land use plan that might be possible.

For instance, I've heard discussions of whether or not there could be more affordable housing in this development. I haven't entertained the possibility of that because it was my understanding that we were talking about property values, and I don't see a direct correlation between property values and affordable housing.

I do see a direct correlation between an improved project and affordable housing. Now, suddenly, it seems that we are able to entertain that possibility because we don't have the same criteria when we look at the master land use plan as when we look at this infrastructure permit.

So, to me, this presents a completely different picture of what it is that we're actually doing.

MS. WIGGINS: Rosemary?

MAYOR WALDORF: Yes, Edith.

MS. WIGGINS: I think we're on this track now because one council member, Flicka Bateman, asked for a reduction in traffic. And Flicka, maybe you can speak to whether or not when you asked for that reduction, whether you were asking for that in relation to how you were going to make a property value evaluation and judgment.

Because that is why the applicant did not volunteer this on his own, out of the blue. It was in response to a request. So I guess--I was assuming that you made that request because you saw a relationship between the reduction in traffic and property values. But could you just help me?

MS. BATEMAN: I certainly did. And that seemed to me to be the thrust of most people's arguments in terms of property values, was the amount of traffic that was going to be generated.

It seemed to me that if we got the traffic down to the 18,000, 18,500 range, that would, if we follow the formula that we've been following, that 10 percent of that would then spill over onto Pinehurst and Burningtree, that that would mean 1,826 cars would go over--would increase onto Pinehurst and Burningtree over a 10-year period.

And that seemed to me to be something that I wanted to take into consideration when I looked at the issue of property values.

MR. FOY: But nevertheless, one of the paragraphs the staff has put forward that we are to take into consideration is the amenities. And I assume by amenities they mean in the broadest sense of how this development will positively have an impact on our community.

And they're telling us specifically to take that into consideration when we make our determination. And I'm just suggesting that this is getting much broader than what I thought we were entertaining. And, you know, I think that bears some consideration.

MAYOR WALDORF: Joyce?

MS. BROWN: I agree with that, but I'd like to make another point. And that is--and I would like you all to correct me if this isn't true--but these kinds of analyses are not science. It's like we've heard various citizens and various professional people give very different viewpoints about property values.

And we could also have other people analyze these same proposed changes and perhaps come up with different sorts of recommendations, or different sorts of--not necessarily different sorts of statements that would not necessarily be in agreement. Because this kind of thing is not a science. Is that not--would you--

MR. HORTON: We do the very best we can to be rigorous and to follow good methodology and to interpret ordinance sections consistently. And there is always room for reasonable people to disagree about the meaning of words, as we have seen tonight on several occasions.

MS. BROWN: But also about information and analysis of figures.

MR. HORTON: Yes, ma'am, that is correct.

MS. BROWN: So, I think to go along with what Kevin has just said, that we do have new information that could, I think--should be in the public domain to allow public scrutiny. Because I think that we have really informed citizens in Chapel Hill, and they do a very good job of analyzing it and scrutinizing just this kind of thing.

And I think that that--what Flicka said is the argument to at least have more input from the citizens so that we can get the varied opinions on this from the citizenry of Chapel Hill, or any other professionals who want to comment on this information.

MAYOR WALDORF: Lee?

MR. PAVAO: If we follow that thesis, what happens if we delay this once again and we approach it next time, whenever that is, and someone else brings up something else that's thought of as new evidence, do we then delay it again? And we continue delaying it for as long as someone has an objection to something that's going on? I don't think so.

I think, you know, as Pat said, we've listened to 15 hours of testimony. We have 800 pounds of‑-or 808 pages, which could be 800 pounds, of testimony. And I just think that we should get on with it, and I call the question.

MAYOR WALDORF: Well, I would like to say something, if I might, even though you've called the question.

MR. PAVAO: Madam Mayor, I defer to you.

MAYOR WALDORF: I would like to close the public hearing, and I would like to conclude this matter. The job that's been given us is to take evidence on the property values matter. We've done that for 14 1/2 hours and for eight hundred and some pages, and this is our job to decide this.

So I will vote in favor of closing the public hearing. I believe that the information that is new was out on Thursday, and I believe that the individuals who are most interested in this project knew that it was going to be out on Thursday or Friday, and if they were in town, were able to track it down.

So, the question has been called. So let's vote on whether to close the public hearing. There's been a motion to close the public hearing. All in favor, please say "aye."

(Ayes respond.)

MAYOR WALDORF: All opposed, "no."

(Nos respond.)

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay, so the "nos" are Foy, Brown, McClintock. The ayes are Bateman, Capowski, Waldorf, Pavao, Evans and Wiggins.

Okay, Lee?

MR. PAVAO: Having concluded the public hearing--and as I've said earlier, we've been at this for an awfully long while, and we've heard lots of testimony and lots of evidence. And if anyone doubts it, just that red volume will give you an indication of what we've listened to.

Throughout it all, I've attempted to be objective, and I've been quiet, and I've listened intently. I heard a good deal of testimony and evidence presented by professionals, and I agree with you, Joyce, on the effect that traffic would have on property values.

One clear message that came across, professionals, experts, do not necessarily agree. Experts use different methods of measurement for criteria. I asked myself the question, if samples taken from Raleigh, Charlotte and Greensboro would not have validity, do I then assume that a Kansas City study is also irrelevant?

Kansas City seems to be further away from Meadowmont than Raleigh, Charlotte, and Greensboro. They're still in North Carolina, closer to home, and perhaps a better measuring tool.

I did some of my own research, however, and read some things from the past that in their day were contentious and thought to certainly negatively impact property values.

As an example, the Interfaith Council asked the Town for permission to build Elliott Woods. Elliott Woods is low-income housing behind the Church of the Reconciliation. The surrounding neighborhoods rose in unison to protest. Property values would be impaired.

I don't believe this has happened. In fact, new houses have been built with Elliott Woods in their back yards, and values have not been damaged. The same is true of the public housing at Ridgefield. The old Ridgefield neighborhood protested loudly, of course they would. This project was literally in their back yards. But here again, the houses have increased in value year after year.

On North Lakeshore Drive, traffic has doubled from Kensington to Kenmore since 1993. I didn't find that property values have suffered in this neighborhood, even though North Lakeshore Drive is narrower than Pinehurst Drive and has a sidewalk on only one side of the street.

I even studied real estate multiple listings. I have them here. The real estate multiple listings were The Oaks properties from 1992 to 1998. I found several homes had sold twice during that period, each time at a profit.

Profits ranged from a low of $14,000 to a high of $115,000. A citizen testified that they had used Meadowmont as a negotiating tool and had obtained a very good deal. But even then, the seller realized a $34,000 gain in slightly less than three years. That's not a bad return on your investment.

Two houses did sell for less, but there were very strong factual and provable reasons why the loss occurred. Another thing that was mentioned during this testimony that we heard was inflation and the cost of living index.

Curiously, the IRS does not equate or take that into full consideration when they are considering capital gains on the sale of an asset. I was originally ambivalent with regard to the Pinehurst connector.

The testimony of citizens from Rogerson, Cleland, Little Creek, and Burningtree swayed my decision. I believe that they will adversely be impacted far more with the connector closed.

A citizen stated that public amenities of Meadowmont are viewed as a strong benefit to the community at large. The citizen further said that government should not penalize a few for the good of the majority. I contend the government does just that. They do it for the entire community.

However, after all this testimony, rhetoric and evidence, I remind you, as we've been saying repeatedly tonight, that the court directed us to hear additional evidence on one thing and one thing alone‑-will the development maintain or enhance property values of contiguous property.

I think it certainly will. But if I'm wrong, I'm comforted by Mr. Perry's offer to post a bond that will protect the value of contiguous property.

Also, at Council Member Bateman's request, he has attempted to reduce trip generation by about 25 percent, and he has also attempted to accommodate the residents of contiguous property on Burningtree.

I strongly believe that the citizens of Chapel Hill will be served very well by Meadowmont, and I am prepared, as I hope the rest of my colleagues are, to vote in favor of Meadowmont tonight. Please, let's get on with it. I move Resolution A.

MS. EVANS: Second.

MAYOR WALDORF: Resolution A has been moved and seconded. Further discussion? Julie?

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Yeah. In terms of weighing what we're to be citing, I think it comes down to a question of do you believe that traffic affects property values. And I have some experience I'd just like to relate to the council in that regard.

Also in your neighborhood and in my neighborhood, Lee. And that is in regard to the‑-not the Coker Hills--yeah, the Coker Hills neighborhood association quite a few years ago--and I don't remember exactly the year--met with the property appraiser from Orange County.

And as you know, Curtis Road is kind of the entranceway to Lake Forest, and many cars travel that road. In fact, I think at that time it was about 5,000 cars a day, which is equivalent to what we're talking about in Mr. Collins's neighborhood.

And the folks, when they got their new‑-that was the year of the reevaluation, and everybody was upset when they got their tax bills. And so the neighborhood association invited the tax appraiser to come meet with them.

And as a result of what they felt, that they were in a position of incurring more traffic than other people, their appraised value was lowered, and their evaluation was lowered.

Now, that I know is not as important as actual resale price in determining the relationship of traffic to homes, but to me it was a very--it was a personal experience that affected me.

I've also worked very hard to keep my own road from being a cut-through road, and really felt that it would impact my neighborhood adversely if, as the town wanted, to connect Kensington Drive to Estes Drive. And we calculated at that time five to seven thousand cars would come down that road.

That was a very--I think everyone in my neighborhood was concerned about that, the safety of their children, and felt that the traffic would adversely affect their property values.

But I think what we need to consider here is really a narrow question. And I was one of the ones who wanted to really open up the whole special use permit and look at all the findings, and look at traffic and safety and all the other aspects of this development, because I think we should be looking at that.

And I lost on that vote, and this council decided that we would look at the narrow interpretation, which was to look only at this question, which is, are property values adversely affected or enhanced and maintained by the result of building Meadowmont.

And I cannot come down to the conclusion that they are enhanced and maintained if I looked at Mr. Collins's property. Going from--if it naturally had been developed at the residential densities to 1,900 trips up to 4,500, there's just no way I can say that this property is not harmed.

And I do not agree with the town manager's definition of "maintain." It just isn't common sense to me that everything in Chapel Hill won't eventually go up, but it seems to me that what we're talking about when we say "maintain" is maintain at some kind of average rate, that one would match that and not be deleteriously affected.

And if the area around Meadowmont appreciates at a lower value, to me that isn't being maintained. So that's the reason why I do not think that we can make the finding to the answer to this question, which is really the question that we all have to answer.

MAYOR WALDORF: Edith?

MS. WIGGINS: I believe it's essential for new development to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. Both sides have presented interesting and compelling evidence to support their positions relative to the proposed Meadowmont project.

On April 2, the developer offered to make, I believe, some very important adjustments to Meadowmont to insure that the property values contiguous and in the vicinity of the proposed project are not adversely affected.

These adjustments, along with the bond and the offer tonight to make the adjustments necessary to reduce traffic associated with Meadowmont by 25-plus percent, satisfies me that the property values in and around Meadowmont will be maintained and/or enhanced.

Therefore, I am prepared to support the motion that's on the floor.

MAYOR WALDORF: Joe?

MR. CAPOWSKI: For me, it all comes down to one word, and the word is "legacy." What do I choose in my now six-and-a-half years on the Chapel Hill Town Council to leave the citizens of Chapel Hill, and more specifically, the people who commute and live and work in eastern Chapel Hill.

A few years ago a somewhat similar mixed- use proposal called Southern Village came in front of this Town Council, and I voted for it. It consisted of about 1,300 houses and about two hundred and something thousand square feet of office and commercial space.

Meadowmont's got about the same amount of houses, but it's got triple the amount of office and commercial space. The jury is still--the housing in Southern Village seems to be working well. The jury is still out on the commercial.

I was proud to support the Southern Village proposal, and I hope that it does very well. However, I see Meadowmont with two major differences. First, when you go back to the way Southern Village was processed, we took a 3,000 acre area of town, we knew the zoning of the area, we made a doughnut.

What we did was down-zone the structure of the doughnut and up-zone the hole of the doughnut so that all of the population that would have grown into the hole region was centered or clustered or concentrated right in the center.

And that was Southern Village--easiest to serve by all the standard reasons why that's good, easiest to serve by public facilities, good for mass transit--all the standard reasons.

Meadowmont has no peripheral downzoning. It is pure up-zoning; it is pure growth. The second difference is that in the Southern Village case, the commercial was designed primarily for the people who live in Southern Village. It was not designed to be a major regional automobile-dominated shopping center.

That's what we see here, in my opinion, in Meadowmont. Now, Meadowmont has advantages. We've heard them all. But every bit of it is dominated by the automobile. If it's pedestrian-friendly, why does it need a thousand parking spaces at the village center?

If it's serving the local community, why does it need visual access and easy car access to get shoppers who are driving down Highway 54? Yes, Meadowmont will restore 24 acres of meadows. But if Raleigh Road will look like Highway 70 in front of Crabtree Valley, just consider some restored meadows in front of Crabtree Valley, and that's what we'll have.

I think we can do better. I think we can get a down-sized mixed-use project that will concentrate its commercial and office facilities for the people who live there, truly reduce cars, truly make mass transit work, truly be friendly to the environment, but I don't think Resolution A will accomplish that, and so I will not support Resolution A.

MAYOR WALDORF: Flicka?

MS. BATEMAN: Yes. I would like first, before I deliver my speech, that I had, by the time I--well, I checked my messages at home today at lunchtime and I had eight. I got home around 5:30 and I had 14 more.

Out of all of those, only two people said, "Don't vote tonight." Everybody else said, regardless of which position, it was "Vote tonight." So I--I mean I feel very comfortable in going ahead with this. I feel like that we certainly owe it to the community. I think everybody is ready to vote for this--ready for us to decide, one way or the other.

Okay, now let me give my speech, and I'm going to beg your indulgence, because it's a long one. But I've been listening a long time, too.

On December 18 at 4:00 p.m. I submitted an application to fill the Town Council seat vacated by Mark Chilton. At 7:00 a.m. the next morning, I opened my newspaper to the headline, "Judge remands Meadowmont to Town Council."

This is not a vote that I had wanted to make, nor thought that I would have to make. However, having accepted the responsibility of office, it's one that I am making after much study, input, and thought.

I have watched tapes of Town Council meetings on Meadowmont going back to 1994. When none were available, I've read the minutes. I even watched tapes of the public hearings that we have had since March. I am not offering this as--or not suggesting that I'm a masochist so much as to say to you that I have given this my best shot.

My thanks to the many citizens and my colleagues on the Council who have shared their opinions with me.

There are two points many people have made that I want to publicly take issue with. The first involves criticisms of people in The Oaks who brought forth the lawsuit. I think that they have been unfairly blamed for the, quote, "loss of a school site, for the waste of taxpayers' money," and so forth.

Not only is it their legal right to question a council decision, but if I were in their shoes, I might have done the same thing.

The second issue is what people on both sides of the question have said. "Oh, come on, Flicka, this is a no-brainer. Vote for Meadowmont." Or, "Oh, come on, Flicka, this is a no-brainer. Vote against Meadowmont."

To me, it is very much a brainer, a weighing of positives and negatives. Some have suggested that I hold out until we get only the positives, until we get an ideal development. I don't think I've had an ideal situation in my entire adult life, and I am enough of a realist to not start looking for it in Meadowmont.

I asked East-West Partners to come back with some changes that, when lumped together, would reduce the traffic generated by the development from 24,500 to the 18,500 range. That's been done. I've explained my reasoning. I won't take up your time with that again.

I do want to say that throughout town, throughout the Triangle, we are all living with more traffic. But I'm the only person who has to live with myself, and I don't want to see an additional 400 to 500 half-a-million dollar homes on this site.

I want to see us begin to whittle away at the increasing homogeneity of our town. This development, despite its flaws, in my opinion has one salient characteristic going for it--a variety of housing types. Some upscale, a paltry few which meet the definition of "affordable housing," and many moderately priced, by Chapel Hill standards.

I believe that this variety of housing units will attract a spectrum of people that's healthy for our community. When I applied for this seat, I said if appointed, I would think for myself, and that I would not come in with any prejudgments. I made it very clear that I was in nobody's back pocket.

The rubber met the road on Meadowmont. The more I studied, the more I listened, the more I tried to apply reason, not emotion, to the question, the more convinced I have become that property values will be maintained or enhanced. I'm going to vote for Resolution A.

Finally, where do we go after tonight's vote? To my colleagues, I suggest that as a town and as a council, that we need to move forward. There are other weighty and complex issues that need our attention. I will continue to look at each one objectively and fairly, and then I will vote my conscience. And I pledge to respect each of you for voting yours.

MAYOR WALDORF: Any comments anybody wants to make?

MR. FOY: Well, I do want to make a comment. I think that clearly this project could be designed in such a way that it maintains or enhances property values, but it's not. And that represents a failure of imagination, and a failure on the part of this community to insist that we actually do fulfill our promise to the future.

And that I think is something that we all do have to live with. But we can certainly continue to create a better community. This is, as Flicka said, not the only issue that we have to deal with as members of this community.

But I also have to take issue with the way that we've done this, because I don't think that we have--I don't think that we've been fair in this hearing, despite the rhetoric about it taking so many hours and being such a burden on everyone.

I don't think that it's fair at this point to say that we're going to accept these changes and call them minor changes because that's a matter of convenience.

I think that we could certainly--we should take this permit and we should vote for it as it was presented originally, not with minor changes, not with major changes.

Major changes or modifications or whatever you want to call them, require the public process. As awful and ugly as anyone thinks that may be, that's what the law is and that's what we respect. And I don't think that we should be at this point changing the rules of the game.

And I would remind the Council that we asked for a legal opinion, and the legal opinion was, not just from our town attorney, but from an outside attorney, that "It's my recommendation that the Council not make changes in the stipulations to the special use permit. To do so could open up questions regarding the effect on other citizens and other property owners, whose rights or property values had not been previously affected."

And that's what we've done. We asked for a legal opinion, we used it to set up a process where we said, "All we're going to consider is property values," and then when we get to the last minute, suddenly we take into consideration other possibilities.

There certainly are other possibilities. There's a better Meadowmont, but we're not getting it.

MAYOR WALDORF: Joyce?

MS. BROWN: I don't have a prepared speech, but I would like to say some things and make some points.

The first is that when we began this process of developing a set of goals for mixed use for the east entranceway, I had very high hopes for something really creative and imaginative, something different for Chapel Hill to come about. Because I think that we actually developed a good set of goals.

I don't think that this project conforms to that set of goals that we developed and struggled so hard over. I think that if it were, then I would welcome voting for this project. But I can't, because I don't think that this conforms to what we put in the comprehensive plan, that really good set of goals concerning mixed use.

I'd also like to talk about what we have before us here tonight. And that is a special public hearing on what we were told that we had to have a public hearing on. And this has been said before, but I will say it again, that we were having a public hearing on strictly the value of property values for contiguous property.

I would like to quote from the public hearing from Mr. Brough's statement. He said that the only issue--that the question before us was the question of property values, and the effect on property values. He said he was very troubled by the concept that at the eleventh hour the developer is allowed to come before and suggest that changes ought to be made.

And I think that we cannot ignore the fact that changes were suggested, and even the council requested that the developer make changes. The developer did not comply with that, but at the eleventh hour changes were made at the last public hearing, and then since that public hearing, at the request of Council Member Bateman, also additional changes as we have seen tonight were suggested that they're not part of this public hearing. They are, because of the information.

But I think that the point that Mr. Brough made is a significant one, and that is the burden of proof on property values remains with the applicant. And that if we are not persuaded one way or the other by all of this evidence, then you can't issue the permit. And I think that that's what I'm basing my decision on, to vote against this.

MAYOR WALDORF: I think that Mr. Brough raised the question of--it's almost like the reasonable doubt question, and I think that Mr. Loewy raised that tonight too. And I guess I respectfully disagree. I think that the people who have entered evidence and testimony that this proposal is going to maintain or enhance values have made their case very convincingly.

And the case for approval has been made by many voices. Credible evidence about the local market points to a positive finding. And the evidence was entered by certified professionals. And I apologize for making this speech, but I'll tell you, I'm making it for the judge who may look at this record someday.

Flicka talked about how she felt the morning she read it in the newspaper. When I read in the newspaper that Judge Battle had remanded this back to the council, I think it's how I would have felt if I had discovered that I was accidentally pregnant at age 49. It was not welcome news.

So I want to make it clear for the record that I'm basing my vote on the evidence that has been entered into the record on the property values question, and I'm sorry to bore my fellow council members with this.

But I want to make specific reference to Mr. Swift's examples that showed that increased traffic in towns and neighborhoods where there is considerably more supply of higher-end housing than there is in Chapel Hill were persuasive.

His non-Chapel Hill examples factored in no traffic-calming measures, and steps required by the special use permit and freely offered by the applicant off-site clearly do that in this case.

I think that in this town, the demand for housing is going to stay strong, for high-end housing in particular, is going to stay strong, because of the presence of the university, because of our reputation as a nice place to live, and because of the strong profile of the public schools inside the Triangle area.

The Kansas City study which was referenced many times does not attempt any analysis of the markets in this area, and it looks at streets that have a whole lot heavier traffic than what we've got to consider in this area.

It looks at streets that are both two-lane and four-lane. It looks at neighborhoods that are 25 to 40 years old, and it does not look at enhancements, and it doesn't look at the existing detractions in Kansas City. It really only looks at traffic.

There have been a lot of contentions put forward about how much property values need to rise in order for them to be maintained. I really don't believe that North Carolina property owners under North Carolina law have any absolute right to have their property appreciate at some predictable or codified level.

There are lots of influences on property values--town, neighborhood, nearby amenities, closeness of shopping, closeness of schools and parks, ease of access to roads and some other form of transportation, the reputation of the neighborhood, safety, upkeep, age of the house, features of the house, features of the yard, general economic conditions, interest rates, local economic conditions, and very importantly in Chapel Hill, housing supply.

I think the traffic reductions achieved by Ms. Bateman--and I congratulate her for that--and the other minor adjustments offered by the applicant strengthen the position that property values will be maintained or enhanced.

And I want to point out that Chapel Hill's test here, to maintain or enhance, is a higher bar than some have. The comparable Carrboro ordinance, for example, requires that the governing board find that a proposal--and I quote, "Will not injure the value of adjoining or abutting property."

So I support Meadowmont as a well planned development. I think it's going to be beneficial to the broad community, and I think it's going to be a good neighborhood to live in. And I think it will offer excellent and not otherwise obtained amenities for those who live near it.

I guess I just wish to say for the record that on the property values question, after consideration of the entire record, I conclude that the evidence is on the side of maintaining and enhancing the values of contiguous property.

And I want to say that I so much appreciate the feeling that has been expressed by so many council members that we are on this very difficult subject, what has been a very, very difficult subject in this town for several years, but I am hearing people say that we can agree to disagree and respect each other as people. And I am very appreciative of that. Julie?

MS. MCCLINTOCK: I just have a question for the council in regard to traffic calming for Pinehurst, since there appears to be a vote to vote for this infrastructure permit. Is that something that the council could consider at this point, for this permit?

MAYOR WALDORF: Well, it's--traffic calming is already stipulated in the special use permit, correct?

MR. HORTON: Yes, ma'am, on the section within the limits of the special use permit.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: But not on Pinehurst Drive outside the limits?

MR. HORTON: That is correct.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: That is what I was talking about. I was thinking of the effect on the neighborhood streets that this project will have. And is there interest in supporting that on the part of the council?

MS. BATEMAN: Sure. You're talking about the couple--

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Yeah, Rogerson, Pinehurst, all the areas around it.

MS. BROWN: Could you repeat your request? I'm sorry.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: I'm asking whether there is interest on the council to either ask the developer to help fund traffic calming improvements, or for the town to pay for it, either one. We're obviously heading towards approval, so I'm asking whether there is interest on the part of the council.

MS. BROWN: Haven't we already requested information from the staff to come back to us with a report on traffic calming possibilities in these adjacent neighborhoods?

MS. MCCLINTOCK: But that would be a town expense, Joyce.

MS. BROWN: Right, and I would like to ask--I would agree to asking the developer to be part of that.

MAYOR WALDORF: I guess I want to ask whether it's appropriate to deal with this motion and then deal with that request. I really don't want this to be remanded to us again. And I want to do this procedurally correctly. I want to achieve what you guys are bringing up, but let's keep it clean.

MS. BATEMAN: I really agree with Julie. I think it ought to be tied together. So I would support some--

MAYOR WALDORF: I would like some legal advice on this, please.

MR. KARPINOS: I'm not sure I understand what the question is.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Well, I guess I would like to know, Mr. Attorney, how--if you could tell us, if the council were interested in getting some traffic calming improvements for Pinehurst Drive that's outside of Meadowmont, and for Rogerson Drive, how we could do that at this point.

MR. KARPINOS: Get the developer to do something?

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Yes.

MR. KARPINOS: I don't think you can. I think the hearing has been closed, the evidence has been in, and I think the question before you is the resolution.

I don't believe that at this point, without reopening the hearing and seeing what kind of design was proposed and then allowing evidence to be presented about that, that it's an opportunity to discuss that.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Well, then, if that's the answer and Town Council accepts the answer of our attorney, then I would propose that the Pinehurst neighborhood and the affected areas receive the highest priority in terms of town funds for traffic calming. I'd be willing to support a bond issue, frankly.

MR. CAPOWSKI: May I ask Ralph a related question? Would it be okay for us to reopen this public hearing for the sole purpose of discussing traffic calming in the neighborhoods peripheral to Meadowmont?

MR. KARPINOS: You have a motion on the floor that's been seconded. That's what is before you. What you are asking to do is, rather than doing that, you would substitute for that a motion to reopen the public hearing.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Depending on what you would suggest, we might move to table Resolution A just until we then closed the public hearing whose subject is narrowly limited to talking about traffic calming in the peripheral neighborhoods.

MR. KARPINOS: I think you can substitute any motion you wish for the motion that's on the floor. The question is whether that motion will pass or not. But in order to take other evidence and consider making adjustments, the first thing you need to do is reopen the public hearing.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Then can we do that right now? Does that require notice, or what?

MR. KARPINOS: I think you could do that now.

MAYOR WALDORF: You know, I think‑-I wonder if there's another way to do this. I wonder if it might be possible to enter into a negotiation with this developer and this neighborhood apart from this special use permit process, and try to see if we can get anywhere in that way.

What you're looking for, Julie, I think is financial support on the part of the developer.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: That's right. But I think we aren't going to have much negotiating power, having granted the permit.

MR. CAPOWSKI: We have our lever now.

MR. FOY: Ralph just said we can reopen the public hearing.

MR. KARPINOS: If you wish, the motion before you--you can enter a substitute motion and move to reopen the public hearing and take additional evidence, and then allow persons who wish to speak on that issue speak on it, and then talk to the developer at that time.

But I think you need to do it in the context of the hearing being open.

MR. CAPOWSKI: I would like to make that motion.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. You're going to make a substitute motion to reopen the public hearing for the limited purpose of discussing with the applicant--

MR. CAPOWSKI: Traffic calming in the peripheral neighborhoods.

MAYOR WALDORF: --traffic calming improvements in the peripheral neighborhoods.

MR. FOY: Second.

MS. EVANS: May I say something?

MAYOR WALDORF: Well, you can say something about whether to substitute this motion for the main motion. That's what comment is in order on, about whether to substitute it.

MS. EVANS: I can't comment on the substance of the substitute motion?

MAYOR WALDORF: Well, you can say why you think it's appropriate or inappropriate. But let's not talk about traffic islands, okay?

MS. EVANS: No, I won't. I won't get specific. We heard tonight that some kinds of traffic calming costs $2,500. How much--this is an off-site improvement which has questionable legality in the court as it is, if we go ahead and ask for traffic calming in a neighborhood that is away from the site. We've asked for it on the site already. We've asked for it on Pinehurst Drive on the Meadowmont side.

How much delaying, how much--I mean, we can raise taxes, we can do our own bond. We're going to get lots of requests. We're going to have requests for traffic calming. Can't we pay for them in a clean way, rather than trying to get--I don't care who the applicant is, whether it's somebody who wants to build four houses or whether it's somebody who wants to build a congregate care facility.

I think it's inappropriate to continue to‑-I mean, we have--for seven years we have requested things for the community from this applicant. And now we're talking about--it's kind of like the budget. We get down to the end, and it's an issue of $2,500. I mean, I think this is very inappropriate.

MAYOR WALDORF: The discussion is whether to substitute this motion for the main motion, and then only if we voted to substitute it would we then vote on the substance of Joe's motion. Edith?

MS. WIGGINS: I don't think we need to approve the substitute motion, because I think there is unanimous support around the council to implement traffic calming for the neighborhoods that will be affected by this project.

And for those areas that we feel will be affected but aren't contiguous, if the council makes the decision to proceed with this project, then it's our responsibility then to go back and fund whatever traffic calming is agreed upon by the people that live in those neighborhoods, the staff, and the council.

That's going to be a long process. We have no idea what the final figure will be. But I have every confidence that it will be a unanimous vote to support traffic calming. The notion, then, to me is let's see if we can squeeze the funding of this from the developer, somehow just doesn't seem right.

It just seems that--and let me hasten to say, Roger Perry will not give me any money, I will not profit, not one bit, from Meadowmont. So my comments in terms of believing that he is not responsible for paying for these off-site--he has not paid me to say that, and I will not profit from it in any way.

I mean, I think we all are talking about our values and our positions as it relates to this project. So all I'm saying is, if we approve Meadowmont and we believe some traffic calming is in order, then let us pay for it, and not try to--it feels like a kind of a vendetta, a kind of a punishment, or "Let's see what else we can do to this man since we're going to approve this project."

I'm not saying that's the way it is for any council member‑-

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay, council, we're getting some pretty juicy stuff into the record here, I think. Lee?

MR. PAVAO: May I?

MAYOR WALDORF: Please.

MR. PAVAO: I don't know if I remember correctly, but it seems that somewhere along in this process, there were discussions going on between the neighbors on Pinehurst Drive and the developer, and that the developer at that particular moment in time was willing to consider some sort of traffic calming on Pinehurst, and that the neighbors cut it short because they didn't want to do that. They wanted to go on with a public hearing, and they wanted to go on with this process. And we've gone on with the process. So now, we're saying, "Well, we said no, but let's stick it to him one more time. Let's come back and do it again."

And, you know, I just don't know if we're acting in--to use your word, Joe, in a way that we want to leave as a legacy to this town, frankly.

MAYOR WALDORF: Joe?

MR. CAPOWSKI: This, by the applicant's own numbers, this project generates 25,000 cars. It will impact the neighborhoods. I move the previous question.

MAYOR WALDORF: The question has been called.

MR. CAPOWSKI: No, moved.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Flicka wanted to say something.

MR. CAPOWSKI: I moved the previous question. No debate. We have a vote on whether to do that substitution.

MS. EVANS: The previous question of yours. Can you move your own motion?

MAYOR WALDORF: I think he can call the question on his own motion, yes. So he's moved the question. If anyone wishes to object to the question being moved, then we would need to vote on whether to close debate on this.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: If you want to say something, you don't want to close it.

MAYOR WALDORF: You had your hand up, Flicka.

MS. BATEMAN: Well, I'm not as swift as you guys on all this parliamentary stuff. My question is, Ralph, when you said we would open the public hearing, we would--

MS. MCCLINTOCK: You have to say you're opposed to closing the question, then you can speak.

MS. BATEMAN: Sorry. I'm opposed to closing the question until I can speak.

MAYOR WALDORF: Joe, do you want to force a vote on whether to let Flicka speak, or do you want to let her have an opportunity to speak? Otherwise, we'll vote.

MR. CAPOWSKI: It doesn't matter, because if we do the substitution, then we can speak on the substance. So it doesn't really matter.

MAYOR WALDORF: Well, it may matter to her.

MS. BATEMAN: It may matter to how I vote.

MAYOR WALDORF: Yeah, there you go. He said it didn't matter. Go ahead and ask what you wanted to ask.

MS. BATEMAN: When we open the public hearing, Ralph, are we opening it for five minutes to say to Mr. Perry, you know, "Will you support the funding of the traffic calming on Pinehurst Drive?"

MR. KARPINOS: Well, if that is the question, then the evidence comes in about what type of design it would be and there would have to be some opportunity to have other public comment about that design, depending on the nature of the language that you put forward.

But, yeah, you could limit it to a specific issue, but you'd have to let anybody speak on that issue.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: I think the motion was real clear.

MAYOR WALDORF: Yeah, I think this is a worthwhile thing to do, but a real unwise way to go about it, so I'm going to vote against the motion to substitute.

MS. BATEMAN: Well, how would we go about it? What's another way to go about it?

MAYOR WALDORF: Pay for it ourselves. And after this process is concluded, ask Mr. Perry if he'll contribute. He was prepared to do that once before and the negotiations fell through. We've got further business with him, you know. I mean, after tonight.

MR. HORTON: The mayor is absolutely correct. There are other special use permits to come before the council.

MS. BATEMAN: That this can be attached to?

MS. MCCLINTOCK: No, not this, no.

MAYOR WALDORF: Are you all ready to vote on whether to substitute this motion for the main motion? All those in favor of substituting this motion for the main motion, please say "aye."

(Ayes respond.)

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Let's count the "ayes" here. The ayes are Bateman, Foy, Brown, Capowski, McClintock. "Nos" are Wiggins, Evans, Pavao, Waldorf.

Okay. So this motion is now substituted for the main motion, which is approval of Resolution A. So now we are going to actually vote on whether to reopen the public hearing for the limited purpose of discussing traffic calming--

MR. CAPOWSKI: In the peripheral neighborhoods.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. All right. We're voting on whether to--yeah, we can debate it a little bit more.

MS. EVANS: Can we discuss this now?

MAYOR WALDORF: Yeah. I'm real unclear about what we're doing here.

MS. EVANS: I guess I'd like to point out that the applicant tried to work with the residents on Pinehurst Drive for traffic calming and that fell apart. For those of us who went to the public forum that we held on traffic calming, in which many of the residents of the Little Creek neighborhood were in attendance, it is obvious that it is difficult to find agreement as to what kind of traffic calming they feel is appropriate.

How can we have a discussion and decide what kind of traffic calming measures we're going to insist that the applicant pay for when we don't know whether the neighborhoods are really going to want any at all, and we certainly don't know what type they're going to want.

I cannot say how inappropriate I think this is. And I think that--when do we ever come to closure? If this had been such a great idea, why wasn't it brought up before? We've talked about traffic calming. Traffic calming is not a new idea. This is an off-site improvement. I'm really--I don't know what words to use, but I'm appalled at the idea that we would even think to start this round.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Madam Mayor?

MAYOR WALDORF: Yeah?

MS. MCCLINTOCK: You know, I think we could quickly deal with this if we could just move and do it, you know, and vote for the public hearing. Because I think that there is some relationship here between the new development and the traffic caused. There is some relationship, Pat.

So, I mean it's reasonable to ask a developer to do something, okay?

MAYOR WALDORF: All right.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: So let's not decide what, let's just ask him for a contribution and vote.

MAYOR WALDORF: Ralph, did you need to tell us something?

MR. KARPINOS: Are you expecting something? I'm sorry. Was there a question to me?

MAYOR WALDORF: No. You just looked as if you had something important to say, but I guess I misread your expression.

MR. KARPINOS: No, I'm just trying to find in--I've been looking at the record here to try to find what the terms of the resolution were back in July with respect to traffic calming.

And I believe there was the resolution on the infrastructure special use permit itself, and that resolution included language about traffic calming at the Pinehurst Drive connector.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Right.

MR. KARPINOS: Then there was a separate resolution that council passed regarding doing a study of the area.

MAYOR WALDORF: Right. But that was an obligation we put on ourselves, to fund with town money.

MS. EVANS: Correct.

MAYOR WALDORF: Traffic calming improvements in what we're calling tonight the peripheral areas. So--but no conclusions have been reached about exactly what improvements need to be made.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: That's right.

MS. BATEMAN: But we can't just set a very broad definition that we are going to open the public hearing to see if the developer would contribute X number of dollars to traffic calming devices in the two peripheral streets that have been mentioned, and on the major streets that we've talked about.

MAYOR WALDORF: Well, if this motion‑-

MS. BATEMAN: Like twenty-five thousand--I mean, I just find it hard to believe--

MS. MCCLINTOCK: That's all we're doing.

MAYOR WALDORF: If this motion passes, I guess that's what will occur.

MS. BATEMAN: He either says yes, or he says no, and then I vote.

MAYOR WALDORF: All right. So the motion on the floor is--let's see, we voted to substitute this motion. Now we're voting on whether to actually have this very brief public hearing for this very limited purpose. Do we need any further discussion on that?

MR. CAPOWSKI: Huh-uh (negative).

MAYOR WALDORF: All right, all in favor, please say "aye."

(Ayes respond.)

MAYOR WALDORF: Can I have a show of hands?

(Ayes respond with show of hands.)

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Ayes are Bateman, Foy, Brown, Capowski and McClintock. The "nos" are Waldorf, Pavao, Evans and Wiggins.

So the motion passes five to four. So the motion on the floor--so now we will have a brief public hearing on this limited subject.

Joe, which member of the public did you wish to hear from?

MR. CAPOWSKI: Mr. Perry. I would like to ask him one question.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you.

MR. CAPOWSKI: I'm sorry it took 30 minutes of parliamentary action to ask you one 10-second question, but you have had time to think about it.

MR. PERRY: Yes.

MR. CAPOWSKI: Would you be willing to fund traffic calming devices on the streets peripheral to Meadowmont?

MR. PERRY: I testified in the previous public hearing some months ago that we were willing to implement the traffic calming measures that were brought to us by the Pinehurst residents. They have subsequently declined our offer to do that. The cost of those traffic calming measures we estimated at $75,000. They were very extensive.

We will be more than happy to take that $75,000 and give it to the town for traffic calming to be used in any method they choose.

MAYOR WALDORF: Mr. Perry, would it be agreeable with you if, after we--if we can get back to Resolution A, after we vote on Resolution A, that we deal with this commitment of yours in a separate resolution? Is there a way to do that and not tie it to this resolution?

MR. KARPINOS: I don't believe it would be appropriate to tie to this resolution in any manner.

MAYOR WALDORF: I don't either. So, would you have a problem with that?

MR. PERRY: Why don't you pass that one first?

MAYOR WALDORF: Well, we're working on it.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Let's pass that one.

MAYOR WALDORF: All right. So we've had this public hearing. Is there any--

MR. CAPOWSKI: Move to close the public hearing.

MR. KARPINOS: Is there anybody else that wants to speak on this issue?

MAYOR WALDORF: Is there anyone else who wants to speak at this public hearing on this very limited topic?

(No response.)

MR. CAPOWSKI: Move to close the public hearing.

MAYOR WALDORF: All right. There's a motion to close the public hearing.

MS. EVANS: Second.

MAYOR WALDORF: It's been seconded. Any discussion? All in favor, please say "aye."

(Ayes respond.)

MAYOR WALDORF: All opposed, no. (Motion carried.)

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. I believe we're back to the main motion now, which is Resolution A.

MR. KARPINOS: You need to move Resolution A.

MR. PAVAO: I move Resolution A.

MS. EVANS: Second.

MAYOR WALDORF: Thank you. Right. It was a substitution. Thank you. Resolution A has been moved and seconded again.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Just to clarify, then, there's another motion that's going to be made on the traffic calming when?

MAYOR WALDORF: Let's ask for some staff advice on how to get in action Mr. Perry's offer. You suggested, Ralph, that it should not be referenced in Resolution A.

MR. KARPINOS: I don't believe it should. I don't believe you should rely upon it and incorporate it into the resolution.

MAYOR WALDORF: Then how could we do that tonight, so that we could finish?

MR. KARPINOS: I think after you vote on this, assuming you were to vote to approve the special use permit, you could adopt another resolution accepting the money, accepting the offer.

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. Thank you.

MR. PAVAO: All right. Can we vote?

MAYOR WALDORF: All right. Are we ready to vote on Resolution A?

MR. PAVAO: Uh-huh (affirmative).

MAYOR WALDORF: Okay. All in favor, please say "aye."

(Ayes respond.)

MAYOR WALDORF: The "ayes" are Bateman, Waldorf, Pavao, Evans and Wiggins.

All opposed, no.

(Nos respond.)

MAYOR WALDORF: The "nos" are Foy, Brown, Capowski and McClintock. Now--

MR. PAVAO: Madam Mayor, I move that we accept the developer's offer to give the town $75,000 to design and implement traffic calming measures in the way the town sees fit.

MAYOR WALDORF: In neighborhoods peripheral to--

MR. PAVAO: In neighborhoods peripheral to Meadowmont, obviously, yes.

MS. MCCLINTOCK: Second.

MAYOR WALDORF: It's seconded. All right, any discussion?

(No response.)

MAYOR WALDORF: All in favor, please say "aye."

(Ayes respond.)

MAYOR WALDORF: All opposed, no.

MS. EVANS: No.

MAYOR WALDORF: Can there be a motion to adjourn?

MR. PAVAO: I move to adjourn.

MAYOR WALDORF: Unless there's something else we need to do.

MR. PAVAO: I move to adjourn.

MAYOR WALDORF: All right. Motion to adjourn. Is there a second?

MS. EVANS: Second.

MAYOR WALDORF: All in favor, please say "aye."

(Ayes respond, motion carried.)

(Proceedings concluded at 11:45 p.m.)