SUMMARY OF MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL
HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, JUNE
21, 1999 AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order
at 7:00 p.m.
Council Members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce
Brown, Joe Capowski, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavăo and Edith Wiggins. Council Member Julie McClintock was absent,
excused.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton,
Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney
Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Ruffin Hall, Solid Waste Director
Gayle Wilson, Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper, Engineering Director George Small, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Walter L. Newton, speaking on behalf of the Little
River Community Association, said that he was concerned about a landfill (site
#8) being located on the northeast corner of Orange County. He said the site abuts the north fork of
Little River, which was a source of drinking water for Durham and the site was
not accessible to the majority of the population in Orange County. Mr. Newton added that siting the landfill
there would cause property values to decrease.
Mr. Horton pointed out that Attorney Bob Jessup was
available to answer questions. He
explained that Resolution 1 responded to a couple of issues that the County
Commissioners and the Carborro Councillors had commented on. Mr. Horton said those issues involved
imposing the prohibition on use of the 60 acres of the Greene Tract for burying
solid waste or as a Construction and Demolition (C&D) landfill, while
expressly allowing other solid waste management uses of the property, such as a
transfer station and a materials recovery facility (MRF).
Mr. Horton explained that the second purpose of
Resolution 1 was to improve the clarity of the language about the Integrated
Solid Waste Management Plan, noting that the resolution included three
paragraphs which spoke to that. He said the proposed resolution included
language that addressed provisions on how the Greene Tract would be dealt with
through good faith bargaining by the present owners.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked what adopting
Resolution 1 would say about how revenues from the 109-acre portion of the
Greene Tract would be distributed if it was sold. Mr. Jessup replied that it would send the parties back to the
text of the June 1st draft, which said that there was up to a
two-year negotiation process. He added
that the question of whether the landfill fund should be reimbursed if the land
was sold was a matter to be negotiated among the partners while negotiating
ultimate use and disposition. Mr.
Jessup noted that the question of reimbursement was among the items to be
negotiated.
Council Member Brown noted Resolution 1 still
designated the remaining 109 acres as a landfill asset, rather than using the
language that the Council had asked to be substituted when they discussed this
before. Mr. Jessup explained that the
discussion at the meeting had been that the County wanted to be sure there was
recognition that they felt strongly that reimbursement needed to be
discussed. He added that labeling this
as a landfill asset signaled the County Commissioners’ position and their
concern.
Council Member Brown said that the language
indicated that the County still would be the ultimate decision maker about
whether all parties fully implement the Solid Waste Management Plan. Mr. Jessup concurred, noting that as of the
date of the agreement all parties were committed to the goals of the existing
adopted plan. He pointed out, though,
that the County had the power to change that plan.
Council Member Foy suggested broadening Mayor
Waldorf’s authority to enable her to respond when the Commissioners reach a
conclusion, without having to first come back to the Council. Mayor Waldorf replied that she felt
comfortable with that, but added that she would bring any substantial changes
back to the Council.
Council Member Foy said that the Council should be
informed about the content of discussions that he and Mayor Waldorf and some
Commissioners had about the Greene Tract.
He explained that there was a possibility that the Commissioners might
be willing to view the 109-acre balance as a public asset, with funds still
going into the Solid Waste Management System upon sale of the Greene
Tract.
Council Member Foy said that if the Greene Tract was
used for private purposes then all of the funds would go into the Solid Waste
Management System. He said that if it
was used for public purposes then the amount going into the Solid Waste System
would be a negotiated amount that presumably would be less than fair market
value.
Mayor Waldorf pointed out that this would be a
decision made by Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange County, and Hillsborough, together,
rather than one the Commissioners could make unilaterally.
Mayor Waldorf pointed out that the Commissioners
themselves had not finalized any of these details.
Council Member Foy again asked if it would be all
right with the Council if Mayor Waldorf went ahead and agreed if the
Commissioners did reach that decision.
He and Mayor Waldorf explained that there was interest among some
members of the Commission about forming the Advisory Committee, which required
three out of four governments to agree on a substantial change in
financing. Council Member Foy explained
that there might be some sentiment among the Commissioners to reduce that
number to two out of four governments.
Mayor Waldorf pointed out that the opportunity for
negotiating a change in financing was covered in the Interlocal Agreement,
adding that it would come back to the Council anyway. Mayor Waldorf said,
regarding the issue of changing the number of partners to approve a fee
increase, that the Interlocal Agreement spoke fairly clearly and that the
Council would need to discuss whether a change would be acceptable.
Council Member Foy, in response to a request for
clarification from Council Member Brown, said that the advisory committee
established by the proposed Interlocal Agreement would have the authority to
approve substantial changes in financing as requested by the County
Commissioners. He said that if the
advisory committee denied the Commissioners’ request, the Commissioners would
need to receive approval from at least 2 of the other governments involved,
Chapel Hill, Carrboro or Hillsborough.
Council Member Foy said that the Commissioners might decided that they
want the Interlocal Agreement to require the approval of only two governments,
Orange County and one other. He said
that Mayor Waldorf should be given broader authority by the Council to enter
into discussion on June 30th if any of the Commissioners suggest
those ideas.
Council Member Brown said that she would like any
substantial changes to come back to the Council.
Mayor Waldorf said that she thought the fate of the
Greene Tract was open to negotiation.
She suggested that the Council say whether they wanted her to accept an
alternative to what was in the Interlocal Agreement, adding that she would do
whatever the Council wished. Mayor
Waldorf noted that she would need permission to act from the Council, though,
as Council Member Foy had suggested.
Council Member Evans suggested proceeding as they
had been since they had not yet received a request for a change from the
Commissioners.
Council Member Wiggins asked if Council Member Foy
wanted to modify Resolution 1 to make it broader, adding that she would support
such a modification.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
WIGGINS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1, AS AMENDED, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO ACCEPT
MINOR ADDITIONAL ADJUSTMENTS, IF PROPOSED BY THE COUNTY, WHICH ARE CONSISTENT
WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE COUNCIL’S DISCUSSIONS OF JUNE 21, 1999.
Council Member Brown said that she would vote against
Resolution 1 because she thought it was a mistake as far as the Greene Tract
was concerned. She pointed out that
there were no guarantees that the Solid Waste Management Plan would be
implemented.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if it was correct that
the siting of the potential landfill in northern Orange County had nothing to
do with Resolution 1. Mr. Horton
replied that this was correct.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if it was correct that
siting the landfill would be the County’s decision if they took over the
project. Mr. Horton answered yes.
Mayor Waldorf explained that she had received a call
from County Commission Chair Alice Gordon pointing out that the Commissioners
had not had a chance as a group to review the resolution and that they would be
discussing it over the next week or so.
She reported that Ms. Gordon also had some minor questions that might
entail getting the negotiating group together again.
Mayor Waldorf suggested that, if the Council adopted
Resolution 1, they follow through on what they say they would do in Resolution
1a, which was to direct the staff to initiate the process for a zoning change
to make MRFs and transfer stations—or other non-burial solid waste
facilities—permitted uses on the 60 acres of the Greene Tract. She added that she hoped the Council would
vote to refer Mr. Newton’s comments to Orange County, Carrboro and
Hillsborough.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED (7-1), WITH COUNCIL MEMBER
BROWN VOTING NAY.
A RESOLUTION
PROVIDING FURTHER AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT, THEREBY TRANSFERRING RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT FROM THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL TO ORANGE COUNTY (99-6-21/R-1)
WHEREAS, on June 14, 1999, the Town of Chapel Hill
Town Council adopted a resolution authorizing the execution of an Agreement for
Solid Waste Management to transfer management responsibility for all disposal,
recycling, waste reduction and materials processing to Orange County; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the actions taken by
the governing bodies of the other prospective parties to the Agreement, the
Council has determined to modify the terms of its approval to allow for the
completion of the Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town of Chapel
Hill Town Council, as follows:
1. The
Council approves the draft Agreement for Solid Waste Management dated June 1,
1999, previously provided to Council, with the following modifications:
(a) Part 5 of the Agreement (relating to the Greene Tract) shall be modified to prohibit the use of the 60-acre portion of the Greene Tract that is to be transferred to the County for burying solid waste or as a C&D landfill, while facilitating the County’s use of the property for other solid waste management purposes. The second paragraph of Part 5 shall be amended to read substantially as follows:
Chapel Hill, Carrboro and the County (the “Greene
Tract Owners”) will transfer to the County title to that portion of the Greene
Tract described on Exhibit E, which contains approximately sixty acres. The
County may use the property described on Exhibit E for System purposes. The deed to the County for such 60-acre
portion (a) shall contain a restriction prohibiting the use of that property
for burying solid waste or as a C&D landfill, and (b) shall expressly allow
other solid waste management uses of the property (including, but not limited
to, use as a transfer station or a materials recovery facility. Chapel Hill
agrees to begin, and states its current intent to complete, the process to make
such other solid waste uses of this property permitted uses of the property
(that is, subject to staff-level site plan and similar reviews but not subject
to special use permit or other similar processes).
(b) The
Agreement shall have additional modifications to describe more explicitly the
integrated solid waste management plan that the parties have already adopted
and to affirm the goals of the plan (including the goals for the reduction of
the solid waste stream), while acknowledging the County’s discretion to change
the plan to match system resources and requirements. Toward that end:
(i) The Agreement shall be amended by adding a new definition of
“Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan” substantially as follows:
“Integrated Solid
Waste Management Plan” means the report submitted pursuant to law to State
authorities that described the long-term plan for solid waste management, which
the County, as designated lead agency, filed on behalf of the County and the
Towns. The Integrated Solid Waste
Management Plan includes goals to reduce waste landfilled per person by 45% by
2001 and 61% by 2006 when compared with the 1991-92 amount of 1.36 tons per
person. The Parties have approved this
Plan and adopted its framework by resolutions adopted (a) by Carrboro on June
24, 1997, (b) by Chapel Hill on June 9, 1997, (c) by Hillsborough on June 17,
1997, and (d) by the County on June 30, 1997.
(ii) The Agreement shall be further amended by revising the
definition of “Solid Waste Management Plan and Policies” to read substantially
as follows:
“Solid Waste Management Plan and Policies” means the combination of
(a) the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan and all future modifications to
that Plan, and (b) all solid waste management policies related to the System
and coordinated solid waste management for the County, the Towns and the
persons and organizations in their jurisdictions, as the same may exist from
time to time (including all such policies in effect as of the date of this
Agreement). The term “Solid Waste
Management Plan and Policies” thereby encompasses all policy choices, as in
effect from time to time, related to the management and operation of the
System, ranging (for example) from the goal for overall solid waste reduction
down to the hours of landfill operation and the price of mulch.
(iii) Finally,
the Agreement shall be further amended by adding a new paragraph in
substantially the following form to the opening of Part 4, immediately
preceding the paragraph captioned “System will be operated as an enterprise
fund.”
The Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan includes, among other things, goals for the reduction of the overall solid waste stream. The Parties affirm on the date of this Agreement their commitment to the solid waste reduction goals set out in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. The Parties agree, however, that the County is ultimately responsible for balancing the available resources and the demands on the System. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the County must therefore have sufficient authority to adjust either the resources available to the System or the requirements of the Solid Waste Management Plan and Policies, or both, to achieve the necessary balance.
2. The
Council authorizes the Mayor to execute and deliver the final form of the
Agreement for Solid Waste Management.
The final form of the Agreement shall be in substantially the form of
(a) the draft dated June 1, 1999, with (b) the modifications described above.
3. The Council recognizes that the June 1
draft of the Agreement contains detailed provisions for the current co-owners
of the Greene Tract to bargain together in good faith and with all due
diligence, and to use their respective best efforts, to determine an ultimate
use or disposition of the remainder of the Greene Tract as soon as possible and
in any event by June 30, 2001. The
Council accepts those provisions.
4.
The
Mayor is authorized to accept minor additional adjustments if proposed by the
County which are consistent with the spirit of the Council’s discussion of June
21, 1999.
5. Resolution
R-25 adopted June 14, 1999, is repealed to the extent of its conflict with this
resolution.
This the 21st day of June, 1999.
Mayor Waldorf said that she would entertain a motion
directing the staff to initiate a process for zoning amendments.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
PAVĂO, TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO INITIATE A PROCESS FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked what process citizens
would have to object if the County Commissioners decided that they wanted to
build a MRF on the 60-acre Greene Tract.
Mayor Waldorf asked the staff to respond regarding
the opportunity for citizen participation in site plan review.
Mr. Horton explained that it would be within the
County’s process, rather than the Town’s, to make sure that there was an
opportunity to comment on proposals. He
explained that once proposals were turned into applications there would be a
site plan review process before the Planning Board.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said that he did not think
the Planning Board was a “high enough level board to make a decision of this
consequence that would affect that many people.”
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
PAVĂO, TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO INITIATE A ZONING PROCESS TO MAKE MRFs, TRANSFER
STATIONS, AND OTHER NON-SPECIFIED BUT NON-BURIAL SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
PERMITTED USES ON THE 60 ACRES OF THE GREENE TRACT THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS
PROPERTY THAT MIGHT BE DEEDED OVER TO THE COUNTY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED (6-2), WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN AND
CAPOWSKI VOTING NAY.
Mayor Waldorf suggested referring Mr. Newton’s
comments to the County and Hillsborough.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER EVANS, TO REFER MR. WALTER L. NEWTON’S COMMENTS TO ORANGE COUNTY AND TO
THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH. THE MOTION
WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Mr. Horton explained that the Town had received
applications from the Orange County Housing Corporation (OCHC) in response to
the Council’s offer to make land available for the possible construction of
affordable housing units. He said that
OCHC was close to bringing that goal to fruition, but the Council must determine
whether or not rezoning should take place and whether or not the permit should
be issued.
a. Public Hearing on Zoning Atlas Amendment Application for Scarlette Drive Townhomes
J.B. Culpepper, Development Coordinator, explained that this application
proposed changing zoning on about an acre and a half of land located at the
northwest corner of Legion Road and Scarlette Drive. She said that the proposal was to rezone it from Residential 2
and Residential 3 to the Residential Special Standards Conditional Zoning
District (RSSC), a new zoning district established in April.
Ms. Culpepper pointed out that the new zone allowed
a residential density of up to 12 units per acre, with special standards for
the land use intensity regulations. She
said that the applicant believed that this change in zoning would help achieve
the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan sections on housing availability and
housing variety. Ms. Culpepper stated
that the staff’s preliminary recommendation was for approval of the rezoning
request and adoption of the attached ordinance to apply the new zoning district
to the acre and a half.
Gay Eddy, representing the Planning Board, explained
that the Board had voted six to two in favor of the rezoning.
Robert Dowling, of the Orange Community Housing
Corporation, noted that the Comprehensive Plan encouraged affordable
housing. He gave two reasons why higher
zoning was being requested in this instance:
First, the Council’s charge to maximize the number of affordable housing
units on the site requires rezoning; and, second, making affordable housing
required maximizing the units because a lower number of units meant the higher
development costs, making individual units more expensive. Mr. Dowling added that higher density was appropriate
for the neighborhood.
Margot Wilkinson, a 30-year resident of University
Heights, said that the Council had passed a new zoning ordinance without
holding a public hearing. She submitted
a petition signed by 141 residents of her neighborhood that asserted that no
one had listened to their rational arguments.
Ms. Wilkinson noted that University Heights was not a child-friendly
neighborhood because of the traffic and lack of play space. She complained that the neighborhood had
elected the Council to take care of them as well as the 14 new residents who
would live in the proposed townhomes.
Pam Gibbard stated that the piece of property where
the Town planned to put the building was at the entrance to her
neighborhood. She said that she and
others were concerned about property values of the existing homes, traffic, and
the fact that children would play in the street and the cemetery. She remarked that there had been a verbal
agreement with the Town Council that her neighborhood would not be rezoned.
Ms. Gibbard also said she was concerned that the
project would fail and the neighbors would then be at risk. She suggested that the new zoning was “spot
zoning,” which she said was illegal in North Carolina. Ms. Gibbard reported that Mike Wilson, a
neighborhood business owner, had said that he had asked to expand his property
twice and was denied permission because of the heavy traffic. She wondered why letters from her and others
in her neighborhood had not been included in the packet given to the Council.
Mayor Waldorf commented that it was her
understanding that an agreement not to rezone, such as Ms. Gibbard had
described, was not possible.
Mr. Karpinos said that he wanted to find out more
about the issue before commenting.
James Williams, a 47-year resident of University
Heights, said that his property’s value had increased over the years with the
addition of Town water and sewer. He
said he opposed the project, adding that he had worked in construction all his
life and could not understand how such a project could be proposed for such a
spot.
Linda Tingen, speaking on behalf of her mother who
lived in the neighborhood, said that University Heights had a history of trying
to maintain its single-family neighborhood dwelling status. She said that the Town had a history of
trying to change that status and was trying to put high-density affordable
housing on a site where there was not enough parking or recreational
space. Ms. Tingen noted that there were
no acceptable traffic patterns or sidewalks near the site. She estimated that
there would be 112-140 trips per day in and out of the building’s driveway in
front of her mother’s house. She asked
the Council to select a different site.
Nancy Gabriel, speaking for the Board of Directors
of the Community Action Network, stated that her group had spoken at the April
12th meeting in support of creating the new RSSC zoning. She commended the Council for adopting that
category, and asked them to apply the new zone to the property at Scarlette
Drive. Ms. Gabriel noted that this
would make 14 homes available to those who had been closed out of Chapel Hill’s
high priced housing market. She said
that it would be an opportunity for the Town to practice what it had been
preaching for years. Ms. Gabriel added
that the Board of the Community Action Network believed the new housing
community would increase the value of the surrounding property and demonstrate
that density was not a dirty word. She
urged the Council to support both the rezoning and the Special Use Permit.
Scott Radway, a Chapel Hill resident and former
Planning Board member, pointed out that Item C in the staff’s report addressed
some of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan.
He urged the Council to adopt the rezoning as proposed.
John McPhaul asked if it was possible to ask questions
of the applicant. Mayor Waldorf replied
that it would be possible during the Special Use Permit hearing, and suggested
that he hold his questions until then.
Mr. McPhaul predicted that parking from the townhomes would overflow
into the neighborhood.
Linda Mews stated that Council Members had put
affordable housing on their political platforms and were determined to make it
happen even if it meant riding roughshod over existing homeowners. She said that the site was wrong because of
the cemetery and the traffic problems.
Jim Earnhardt, a member of the Orange Community
Housing Corporation, expressed support for the rezoning and the Special Use
Permti application. He described this
as a high quality project that would enhance the area.
Mayor pro tem Capowski noted that a letter from one
resident had stated that the reason this site was being used for affordable
housing was because the Town owned it, not because it was a good site. He asked the staff how the Town had come to
own the property. Mr. Horton replied
that he could not remember, adding that it had been acquired a number of years
ago.
Mayor pro tem Capowski emphasized that the Town had
not accepted the land with the idea of putting affordable housing on it. Mr. Horton agreed.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if receiving a petition
from the neighborhood meant that the Council’s vote must be a seven vote
majority. Mr. Karpinos replied that,
because the petition had been received that afternoon, it had not been received
in a timely manner so as to constitute a legal protest petition for purposes of
changing the required vote. He
explained that in order to change the required vote for rezoning the petition
would have to be received at 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday before a Monday
hearing.
Council Member Brown asked if those in the
neighborhood had been aware of the requirements for a protest petition. Several audience members stated they were
not aware of the requirements.
Council Member Brown asked if there was any way to
accommodate the neighborhood by making this a protest petition. Mr. Karpinos replied that the Council would
have to call another public hearing, adding that the requirements had not been
established by the Town but by State statute, which meant that the Town had no
authority to change it.
Mr. Horton suggested that the Council ask the
applicant how they would feel about starting over. He cautioned that the staff
would be concerned about fairness of process.
Mayor Waldorf, stating that she would like to move
ahead, asked if Council Members wished to start over. Council Member Evans pointed out that delaying would mean waiting
until fall.
Mayor Waldorf suggested, since no other Council
Members expressed a sentiment either way, hearing from the applicant about what
delaying would mean to his plans.
Mr. Dowling explained that the Orange Community
Housing Corporation had hoped to begin before the fall in order to have the
project completed by selling season next spring and early summer.
Mayor pro tem Capowski, noting the Town owned the
tract of land to be rezoned and would not sign a petition against itself, said
that he did not know if he was willing to make a motion to start over
again.
Mayor Waldorf asked Council Member Bateman, who was
on the Land Trust, if the property would go into the Land Trust.
Council Member Bateman explained that people would
buy the dwelling, but the land itself would be entered by deed into the
Community Land Trust. She said that
there were restrictions on the amount of appreciation the homeowner could
realize. Council Member Bateman pointed
out that part of the reason that prices were lower was that people were not
paying for the land, which continued to be owned by the non-profit Land Trust entity.
Council Member Bateman said that she supported
moving ahead. She stated that she
respected the residents’ positions and pointed out that other neighborhoods had
been able to get petitions in on time.
She added that she thought this was an appropriate site and would like
to approve the application before the summer recess.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED THE PETITION AND COUNCIL
MEMBER WIGGINS SECONDED IT.
Council Member Brown said that she wanted to let the
citizens know that the Council had heard their concerns. She added that she understood that they felt
demoralized by their inability to prevent this, adding that she did not know
what could be done at this stage.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if a notice to rezone a
tract of land stated that people could file a protest petition with the result
that a seven vote majority was needed to approve it. Ms. Culpepper replied that she did not think the notice had that
statement in it.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked how a person would know
then what a protest petition was. Ms.
Culpepper replied that people come in and ask the staff for handouts about the
zoning procedure. She said that these
handouts go into detail on the protest petition.
Council Member Wiggins stated that she also
understood the neighbors’ concerns. She
explained that she had not expressed that before because saying so and then
moving on to approve the application made such comments sound insincere. Council Member Wiggins remarked that her
first home in Chapel Hill was in a very dense area, and explained that those
townhomes had appreciated from $47,000 to well over $100,000.
Council Member Wiggins added that the townhomes she
once lived in were now very much sought after in this community and added value
to the surrounding neighborhoods. She
said that she did not believe that responsible parents would allow their
children to play in a cemetery, adding that buffering could make that
impossible. Council Member Wiggins also
pointed out that the Town’s school teachers, firefighters, police officers and
secretaries needed this kind of housing.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER WIGGINS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY
TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL ON JULY 7, 1999.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
b. Public
Hearing on Special Use Permit Application for Scarlette Drive Townhomes
Ms. Culpepper explained that the Special Use Permit (SUP) proposed 14 units on an acre and a half of land at the corner of Scarlette Drive and Legion Road. She said that the proposal was for two buildings and a single point of access on Legion Road leading to a 25-space parking lot. Ms. Culpepper said that there was a small recreational area proposed for the northeast corner of the site. She said that the staff’s preliminary recommendation, based on the four findings, was for approval with the conditions that were identified in Resolution A: calling for road improvements such as gutters and sidewalks along both streets, dedication of a public right-of-way, constructing the Duke Power easement, and approving proposed recreational amenities.
Mr. Dowling submitted letters of support from the
InterFaith Council, the Interfaith Church of Christ, Empowerment, Inc., and the
Community Land Trust. He agreed that
some of the residents’ concerns were valid but noted the irony in being cast as
someone who was harming the downtrodden when felt he had devoted himself to
trying to help the downtrodden. Mr.
Dowling added that he did not believe that the 14 townhomes would ruin property
values, since the cost of the townhomes was higher than the assessed value of
the average home in the neighborhood.
Mr. Dowling explained that the original application
was for nine to eleven single family homes.
He said that the application had come back to the Orange Community
Housing Corporation with a request for more density and a suggestion by the
Council to consider attached housing.
Mr. Dowling explained that the concept plan he presented in June 1998
specifically addressed what the Council had requested. He said that he had worked with the Council
and staff for a year to develop a plan which he believed worked and was
appropriate for this site.
Mr. Dowling noted that finding #3, regarding
contiguous property, argued that public housing was a necessity. He stated that, while he did not think it
was an absolute necessity, the argument could be made that it was important for
the Town’s teachers, firefighters and other Town employees to be able to live
in Chapel Hill. Mr. Dowling explained
that the required income of people who buy these homes would be $35,000,
minimum. He expressed the wish to go
lower but said that was impossible because building costs were too high and
there was not enough subsidy.
Council Member Bateman asked Mr. Dowling to indicate
on the map where the driveway would be in relation to Ms. Tingen’s mother’s
house, and asked if it could be moved.
Mr. Dowling replied that the house was directly across the street from
what he believed to be the center of the driveway. He pointed out that there was not much leeway there because of
constraints on both sides. Mr. Dowling
added that an additional driveway had once been proposed off Scarlette Drive,
but the Community Design Commission, Town staff and neighbors had objected to
that.
Council Member Evans asked if the roadway
improvements would allow for on-street parking. Mr. Dowling replied that they would not.
Gay Eddy, representing the Planning Board, said that
the Planning Board had supported this project with recommendations to improve
the intersection, run the sidewalk down to U.S. 15-501, and put a fence between
the townhomes and the cemetery.
John McPhaul stated his opinion that the site did
not make any economic sense.
Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. McPhaul to list the
questions that he had so that the staff could bring answers back at the next
public hearing. Mr. McPhaul asked why
the applicant had lost prior funding.
He asked whether funding for the project was federal, State, or local,
and how much was funded. Mr. McPhaul
also asked what the restrictions were on use of the funds. He asked what value was on the books for the
land as a cemetery as opposed to residential.
Mr. McPhaul asked how much it would cost to grade
and repair the site for construction and if there were alternatives. He asked about the Meadowmont location for
affordable housing, the Greene Tract, and land near the library? Mr. McPhaul also asked about buying existing
units in an apartment conversion.
Margot Wilkinson said that she would like to see a
rendering of what the townhomes would look like. Mr. Dowling agreed to bring renderings to the continuation of the
public hearing on July 7th.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked what the townhomes
would look like from the cemetery and what kind of vegetation or fencing would
be used. He asked to see some
visualization of this at the next meeting.
Mr. Dowling replied that he would try to get someone to draw what it would
look like looking through a ten-foot buffer.
He explained that changing the size of the building was not an
option. Mr. Dowling said that the Town
could erect a fence on the side by the ten-foot buffer.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if the proposal was for
32 bedrooms, and, if so, what the basis was for providing parking for 24
cars. Mr. Dowling replied that, based
on their experience with other townhomes they have built, many would have only
one driver per household. He explained
that the average of those they had built so far was 1.6 cars per
household. Mr. Dowling pointed out
that, by those calculations, the required number of parking spaces would be 23.
Council Member Foy asked why the buffer had to be
uniform. Ms. Culpepper replied that,
while she had drawn a narrow uniform minimum buffer on the display, the real buffer
would meander.
Council Member Foy asked the staff to respond to the
Planning Board’s question about a sidewalk running down to U.S. 15-501. Mayor Waldorf asked the staff to get an
estimate of the cost of that sidewalk as well as a fence separating the
cemetery from the building.
Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Dowling how he
would go about providing the visualization that Mayor pro tem Capowski
requested. Mayor Waldorf added that the
request was non-specific and wondered if Mayor pro tem Capowski wanted a
computer composed visualization, or a drawing.
Mayor pro tem Capowski replied that he was sensitive to the cost issues
but did want to know what it would look like.
Mayor Waldorf summarized that Mayor pro tem Capowski was asking for a
clearer picture.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Dowling what his
plans were for the trees that were now on the lot. Mr. Dowling replied that all of the trees would have to come down
where the building, parking and dumpster pad were to be located. He added that trees would remain in the open
space between the building and the parking area and in back by the detention
pond. Mr. Dowling
also noted that they would try to plant street trees in the front of each
house. He added that there were
constraints, though, because of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority and Duke
Power easements.
Council Member Bateman asked if the cemetery plots
adjacent to the property were empty.
Mr. Dowling replied that they were.
Council Member Bateman asked the staff to report back
on the feasibility of leaving those lots empty and using that space for
additional buffer.
Council Member Evans commented that the old Chapel
Hill cemetery was located next to a dense housing project, called
Dormitory.
Council Member Wiggins added that there was a
cemetery across the street from Village West, noting that children did not play
in it even though it was completely surrounded by housing.
Council Member Foy requested a profile of those who
bought the townhomes, if approved, so that the Council could see if they were
reaching the people they intended to reach, such as teachers, firefighters and
police, rather than students.
Mayor Waldorf requested that the percentage of Town
employees who live in Chapel Hill (17%) be made part of the record, as well as
basic data on Town employees’ salary ranges.
Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Dowling if the proposed
conditions of approval were acceptable.
Mr. Dowling replied that none of the conditions were objectionable, but
he said he did have concerns about being able to pay for them.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
PAVĂO, THAT CONTIGUOUS BE DETERMINED AS 1,000 FEET FOR THE SCARLETTE DRIVE
TOWNHOMES. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED
UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER FOY, TO REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY AND TO RECESS THE
PUBLIC HEARING TO JULY 7, 1999. THE
MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
for UNC
Hospitals Hedrick II Office Building
J.B. Culpepper summarized the request to construct a
three-story, 78,500 square foot, administrative office facility at the end of
Friday Center Drive just south of the Highway 54 park and ride lot. She explained that it was proposed to be
located between the existing UNC Hedrick Building and the indoor tennis
facility. Ms. Culpepper explained that this proposal would take the
Special Use Permits (SUP) for those two buildings and merge them to form one
new permit area. She said the staff’s preliminary recommendation, based on the
four findings, was for approval with the conditions listed in Resolution A,
particularly the four-year completion time limit, the road improvements, a
transportation management plan, and replanting of any disturbed areas next to
the Town’s park and ride lot.
Ken Redfoot, of the architectural firm Corley,
Redfoot and Zack, stated that the proposed building and site development were
critically important to the UNC Hospital system and its ongoing service to the
community. He said that locating
medical information management, information services, physicians, and
assistants in the new three-story building would create a clearly defined
administrative office for the health care system. Mr. Redfoot noted that the computer center for the hospital
system would be relocated from the main hospital to this building. He explained that this data carried all
medical and patient records for treatment, billing and insurance purposes.
Mr. Redfoot displayed a map showing the 39.6-acre
SUP area. He also displayed a series of
photos and drawings which indicated the driveway and walkway as well as the
areas where additional parking would be placed. He pointed out the architectural compatibility of the proposed
and the existing buildings, and distributed a statement from Mr. Heffner
regarding the contiguous property value impacts.
Council Member Brown asked how the building would be
heated and cooled. Mr. Redfoot replied
that it would be air conditioned by an independent air handling unit located
inside the basement of the new building.
He said that it would have a remote cooling tower, which would be
completely obscured by precaste concrete walls that would go all the way around
it.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Redfoot if he was
saying that there would be no noise generated by the heating and air
conditioning system. Mr. Redfoot
replied that he would have to do a little research and get back to the Council
on whether there would be no noise at all.
Council Member Brown asked how close the building
would be to its nearest neighbors. Mr.
Redfoot located Finley Forest on the map and explained that there was a
proposed 90-foot buffer.
Mayor Waldorf read from Mr. Heffner’s letter: “The
Hedrick II building will be located approximately 450 feet away from the Finley
Forest unit.”
Council Member Brown stated that she would
appreciate it if Mr. Redfoot would get back to the Council about the noise.
Gay Eddy, representing the Planning Board, stated that the Planning Board had been impressed with the way the new building had been tied in with the old building. She said that the Board disliked the amount of impervious surface for the parking lot, but realized that the hospital needed that number of parking spaces and that the ordinance allowed it. Ms. Eddy remarked that it would be good to think about future projects of this magnitude having a parking deck. She added that one Board member would like the Walks and Bikeways Commission to look into running a bike bath from Mason Farm Road.
Council Member Foy asked how many building sites
were on the property. Mary Beck, the
Director of Planning for UNC Hospitals, explained that they had thought there
were three building sites. She noted,
though, that developing the third site would mean building a parking deck.
Ms. Beck stated that the hospital had coordinated
plans with the Botanical Garden and had offered to do a presentation at Finley
Forest. She stressed that they had been
considered good neighbors with the first building and intended to be with the
second one as well.
John Kent, Conservation Chair for the New Hope
Audubon Society, explained that many of the Society’s members used Mason Farm
and cared about it. He explained that
he had been involved in building projects there for about five years and stated
that the Society was concerned about the cumulative impact of these continual
additional projects on the adjoining Mason Farm Biological Preserve.
Mr. Kent said that the Society would also be concerned
if lighting was intrusive to the south, adding that low pressure sodium would
be better than high pressure sodium. He
said that they would like to see lighting pointed downward and non-reflective
windows being used. Mr. Kent
discouraged the idea of a bike path along Mason Farm Road, suggesting that any
increased activity should be closer to Highway 54. He agreed that the noise of cooling towers should be looked
into.
Mr. Kent reported that the hospital had not gone
through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process. He strongly recommended that the Council
postpone their vote until that process had been completed, and questioned why
the SEPA application had not been started.
Ms. Beck replied that the hospital had planned to
submit an application to SEPA at the end of the design and development
phase. She noted that they could not
build a project without SEPA approval, and added that they had received it on
every project they had done.
Mayor Waldorf asked when the hospital would get to this
and Ms. Beck replied that they had to have enough information to fill out the
application and tell SEPA what they planned to do.
Mayor Waldorf asked Ms. Beck if the hospital needed
local government approval before applying to SEPA. She pointed out that Mr. Kent was asking the Council to defer
consideration of the SUP pending SEPA approval. Mayor Waldorf explained that she was trying to find out whether
the hospital needed local government approval before going through the State
process. Ms. Beck replied that it did
not, and repeated her assertion that the hospital could not begin construction
without approval.
Council Member Brown said that it would be helpful
to her to have comments from State agencies involved in the process. Ms. Beck replied that they would be more
than happy to share the comments they received with the Planning staff and
Council.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked what the net increase
in the number of parking spaces would be.
He also asked for the net increase in the number of daytime
employees.
Ms. Beck replied that there were 225 employees in
the Hedrick I building and there would be 295 in Hedrick II, for a total of
520. She qualified that, noting that
there probably would be some growth by the time they moved in. Ms. Beck explained that 38% of those
employees lived in Orange County.
In response to Mayor pro tem Capowski’s question
about the number of new parking spaces, Mr. Kent replied that it would be
300.
Mayor pro tem Capowski suggested that the hospital was
planning on one parking space per new employee, but Ms. Beck stated that they
were not. Ms. Beck explained that 57
spaces would be used for park and ride.
Mayor pro tem Capowski noted that there would be 295
new employees and 243 new parking spaces.
Ms. Beck suggested that he consider where the building would be located
and where people would be coming from.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if the hospital would
accept a SUP condition to reduce the new parking by 100 spaces, and added that
Ms. Beck did not have to answer that until the next meeting.
Mayor Waldorf asked Mayor pro tem Capowski to
clarify how that took into account the assignment of spaces to park and
ride.
Council Member Evans asked if it would eliminate the
park and ride. Ms. Beck replied that it
would “pretty much” do so.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said that the bottom line of
what Ms. Beck was proposing was that everyone was going to travel to work in
his or her own car.
Ms. Beck explained that theTraining and Development
Center would be located there. She said
that people would come there for classes.
Ms. Beck noted that all of the Hospital Employee Orientation Programs
would be run there and that people would come to apply for jobs. She pointed out that there would be a reasonable
number of visitors in and out. Ms. Beck
said that it would not be a one-to-one parking lot for employees. Ms. Beck added that the hospital encouraged
people to take buses.
Mayor pro tem Capowski interjected that the only way
to successfully do that is to not provide them with parking. He argued that other forms of encouragement
had a “very small pay-off.”
Mayor pro tem Capowski, referring to the map,
indicated a path which Ms. Beck then described as the University’s trail for
its cross country team. Mayor pro tem
Capowski asked if it was possible, as part of this SUP, to do minimal clearing
and create a bike path across the lower half of the property and extend it out
to Barbee Chapel Road. Ms. Beck
replied that she had asked the Department of Athletics, which owned that area,
to see if the hospital could add a walking path as part of their employee
recreation program. She added that they
had not talked to the Botanical Gardens or the Biological Preserve about that
idea.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked Ms. Beck if they would
accept a condition on the Special Use Permit that there would be a minimum
impact bike path from the lower left corner of this Special Use Permit area out
to Barbee Chapel Road in whatever method they think would be least degrading.
Council Member Evans asked if this was the tie-in at
the tennis courts at The Farm. Mayor
pro tem Capowski replied that it went right past the basketball court at The
Farm.
Mayor Waldorf suggested that Ms. Beck think about
the question and let the Council know.
Council Member Foy inquired about the annual cost to
an employee of one parking space. Ms.
Beck said that it was $276.
Council Member Foy asked Ms. Beck how the hospital
determined how many to sell, adding that she could answer that question at the
next meeting.
Mayor Waldorf, noting that the University’s parking
expert was present, said that she would like to have whatever information they
wanted to give the Council on that.
Mayor Waldorf added that she had reservations about
simply eliminating 100 spaces, and would like to have the benefit of the
hospital’s thinking and information on why they made the parking request that
they did. She asked if there was more
information than what they have in their packets. Ms. Beck replied that because of the late hour it would be better
to write a response and forward it to the Council.
Council Member Foy asked Mr. Kent what kind of
information he thought they could get that would be useful to the Council in
making a decision. Mr. Kent replied
that the NC State Environmental Policy Act was the controlling statute for
environmental impact statements. He
explained that projects which were publicly funded must be submitted for
review, and outlined the review process.
Mr. Kent offered his opinion that, environmentally, this was an
important area in Chapel Hill. He noted
that it was a large, intact area of habitat that backed up to the game lands
around Jordan Lake. He stressed that it
was an asset to the Town and should be protected.
Council Member Foy asked if the applicant would be
detrimentally affected if the Council waited for the SEPA information. Ms. Beck answered that it would delay the
process. She pointed out that the
hospital would have to go through the SEPA process anyway, and explained that
they received a finding of “no significant impact” on the Hedrick I
building. Ms. Beck added that the new
building would be farther away from the Biological Preserve than the first building
was.
Ms. Beck predicted that the hospital would again
receive a finding of “no significant impact” because they had paid attention to
the environmental issues that were reviewed as part of that process. She explained that the hospital had made modifications
in the lighting, for example, and had tried to find a compromise between
security in the parking lot and impact on the Biological Preserve. Ms. Beck pointed out that the lighting was
planned to face north. She added that
the reflectivity in the glass was reduced to lessen the impact on birds in
Hedrick I, noting that this was a compromise in terms of energy
efficiency. She added that they were
proposing the same factors in the new building.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Kent about the time
frame for the process. Mr. Kent replied
that 30 days seemed to him to be typical, but it might be shorter. He noted that the cumulative impact of the
project should be looked at, and stressed that the Council’s review would be
significantly aided by the SEPA report.
Mr. Kent recommended that they have the report before approving a
modification to the SUP.
Council Member Bateman asked if the hospital could
get a letter from Peter White, of the Biological Preserve, stating that he had
reviewed and approved of the proposal.
Ms. Beck replied that she would ask Dr. White for such a letter, noting
that the hospital had met with him several times regarding the project.
Ms. Beck stated that the last SEPA application she
filed took three months for approval.
Mayor Waldorf suggested that, since the applicant
had to receive SEPA approval anyway, the Council move forward on the SUP. She asked if it would countermand the
Council’s approval if the SEPA review brought something to the attention of the
Council that was in conflict with what they had approved.
Mr. Karpinos explained that if the Council approved
this, and then what the State approved was inconsistent with what the Town
approved, then the project approved by the Town Council would have to be
modified before it could go forward, unless the Council put a condition in the
SUP that said it must be adjusted to comply with any State requirements.
Ms. Beck suggested adding that as a condition of the
SUP, stressing that delaying the process for three months would be detrimental
to the project.
Council Member Brown noted that comments they
received might make a difference in what they request.
Council Member Evans suggested incorporating that
concern into the SUP condition statement.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said that unless there had
been major changes in the State government he would agree with Ms. Beck’s
suggestion to make it a condition of the SUP.
He stated that the SEPA reports were of little value.
Mayor Waldorf suggested moving ahead to establish
the contiguous property determination.
She noted that the issue about the SUP could be addressed by whether
they move to recess to July 7th or to take an alternate route. Mayor Waldorf then asked if someone had a
motion about contiguous property, noting that all of it was owned by the
University, except for 400 feet.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
PAVĂO, TO DETERMINE CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY TO BE AT 1,500 FEET. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED TO RECESS THE HEARING TO
JULY 7TH. COUNCIL MEMBER
PAVĂO SECONDED.
Council Member Brown asked if there was some way to
get information about the cumulative affects of the University’s expansion by
the July 7th meeting. Mr.
Horton replied that to his knowledge there was not a way to do that. He said that the only way he knew of was
through the SEPA process and, though it sounded cynical, his experience with
that had been like Mayor pro tem Capowski’s.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER PAVĂO, TO FORWARD A COPY OF THE COUNCIL’S COMMENTS FROM TONIGHT’S
HEARING TO THE CLEARINGHOUSE, THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE, AND THE STATE
ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY. THE MOTION WAS
ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
J.B. Culpepper explained that the application was
for demolishing the current building and constructing a 10,700 square foot,
two-story building. She said that the
Development Ordinance permitted a place of worship there but the floor area
ratio exceeded that which was permitted and the applicant was asking the
Council to modify the regulations to allow a larger building.
Ms. Culpepper said, based on the four findings, the
staff’s preliminary recommendation was for approval with conditions identified
in Resolution A, specifically a recommendation that the applicant work in
cooperation with the adjacent property owner to the west to share a driveway in
order to preserve two large Magnolia trees.
She said that, if such an agreement with the neighbor could not be
reached, then the staff recommended that two large replacement trees be put on
the front lawn of the new building.
Mike Berkelhammer, representing the Hillel Board,
stated that Hillel was a Jewish student youth organization. He explained that the house was more than 50
years old. Mr. Berkelhammer noted that
Hillel provided religious education, worship, cultural events, and kosher
meals, and that it was expanding to students on other campuses around the
State. He pointed out that this
expansion would require additional facilities, staff, and programming. Mr. Berkelhammer added that UNC’s student
population was growing, which also meant there would be a need for more space
in the future. He said that the
proposed building would enhance the area by screening Granville Towers and
providing the residential character and design that was compatible with
surrounding residences.
John Martin, architect, showed the site plan and
noted that the neighbor, D.R. Bell, had expressed support for the plan but not
for the shared driveway. He noted that
the allowable built area would be about 9,300 and explained that the applicant
had asked to build 10,700, adding that it would fit better with the character
of the neighborhood. Mr. Martin added
that Hillel probably would not have an opportunity to add on or build
again.
Mr. Martin noted that the larger size would do a
better job of screening Granville Towers, thereby increasing the value of the
Hillel property as well as contiguous properties. He said that a reduction in space would mean a reduction in
important gathering and worship areas.
Ms. Eddy said that the Planning Board had voted
unanimously (9-0) to support the application.
She said they thought there was a large benefit to sharing the
driveway. Ms. Eddy said they also
thought that the need for the large dumpster should be considered and the
Council might want to examine whether or not Hillel would generate that much
trash.
Aaron Nelson, speaking on behalf of the University,
expressed support for the project, stating that Hillel was an important part of
the University and asked the Council to support the application as it was.
David Rubin, a UNC-affiliated and Hillel-affiliated
Chapel Hill resident, stated that the old Hillel building had served the needs
of the community for almost 50 years.
He said that the proposed building was the end product of an extensive
strategic planning activity. Mr. Rubin stressed that the space was necessary
for the students and the larger community.
Mayor pro tem Capowski, referring to the staff memo,
asked if it was realistic to put a dumpster at this site and expect a big
garbage truck to get in there. Ms.
Culpepper, noting that a couple of parking spaces would be lost, said that the
staff thought a dumpster could be accommodated in the back of the
property. She explained that the
dumpster would have to be carefully placed in order for garbage trucks to reach
it.
Mr. Martin argued that the only place for the dumpster
would be at the end of the driveway. He
said that having back-up space for the truck would eliminate some needed
parking spaces, and stated that Hillel was not generating enough solid waste to
warrant a dumpster. Mr. Martin noted
that although the amount of food prepared would increase with more
participants, Hillel would be changing to china and silverware so they would
not have as much disposable paper and plastic products in the future.
Council Member Brown asked if the bulk of the solid
waste was food or paper, explaining that she was interested in composting. Mr. Berkelhammer replied that currently the
bulk of their waste was paper and plastic from food service. He pointed out that that would diminish
substantially when they had a kitchen with dishwashers and dishes. Mr. Berkelhammer said, at least for the near
future, the volume of waste should go down, not up. He added that if food service grew over the years, then the only
waste would be the containers that food came in. Mr. Berkelhammer said that food was currently served only once a
week, adding that composting would be something they could consider.
Council Member Foy asked about electrical lines and
Mr. Martin explained that they would be put underground.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
BROWN, THAT CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY BE CONSIDERED EVERYTHING WITHIN 1,000
FEET. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED
UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO JULY 7, 1999. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
George Small, Engineering Director, explained that
the Town had received two petitions—one for paving the entire length of Sugarberry
Road, and for paving the frontage on the first four lots. He said that there were seven affected
properties, including the Town’s, and all but one had supported paving the
entire length. Mr. Small explained that
the step following the public hearing would be to come back with an assessment
resolution.
COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER FOY, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER FOR A REPORT BACK AT THE JULY 7,
1999 MEETING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED
UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 6 —Closed
Session to Discuss Property Acquisition,
Personnel, and
Litigation Matters
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
WIGGINS, THAT THE COUNCIL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION, AS AUTHORIZED BY NC GENERAL
STATUTE SECTION 143-318.11 (a) (3), TO DISCUSS THE LITIGATION INVOLVING THE
TOWN AND THE DEVELOPERS OF THE MEADOWMONT HOTEL AND OFFICE SITES. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m.
The minutes of
June 21, 1999 were adopted on the 23rd day of August, 1999.
____________________________________
Joyce A. Smith, CMC