SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, MAY 7, 2001, 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, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavăo, Bill Strom, and Jim Ward. Council Member Edith Wiggins 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 Bill Stockard, Finance Director Jim Baker, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Library Director Kathy Thompson, Police Chief Gregg Jarvies, Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz, Police Captain Tony Oakley, Engineering Director George Small, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, Fire Chief Dan Jones, Transportation Director Mary Lou Kuschatka, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
1a. Presentation of Retirement Plaques.
Mayor Waldorf honored seven retiring Town employees, and pointed out that they had given 144 combined years of service to the Town. The employees were:
· George Brigham, employed by the Town since 1984 and twice selected as the Engineering Department’s “Employee of the Year.”
· Jim Cryer, a library safety coordinator since 1981.
· Anthony Diggs, employed with the Transportation Department since 1979. He had received 25 special commendations, 62 public service commendations, 23 inclement weather commendations, and a 15-year safe driving award during his employment.
· Robert Graham, employed by the Public Works Department since 1968.
· David Hall, a heavy equipment operator at the landfill since 1980.
· Lemuel Henderson, a firefighter since 1970 who rose through the ranks to Battalion Chief in 1992, served as interim Deputy Chief in 1999, earned six commendations, and was awarded firefighter of the year in 1977 and 1992;
· Linda Isenhour worked in the public services and the reference divisions at the Public Library since 1980.
1b. Fraternity Recognition.
Mayor Waldorf recognized the members of UNC fraternity Alpha Tau Omega (ATO) for their positive leadership and public service to the community. She pointed out that this fraternity had recently won the “National True Merit Award,” which is given to the best ATO chapter in the nation. She added that ATO had been selected as UNC’s “fraternity of the year” for two straight years. Mayor Waldorf asked fraternity members present to stand, and thanked them for their philanthropy and for being good citizens of Chapel Hill.
Jay Weaver, Alpha Tau Omega president, thanked Mayor Waldorf, the Town Council and Police Chief Greg Jarvies for this recognition. He said that it meant a lot to the fraternity because they had worked hard to improve the Greek image throughout the community. Mr. Weaver also thanked the Chancellor’s Committee on Greek Affairs, Dean Blackburn, Don Gaddo, and Dr. Clark.
Item 2 - Public hearings: None
Item 3 - Petitions by Citizens
Phil Post, regarding Special Use Permit for Eastowne Office Park.
Phil Post asked that this and other two Special Use Permit (SUP) applications be heard during the public process in June even though they were not scheduled to be on the June public hearing agenda. He explained that not doing so would cause at least an eight or nine month delay in the construction schedule for at least two of the projects. If they were successful at a June hearing, Mr. Post pointed out, then they could begin construction in September and be completed next spring. If the hearing were delayed until the fall, he said, then they would not be able to start construction until the winter, which would mean that completion would be delayed until late next year. Mr. Post emphasized that it was “critical and essential” to have these projects heard in June, and asked if there was any way to designate two hours to this matter.
Council Member Bateman, noting that only two projects had been listed in the petition, asked what the third would be. Mr. Post replied that it would be the Franklin Street Hotel SUP.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND THE ATTORNEY, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO.
Council Member Brown asked if the original date had been June 18th. Mr. Horton replied that it had been. He pointed out that scheduling a hearing as requested would require quite a bit of work by the staff and that he could not conceive of any way that the work could be done at the same time as the University/Town discussions, rewriting the Development Ordinance, carrying out the employer/employee housing program, and a number of other projects were going on. Mr. Horton added that he would be glad to bring back a report but that he could see no way that the work could be done in that timeframe.
Council Member Ward asked if there was enough time to get a staff response and still schedule a hearing for June. Mr. Horton replied that the staff would respond at the next meeting, but added that something else would have to be sacrificed in order for the staff to take this on. He pointed out that employee/employer housing would probably be the first to go. The development ordinance work would go next, Mr. Horton said.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 4 – Consent Agenda
Council Member Brown removed #4e, Calling a Public Hearing on June 20, 2001, and #4g, Resolution Endorsing Regional Transportation Proposal.
Council Member Kevin Foy removed #4b, Backhoe Bid, #4c, Bid on Traffic Scooters, and #4d, Bid on Asphalt Roller.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH 4A AND 4F ONLY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2001-05-7/R-1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following resolutions and ordinances as submitted by the Town Manager in regard to the following:
|
a. |
Nominations to Various Boards (R-2). |
|
f. |
Audit Contract for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 (R-7). |
This the 7th day of May, 2001.
A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (2001-05-07/R-2)
WHEREAS, the applications for service on an advisory board or commission or other committees listed below have been received; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have been determined by the Town Clerk to be eligible to serve;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following names are placed in nomination to serve on an advisory board or commission:
Peter Calingaert
Bibb Latané
Coalter G. Lathrop
Tom Mills
John Ring
Barry Starrfield
Mitch Strobin
Betsey Bancroft Wu
Colleen Black-Semelka
Romeo “Chip” Fontaine
Bibb Latané
Jean Parrish
Andrew Ross
Richard Barrett
Chris Belcher
R. Branson Hobbs
James M. Bullock
Cary Clark
Betsey Bancroft Wu
Virginia C. Young
Steve Dobbins
Frederic W. Schroeder, Jr.
Barry A. Starrfield
Terri Tyson
Transportation Board
Arthelia Hampton
Loren D. Hintz
Coalter G. Lathrop
David J. Lincoln
This the 7th day of May, 2001.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE ANNUAL AUDIT CONTRACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 (2001-05-07/R-7)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to sign a contract with the Certified Public Accounting firm of McGladrey and Pullen, LLP, in an amount not to exceed $36,750 if the Town has no additional major State or federal programs from last year and to accept a fee of no more than $2,500 for any single additional major State or federal program.
This the 7th day of May, 2001.
Regarding 4g, Resolution Endorsing the Regional Transportation Strategy, James Carnahan said that he supported the Town’s endorsement of the regional transportation strategy, but with reservations. Noting that the global population may double within the next 50 years, he wondered how the earth is going to meet the energy needs of so many people. Mr. Carnahan urged the Council to find a way to have a full public examination of the regional strategy. He suggested working to move the balance of roads versus public transportation more in the direction of public transportation, walking, and bicycling.
Dan Coleman, representing the Sierra Club, recommended that the Town Council make this issue a regular agenda item that all citizens will have a chance to comment on before the Town endorses it. He said that the Sierra Club agreed that the spirit of cooperation that underlies the document and believes that the work of the four mayors should be supported and endorsed. But, he explained, the Sierra Club opposed the Council’s endorsement of the document as written. Mr. Coleman commented people will not use other means of transportation as long as it is easier for them to drive. He suggested that Chapel Hill assert its own vision and make the regional strategy stronger and more forward thinking.
Regarding the letter from the mayors, Mr. Coleman remarked that the goals seemed equal. He explained that the Sierra Club did not believe that current transportation planning practices preserve health and air quality, which should be a basic principle. Mr. Coleman explained that the Sierra Club supported the third “Whereas” clause, but did not support endorsing this or any strategy that includes a sales tax as revenue operation for transportation, which, he said, was “just wrong.”
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO DEFER THIS ISSUE UNTIL IT CAN BE PLACED ON A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA.
Council Member Foy inquired about the time limit, and Mayor Waldorf explained that this had merely been an effort on the part of the four mayors to get something done. She added that the study probably would not have any short-term impact and that the General Assembly would not be forthcoming with additional revenue for transportation. Mayor Waldorf said that there was no timeframe involved, but that there was a principle involved: Is the region going to work together and is there going to be some region-wide acknowledgement of these needs?
Mayor Waldorf reminded the Council that this was based on the duly adopted plans of CAMPO and DCHC, and one had already been adopted. She noted that it was a pulling together and a re-articulation of the planners’ view of the long term financing needs of the region. Mayor Waldorf agreed that the plan needed a heavier transit influence and that she had fought for that. She noted, though, that needs outstrip resources in every area.
Mayor Waldorf recommended endorsing the statement, which says that there are significant transportation needs in the region and conveying that message to the legislators in Raleigh who are responsible for transportation funding. She said that this was a statement of need, a useful planning tool, and a call to warning about the problems of tomorrow.
Council Member Brown expressed appreciation for the Mayor’s opinion, but asked to have the matter examined a little more closely and to hear what the public had to say about it.
Mayor Waldorf designated May 21st for further comment and action.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo asked if the other jurisdictions had been presented this document as well. Mayor Waldorf replied that the Cary Town Council, the Wake County Commissioners, the Raleigh City Council, and the CAMPO and DCHC MPOs had endorsed it. She added that it was being presented tonight to the Durham City Council and would be going to the Durham County Commissioners later in May. Mayor Waldorf said that she would send it along to Carrboro, Orange County, and Hillsborough as well. She added that endorsing it was a way of saying to the people in Raleigh that “we’ve got a problem.”
Council Member Evans urged Council members to move forward with this matter, adding it is sometimes necessary to dilute your own priorities in order to get others to buy in.
Mayor Waldorf asked if there was any sense on the Council that this should be endorsed. Both Council Member Evans and Mayor pro tem Pavăo said that they would endorse it. Mayor Waldorf remarked that whether it was endorsed now or later, she would like some recognition from Council members that there is a problem and that this is a step forward even though it might not be the perfect solution.
Council Member Strom expressed appreciation to the Mayor for how hard she had pushed for mass transit and alternative transit solutions. But, he said, the Council had heard from some constituents that they are not comfortable with some of the recommended remedies. He supported the idea of hearing from citizens and reinserting some of the Town’s perspectives into the debate.
Council Member Ward said that he was very supportive of the essence of the effort. He pointed out that Council members never will agree on every point of a strategy. Council Member Ward added that although he was inclined to agree with tonight’s speakers, he thought it was more important at this point to let the legislators know that the region has a problem and needs more tools and State help. Incorporating more public comment would be fine, Council Member Ward remarked, but he urged Council members to support this.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN AMENDED HER MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT THE ITEM BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE MAY 21ST MEETING. COUNCIL MEMBER STROM ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT. THE MOTION AS AMENDED WAS ADOPTED (7-1) WITH MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO VOTING NAY.
Mayor Waldorf encouraged everyone to think before this comes back about what their plan is and how they will accomplish it.
Council Member Ward pulled #5c, Benefits of Joining Recycled Paper Cooperative.
Council Member Strom proposed deferring #5d, Report on Coolidge Street/South Columbia Street Intersection, until May 21.
Council Member Bateman pulled #5e, Report on Airplane Crash at Horace Williams Airport.
Regarding 5e, Pat Greenwell, representing the Board of Directors of the Chapel Hill Flying Club, read a letter to Mr. Horton clarifying the details of an accident near the Horace Williams Airport.
COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL REQUEST THE UNIVERSITY TO CLOSE HORACE WILLIAMS AIRPORT AND MOVE IT TO ANOTHER LOCATION. COUNCIL MEMBER FOY SECONDED.
Council Member Brown noted that the Council had done that in the past. Mr. Horton stated that previous Councils had done so, but the present Council had not.
Council Member Ward asked that the motion be rephrased to ask for a reopening of negotiations regarding the status of the Airport and its location and operation.
Council Member Evans noted that since there was a Town-Gown Committee in place this might not be the right time for the Council to take this action.
Council Member Brown said she supported the motion with Council Member Ward’s modification that the Council request that the University to re-evaluate the status of the Airport and its location.
Council Member Bateman accepted Council Member Ward’s amendment.
Mayor Waldorf asked that the motion include a specific evaluation of whether it should be a University-only airport and also to include comments from the Fire Chief and the Manager subsequent to their investigation. Council Member Bateman accepted that as well, and restated her motion:
COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REQUEST THAT THE UNIVERSITY RE-EVALUATE THE STATUS AND LOCATION OF THE AIRPORT, INCLUDING WHETHER IT COULD BE A UNIVERSITY-ONLY FACILITY, AND THAT THE COUNCIL SUPPORTS THE INTENT OF THE MANAGER TO FORWARD HIS OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE RECENT INCIDENT AND SEEK ANSWERS TO PARTICULAR QUESTIONS IN THE MANAGER’S MEMO. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 6 - Meadowmont Park and School Issues
Ms. Loewenthal explained that this item concerned a Joint Use Agreement between the Board of Education and the Town concerning use and maintenance of the fields on the Meadowmont school site and the interior facilities of the school. She outlined five alternatives for the Council’s consideration:
· Alternative #1, which is distinguished by two rectangular fields located west of the school and creek.
· Alternative #2, which is distinguished by having one rectangular field west of the creek and a dog park in lieu of the second field.
· Alternative #3, which is distinguished by a single rectangular field west of the creek and a softball field in the park, behind the school and the greenway.
· Alternative #4, which is distinguished by a single rectangular field west of the creek and another field between the side of the school building and the compost area and the pond.
· Alternative #5, which is distinguished by having two rectangular fields on the west of the school as in Alternative #1, and another field between the school and the pond as in Alternative #4, with no fields on the park site.
Ms. Loewenthal said that the Manager recommended the general site plan described in Alternative #5, but if the Council wished to maximize the buffer between the western fields and the western property line, then Alternative #4 would do that and still minimize disturbance in the flowage easement..
Regarding Alternative #5, Council Member Foy asked Ms. Loewenthal to clarify what is Town property and what is school property. He then ascertained that none of the playing fields were on Town property in Alternative #5 and the that the 26-space parking lot would be on park property but open to the public when not being used by the schools.
Council Member Ward asked where the public bathrooms would be. Ms. Loewenthal replied that the freestanding bathrooms available to park users probably would be in the same structure as the picnic shelter, which would be close to the developed area because it would need water and sewer lines. She added that this level of detail was yet to be decided. Ms. Loewenthal also noted the possible option of having some bathrooms in the school available to the public.
Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Superintendent Neil Pedersen explained that his recent memo to the Council had reflected the School Board’s concerns, such as the inappropriateness of locating a dog park on the school campus in close proximity to children. He also expressed concern about the site development moving closer to the pond in Alternative #5, the bus loop separating the field and the school, moving the entrance to the east, and moving the parking lot closer to Meadowmont Lane. Mr. Pederson said that Alternatives #1 and #3 were the only ones that did not have those concerns.
Council Member Ward said that Alternative #1 would maximize the number of fields that are as high and dry as the site would allow. He expressed concern about putting fields in the wrong places and about destruction of the 12,000 year-old rhododendron bluffs if the entrance drive is moved toward them.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED RESOLUTION 10 WITH ALTERNATIVE #1. THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Council Member Evans stated that even though the Council had worked hard to develop a different kind of a community at Meadowmont, the school plan presented here was the “same old” design. She praised the Scroggs School design and said she was disappointed to see this one moved back to a one-story sprawl design even though the topography would allow a two-story building. Council Member Evans added that she was disappointed in the location of the parking area, and suggested that a two-story school would allow the parking lot and playing fields to be sited in a better way.
Council Member Foy agreed with Council Member Evans, adding that it looked as though none of the five options was good.
Mayor Waldorf commented that all the options were acceptable, but agreed that the design would take up a lot of area.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo said he was “totally disappointed” in the design, agreeing that the Scroggs School had been an ideal solution. Noting that Mr. Pedersen’s letter states that the developer will not make the scheduled opening if the Town delays this project, Mayor pro tem Pavăo pointed out that this application had been approved in 1997. He expressed disappointment in the design which takes up the majority of the space rather than accommodating a multiple use of facilities. Mayor pro tem Pavăo added that the proposal served the school system but the community had not been considered in the planning.
Council Member Bateman expressed appreciation for the work that had gone into the proposal. She asked Mr. Pedersen about fencing the pond because it would be too dangerous to the children. Mr. Pedersen replied that this had been done at Scroggs. He said that the School Board had assumed that the pond would have to be fenced in.
Council Member Foy suggested revisiting the idea of redesigning the site plan.
Mayor Waldorf asked the developer why they had chosen a one level design rather than two levels. Architect Robert Redfoot, of Corley, Redfoot and Zack, replied that the Department of Public Construction in Raleigh recommends that elementary schools be one level. He said that day lighting was another consideration. The third reason, Mr. Redfoot said, was that a committee of teachers and administrators had unanimously determined that a one-story facility would make a better academic setting for the children and the staff. He pointed out that the plan had been shown to the School Board four or five times and had been in front of the County Commissioners for their review. Mr. Redfoot added that the floor plan might be used as a prototypical design.
Mr. Pederson stated that the School Board had considered the layout of the Scroggs School design on this site to see how it would work. He said that the two-story design would present major site grading issues and environmental problems, and that some parts of the building would result in a three-story drop off.
Mayor Waldorf stated that she respected the need to get the school in business by the fall of 2003. She said that she was prepared to support one of the five alternatives, but suggested coming to terms with what would be a good community shared use of this property.
Council Member Bateman asked Mayor Waldorf which alternative she thought represented the best-shared use. Mayor Waldorf replied that the Town benefits most with Alternative #5, but she agreed with Council Member Ward’s argument about the rhododendron bluffs. Mayor Waldorf noted that accepting his argument and adopting Alternative #1 would mean losing a field because of the one-story design.
Council Member Bateman asked Council Member Ward to repeat his reasoning. He explained that he did not think it was smart to have a playing field in the middle of a traffic circle. He added that Alternative #1moves the driveway farther away from the rhododendron bluffs, which had been in that spot for 12,000 years.
Council Member Strom spoke in favor of Alternative #5.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo asked Council Member Ward whether he would rather sacrifice the rhododendron bluffs or put a field in the floodplain. Council Member Ward replied that the Town did not have to do either. He said they should accept that they cannot have the number of fields they want because the footprint does not allow it.
Council Member Evans noted that the Council was having a difficult time weighing all of the considerations. She commented that Meadowmont was to be a smart growth model for other communities, and that this proposal was not the smart way to use this site. She said that the proposal was counter to all that the Town Council had work for so hard for in the other parts of Meadowmont.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED THAT THIS MATTER BE REFERRED BACK TO THE SCHOOL SYSTEM FOR RECONSIDERATION. COUNCIL MEMBER FOY SECONDED.
Council Member Bateman asked what referring this back would do in terms of the school system’s deadline. Mr. Pedersen reminded the Council that no money had yet been appropriated for the school and that the number of students was increasing each year. Council Member Bateman said that she would prefer not to ask the school system to redesign the school. She suggested that they try to come up with a design, which keeps all of the fields but does not compromise the schools’ concern about the bus loop being around the playing field. Mr. Pedersen replied that if the Town Council were not ready to adopt any of the options on the table he would attempt to rework one of the options, probably Alternative #5.
Council Member Brown sated that she had always felt that this was an inappropriate site for a school, and environmentally sensitive.
Council Member Foy supported Council Member Evans’s point that the typical sprawl design was not in sync with what the Town was trying to accomplish at Meadowmont. He said, though, that the issues go beyond that because the design does not encourage people to walk to the school.
Council Member Strom agreed with Council Member Evans’s suggestion to ask for a significant redesign, adding that the Council's objectives had not been included in the design process early enough.
Council Member Bateman said that she would not support the motion because the Town Council has an obligation to prevent school overcrowding by keeping the deadline.
Mayor Waldorf asked for a comment from someone on the school board about whether it would be a fatal delay or a manageable exercise to foster more shared community use. School Board Chair Nick Didow said that the overriding objective was a cooperative venture that everyone could take pride in that serves the needs not only of the school system but also the community, the Meadowmont community in particular. He offered to come up with a product that everyone in the community would be pleased with, and said that he and Vice Chair Valerie Foushee would welcome active participation of the Town Council beginning the next morning. Mr. Didow stated that this was an important project for the community in the long term, adding that the short run effect is that they probably will not be able to open a school on this site in the summer of 2003.
Council Member Evans restated her motion:
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO REFER THIS ITEM BACK TO THE SCHOOL BOARD FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE SITE DESIGN AND TO INCORPORATE THE STANDARD THAT THE COUNCIL HAD INSTITUTED FOR MEADOWMONT AS A WHOLE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED (6-2) WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN AND BROWN VOTING NAY.
By consensus of the Council, items 6b, 6c, and 6d on the agenda were deferred until this issue comes back for further consideration.
Mayor Waldorf emphasized that floor area ratio should be looked at in particular. She expressed appreciation for the School Board’s cooperation and noted that the Town Council would like to be apprised of any action it can take to move things along.
Mr. Waldon explained that this application seeks approval for modification of the Special Use Permit (SUP) to change the last segment of the previously approved SUP from office use to residential use. He stated that the key issues that emerged at a recent hearing had to do with parking and affordable housing. Mr. Waldon reported that the staff now concurs with the applicant’s position that they comply with the recommended number of parking spaces. He added that the applicant had offered to make an existing house available for affordable housing and to make a contribution of $10,000 to the Orange Community Housing Corporation. Mr. Waldon pointed out that the Manager had recommended adopting Resolution A. He noted that the applicants’ offer toward affordable housing appears for the Council’s consideration in all of the resolutions.
Bob Anderson, a partner with Community Planning and Architectural Associates and owner of the property with Wilshire Boulevard Associates, restated the goals of the project. He showed on a map the location of nearby amenities, transportation, and the entire mixture of facilities and services. Mr. Anderson also showed a mock-up of the proposed four-story building with stacked parking underneath. He pointed out that the project’s design made it difficult to provide housing for different income levels. Mr. Anderson said that most projects that are built with affordable housing are larger than this one and include facilities with different sizes and configurations. He explained that this is why they had offered a payment-in-lieu of $10,000, which he said was in scale with others made before them.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF THE SUP UNTIL THE APPLICANT CONFERS WITH THE MANAGER TO MAKE THE APPLICATION MORE ACCEPTABLE.
Mayor Waldorf inquired about time constraints. Mr. Horton explained that it would have to come back to the Council before summer break.
Council Member Evans asked Council Member Foy to elaborate on his motion. Council Member Foy explained that there were a number of flaws in the application, not the least of which is the lack of a real affordable housing component.
Council Member Ward asked for an elaboration of the applicant’s offer to donate a house. Mr. Anderson replied that the house would be donated to an agency that could move it and put it to use on another site. Council Member Ward suggested that the applicant provide more details about the value of that house and the cost of moving it.
Council Member Evans suggested that the applicant might contribute more to the cost of moving the house. She stated that this was an excellent project and that she did not want it to be redesigned. Council Member Evans said that she hoped that an acceptable compromise could be worked out, since the goal of affordable housing should be reasonable and flexible.
Mayor Waldorf pointed out that this was the scope of the motion and that there was nothing in the motion suggesting that anything needed to be redesigned.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY AMENDED HIS MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF THE SUP AND THAT THE APPLICANT CONFER FURTHER DIRECTLY WITH THE MANAGER ABOUT WHAT COULD BE DONE TO MAKE THE APPLICATION MORE ACCEPTABLE , WITH LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING BEING ONE ISSUE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos proposed addressing issues raised by the Council by reconvening the working group of representatives from the various agencies. He explained that the ordinance’s concept involves the idea that there would be a similar ordinance adopted by each jurisdiction so that one jurisdiction would not be denied an application based on lack of school facilities while another agency was approving a project which used up any facilities that were available. Mr. Karpinos said that he had concluded that the Town needed to talk with the other the jurisdictions and their representatives. The resolution authorizes and directs the staff to pursue that with the other staffs from the other governments and the school boards, he said.
Mayor Waldorf suggested that the Council approve the ordinance in principle but note that they have questions that they would like answered in a fairly short timeframe.
Council Member Strom said that he agreed with this in principle, but suggested requesting that the Council receive an ordinance to vote on prior to its summer break.
Mayor Waldorf, noting that the Town Council cannot direct the work group to meet, asked Council Member Strom if he was suggesting imploring the work group to meet between now and July 2nd so that the Council can vote on July 2nd. Council Member Strom replied that this was correct.
Mayor Waldorf and various Council members agreed with Council Member Strom’s suggestion, and Mayor pro tem Pavăo said that he thought the work group meeting had been set for June 12th.
Mayor Waldorf summarized the task: To approve an amended R-15, with the paragraph that is there, and a clause that says “Be it further resolved that the Council desires the work group to discuss this and resolve these questions at its June 12th meeting and report back to all the bodies,” and, “Be it further resolved that the Council supports the adequate public facilities ordinance in principle.”
Council Member Brown asked how this would fit in with the other bodies’ summer recesses, adding that she wanted everyone to vote on it before summer. Mr. Karpinos pointed out that the concerns of all the other bodies needed to be resolved as well.
Mayor Waldorf asked if it was true that Carrboro, Orange County and Hillsborough had not yet scheduled this issue for discussion. Mr. Karpinos replied that Carrboro had discussed it within the past couple of weeks.
Both Mayor Waldorf and Mayor pro tem Pavăo said that Carrboro had deferred it, but Mr. Karpinos replied that the deferral had come after some discussion.
Council Member Brown commented that it would be difficult to have all the other bodies’ opinions in by the June 12th meeting.
Mayor pro tem Pavao suggested that it may have been moved from May to June in order to get other jurisdictions’ comments and reactions. Council Member Evans expressed concern about the other boards not responding in time. Mayor Waldorf suggested that Mr. Karpinos’ letter be sent to the mayors, Aldermen, and County Commissioners, as well as to the other attorneys. Mr. Horton suggested that this be made part of the motion.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO ADOPT R-15 AS AMENDED BY THE MAYOR’S LANGUAGE (“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE COUNCIL ENDORSES THE ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE IN PRINCIPLE”, AND “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE COUNCIL REQUESTS THAT THE SCHOOL AND LAND USE COUNCIL ADDRESS AT ITS NEXT MEETING THE COUNCIL’S QUESTIONS, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR SUGGESTIONS GENERATED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMAN, OR THE HILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AT ITS NEXT MEETING, AND, IF POSSIBLE, ISSUE A REVISED RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL SO THAT IT MAY ACT ON JULY 2ND.” ), AND FURTHER AMENDED TO REQUEST THAT THE TOWN ATTORNEY’S LETTER TO THE OTHER ATTORNEYS BE SENT TO THE MAYORS, ALDERMEN AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS WELL. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE (2001-05-07/R-15)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager and Town Attorney are hereby directed to request that staff members from other local jurisdictions and the two school boards meet to consider further the questions and comments made by citizens and Council members on April 23, 2001, and to develop a revised recommended program to respond to the concerns raised for further consideration by the various governing boards.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council supports the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance in principle.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests that the School and Land Use Council address at its next meeting the Council’s questions, as well as any other questions or suggestions generated by the County Commissioners, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, or the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners at its next meeting, and, if possible, issue a revised recommendation to the Council so that it may act on July 2nd, and that the Town Attorney’s letter to the other attorneys be sent to the mayors, Aldermen and County Commissioners as well.
This the 7th day of May, 2001.
Automated Traffic Enforcement for Red Light Running
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT O-2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED (5-3) WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN, FOY AND STROM VOTING NAY.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (2001-05-07/O-2)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. A new Article II (A), Chapter 21 is hereby added to the Town Code to read as follows:
Sec. 21-10.1. Definitions.
For purposes of this Article, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) “Automated traffic control system” is an automated system consisting of a photographic, video or electronic camera and a vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with an official traffic control and to automatically produce photographs, automated or digital images of each vehicle violating a standard traffic control.
(b) “In operation” means operating in good working condition.
(c) “System location” is the approach to an intersection toward which a photographic, video, or electronic camera is directed and is in operation.
(d) “Vehicle owner” is the person identified by the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles as the registered owner of a vehicle.
Sec.21-10.2. General.
(a) The Town of Chapel Hill shall maintain a list of system locations where automated traffic control systems are installed.
(b) Any citation for a red light violation issued by an officer of the Chapel Hill Police Department at a system location shall be treated in the same manner as prescribed in this article.
(c) The citation shall clearly state the manner in which the violation may be appealed. The citation shall be processed by officials or agents of the Town of Chapel Hill and shall be forwarded by personal service or first-class mail to the owner’s address as given on the motor vehicle registration.
Sec. 21-10.3. Offense.
(a) It shall be unlawful for a vehicle to cross the stop line at a system location when the traffic signal for that vehicle’s direction of travel is emitting a steady red light.
(b) The owner of a vehicle shall be responsible for a violation under this section, except when said owner can provide evidence that the vehicle was in the care, custody, or control of another person at the time of the violation, as described in subsection (c).
(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), the owner of the vehicle shall not be responsible for the violation if, within thirty (30) calendar days after notification of the violation, said owner furnishes the officials or agents of the Town:
1. The name and address of the person or entity who leased, rented, or otherwise had the care, custody, and control of the vehicle at the time of the violation; or
2. An affidavit stating that, at the time of the violation, the vehicle involved was stolen or was in the care, custody, or control of some person who did not have said owner’s permission to use the vehicle.
Sec. 21-10.4. Penalty.
Any violation of Section 21-10.3 shall be deemed a non-criminal violation for which a civil penalty of fifty dollars ($50.00) shall be assessed, and for which no moving violation points as authorized by NCGS 20-16(c) or insurance points as authorized by NCGS 58-36-65. shall be assigned to the owner or driver of the vehicle. Failure to pay the civil penalty or to file an appeal within thirty (30) calendar days after the mailing date of the notification of the violation shall result in an additional penalty of fifty dollars ($50.00). The Town may establish procedures for the collection of the civil penalties and may enforce the penalties by a civil action in the nature of a debt.
Sec. 21-10.5. Appeal.
A notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty (30) calendar days after the mailing date of the notification of the violation. The failure to give notice of appeal within this time period shall constitute a waiver of the right to contest the citation. Appeals shall be heard through an administrative process established by the Town Manager. An individual desiring a hearing must post a bond equal to the amount of the civil penalty before an appeal hearing will be scheduled. The Hearing Officer’s decision is subject to review in the General Court of Justice of Orange County by proceedings in the “nature of certiorari.” ”
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
This the 23rd day of April, 2001. FIRST READING
This the 7th day of May, 2001. SECOND READING
Area Land Use Plan and Map
Mr. Waldon pointed out that the Town Council had asked its partners in the Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) to amend the JPA Land Use Plan for Chapel Hill’s transition areas so that they would match the Town’s Land Use Plan that was adopted last May. He explained that this request had been included in a joint discussion focusing on landfill issues, the Greene Tract, and the Neville Tract. Mr. Waldon noted that the Greene Tract, once designated as ”landfill”, was recommended in the Comprehensive Plan to be designated as “housing/open space.” He stated that the Neville Tract carried the same designation as the landfill, and noted that this had caused great concern among people who live in that area. Mr. Waldon reported that some had felt it was premature to designate the Greene Tract as “housing/open space,” even though that might be the ultimate use, because discussions are ongoing.
Mr. Waldon displayed a new map that designated both the Neville Tract and the Greene Tract as “public use.” He proposed that this designation would allay fears of future landfill activity and makes it clear that these are public lands and that the Greene Tract designation is still undecided.
Planning Board Chair Gay Eddy reported that the vote had been 4-3 in favor of a resolution recommending that the Council change the JPA Land Use Plan to match the Chapel Hill Land Use Plan. She expressed concern about designating a new category for public use, and explained that this had been the reason for the split vote. Ms. Eddy said that the Board felt that it was inappropriate to assign this designation to an area unless other parts of Town would be designated this way as well. Furthermore, she said, the “public use” designation should be explained because a landfill could be a public use. She added that the “public use” designation might also prevent part of the land from being sold for affordable housing.
Ms. Eddy explained that the Board’s motion had carried the recommendation that the Council not make this new land use category designation unless it could be defined and unless it would be used at other places in a broader scope. Noting the possibility of a public works facility in the area, she asked if it was appropriate to change the designation from “mixed use” to “rural residential” and then have to change it back because the public works facility will require sewer and water. Ms. Eddy said that one Board member had voted against the motion because he thought it was better to leave it as “mixed use,” and the other two had voted against it because they liked the “public use” designation.
Council Member Evans asked why the staff was recommending that the area be classified “rural residential” if the public works facility is going there. Mr. Waldon replied that “everybody’s right on this one.” He explained that if a public works facility is located there then the designation might be changed from “rural residential” to something else. He said that it was changed to “rural residential” on the Town’s Land Use Plan last May. Council Member Evans pointed out that public works is allowed under any category because it is a public use.
Council Member Bateman inquired about the work group that had been analyzing potential uses of the Greene Tract. Mayor Waldorf stated that in November she and the other mayors and managers had developed a concept plan, and that the County Manager had left that meeting with the assignment to work on that and bring it back. Mayor Waldorf added that if and when that comes back there will be a proposed process to look at. She pointed out that saying somebody is working on it overstates the situation.
Council Member Brown commented that this proposal makes things more confusing. Mr. Waldon replied that it does not matter much how the Greene Tract is designated because nothing will happen to it until the partners in ownership decide what will happen to it. The Neville Tract, he said, is a different situation because its neighbors were frightened by the landfill designation. Mr. Waldon noted that “extractive use” was a category that reflects what is actually happening at the Neville Tract today.
Council Member Evans, noting that there was no definition of “public use” or “extraction,” asked if it was necessary to create a new category. Mr. Horton replied that “public use” has more meaning than “to be determined.” He noted that the designation on this Land Use Plan will not determine the eventual use of the property.
Council Member Brown stated that “extractive use” would not be appropriate because the contract is for a limited period of time.
Council Member Strom commented that changing the designation to “public use” at this time would be a mistake because it implies that the Town has departed from its Comprehensive Plan goals for the Greene Tract.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 16b, WITH THE NEVILLE TRACT DESIGNATED AS “PUBLIC USE.”
Council Member Foy offered to second the motion if the Neville Tract could be left as designated in the 1986 plan. Council Member Strom agreed.
Council Member Brown pointed out that the term “open space” may have to be redefined since many people are interested in keeping this a “natural area.” She asked Council Member Strom if he would consider adding “natural area” to the definition of “open space” in his motion. He replied that his motion already leaves that as a very realistic possibility.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY SECONDED THE MOTION TO ADOPT R-16b WITH THE NEVILLE TRACT TO REMAIN AS DESIGNATED (“PARKS/OPEN SPACE”) AS IT WAS IN THE 1986 LAND USE PLAN. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
WHEREAS, Orange County, the Town of Chapel Hill, and the Town of Carrboro entered into a Joint Planning Agreement, dated September 22, 1987, as amended April 2, 1990; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Joint Planning Agreement, a Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Map were adopted on October 13, 1986, by all parties to the Joint Planning Agreement, and have since been amended on several occasions; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill’s Comprehensive Plan, which provides a framework for the future use of land within the Chapel Hill Joint Planning Transition Area (Northwest Area), was adopted by the Chapel Hill Town Council on May 8, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan was the product of a two year planning process that involved numerous public officials, planners, and residents of the affected area and the Town; and
WHEREAS, the geographic area covered by the revised Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan includes the Chapel Hill Joint Planning Transition Area as identified in the Joint Planning Agreement, which area is also covered by the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Map; and
WHEREAS, implementation of revisions to the Chapel Hill Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Plan requires an amendment to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL AND CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN HEREBY RESOLVE that the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and map be amended according to the map shows as Map 2 of Attachment 1 of the Manager’s memorandum dated May 7, 2001, with the Greene Tract designated as Housing/Open Space, and that Area 5, the Neville Tract, remain as designated in the 1986 Joint Land Use Plan.
This resolution shall become effective upon adoption by the governing bodies of Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
This the 7th day of May, 2001.
Item 11 - Request for Expedited Processing: Wachovia Bank at Meadowmont
Mr. Horton explained that, by ordinance, this project would have to go back to the Community Design Commission and that by the guidelines that the Town has traditionally applied the staff could not recommend expedited treatment. He added that this matter could go through a shortened process and come back to the Council rather quickly, probably in the fall.
Josh Gurlitz, who had submitted this petition for expedited review on behalf of Wachovia Bank, noted that Wachovia does participate in the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and does make loans under the CRA. He added that Wachovia will commit to making a donation to the Orange Community Housing Corporation in support of the affordable housing project. Mr. Gurlitz pointed out that Wachovia had requested modification of the parking lot for this branch only. He noted that the request would not change the site plan consideration by the staff, boards, and commissions. Mr. Gurlitz emphasized that the process should be quick and efficient, adding that this was a special situation and an excellent candidate for expedited review.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo noted that this matter could be dealt with rather quickly. He asked Mr. Horton how soon it would come back if the Town did grant expedited review. Mr. Horton replied that there was not that much to be reviewed so there probably would be no difference in time since it could not come back before summer recess anyway.
Mayor Waldorf asked if the petitioner would have to go through every advisory board again since the matters that they have to discuss really are for the Council and the Design Commission only.
Council Member Ward said that it was important for the Transportation Board and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board to see it again for their comments about parking.
Council Member Strom agreed that there were pedestrian issues involved. He suggested not deviating from the standard process.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo recommended that the Town not “drag our heels.”
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, THAT REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT BY ADVISORY BOARDS NOT BE DELAYED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
12a. Planning Board. The Council appointed Nancy Gabriel, Bob Reda and Bruce Tucker.
|
Planning Board |
Council Members |
||||||||||
Applicants |
Waldorf |
Bateman |
Brown |
Evans |
Foy |
Pavăo |
Strom |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
|
|
Sarah Bruce |
X |
1 |
|||||||||
|
Steve Dobbins |
X |
X |
X |
3 |
|||||||
|
Normal Fitzgerald |
X |
1 |
|||||||||
|
Nancy Gabriel |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
7* |
|||
|
David Lincoln |
|||||||||||
|
Richard Loeber |
|||||||||||
|
Stephen Manton |
|||||||||||
|
Warren Mitchell |
|||||||||||
|
Ann-Christin Pautz |
X |
1 |
|||||||||
|
Robert Reda |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
7* |
|||
|
Frederic Schroeder |
X |
X |
2 |
||||||||
|
Delilah Snow |
X |
X |
X |
3 |
|||||||
|
Barry Starrfield |
|||||||||||
|
Bruce Tucker |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
7* |
|||
|
Terri Tyson |
|||||||||||
|
Richard Williams |
|||||||||||
12b. Technology Committee. The Council appointed Bill Groves, Andrew Lee, Roscoe Reeve, Alan Rimer and Richard Taylor.
|
Technology Committee |
Council Members |
||||||||||
Applicants |
Waldorf |
Bateman |
Brown |
Evans |
Foy |
Pavăo |
Strom |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
|
|
William Groves |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
8* |
||
|
Andrew Lee |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
8* |
||
|
Jeremy Mullis |
|||||||||||
|
Roscoe Reeve |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
8* |
||
|
Alan Rimer |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
8* |
||
|
Richard Taylor |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
7* |
|||
Item 13 - Petitions
Mayor Waldorf read a letter that she proposed sending to all the legislators in Wake, Durham and Orange Counties regarding use of Trust Fund money for road repair. She asked for the Council’s support in sending this letter. Council members agreed by consensus to endorse the Mayor’s letter.
Council Member Foy explained that he had removed items #4b, Backhoe Bid, #4c, Bid on Traffic Scooters, and #4d, Bid on Asphalt Roller, because they appear to be funds from the Vehicle Replacement Fund, which is about $150,000. He inquired about waiting until the scheduled discussion of that fund within the next few weeks before spending those funds.
Public Works Director Bruce Heflin explained that the asphalt roller would replace one that was no longer useable. He said that the Town had been renting one for large jobs. Mr. Heflin noted that the annual investment through the installment contract would be less than the rental cost each year.
Finance Director Jim Baker explained that there were two sets of transactions going on at the same time in the Fleet Replacement Fund. He stated that money was set aside last year to make the cash purchases for this year’s vehicles. Mr. Baker noted that the payback over a three or four year period began at that time, adding that the Town makes one-fifth of the payment on the equipment each year.
Council Member Foy asked if delaying this and discussing it when the Council discusses the Vehicle Replacement Fund would create a problem. Mr. Horton replied that it would not as long as there is a conclusion before the budget is adopted. Mr. Heflin noted that these are “piggyback bids,” adding that waiting may mean that the price will be lost.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 5. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN ASPHALT ROLLER WITH TRANSPORT TRAILER (2001-05-07/R-5)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has advertised notice of waiver of the formal bid process by legal notice in The Chapel Hill Herald Classifieds on April 27, 2001, in accordance with G.S. 143-129(g) for the purchase of an asphalt roller with transport trailer; and
WHEREAS, a formal bid competition was held by the Town of Henderson with a bid opening on January 3, 2001 in accordance with G.S. 143-129; and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Equipment Company offers the Town an asphalt roller with transport trailer at the same price as offered to the Town of Henderson;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town implements the waiver of formal bid process in accordance with G.S. 143-129(g) and accepts the offer to sell of North Carolina Equipment Company in the amount of $31,478.
This the 7th day of May, 2001.
Mr. Heflin explained that the backhoe is 11 years old and that it should be sold while it still has some life in it. Council Member Strom ascertained that this was the one three backhoes which has the highest number of hours on it.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO DEFER ITEMS #4B AND #4C TO BE CONSIDERED DURING THE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT DELIBERATIONS ON MAY 30th. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED (6-2) WITH COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS AND MAYOR WALDORF VOTING NAY.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, THAT THE MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE CONSULTANT (R-6) BE SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, JUNE 26TH. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2000-2001 COUNCIL CALENDAR TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (2001-05-07/R-6)
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to hold a Public Hearing on a proposed revision of Chapel Hill’s Development Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, June 26, 2001, 7:00 p.m. has been suggested as a possible meeting date and time;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby amends its 2000-2001 meeting calendar to schedule a Public Hearing for Tuesday, June 26, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber of Town Hall, for the purpose of considering a proposed revision of Chapel Hill’s Development Ordinance.
This the 7th day of May, 2001.
Regarding #5c, Consideration of Joining Recycled Paper Purchasing Cooperative, Council Member Ward asked what “recycled paper” means. Mr. Horton noted that Mr. Baker, the only one who could answer that question, had left. Council Member Ward urged the Town to do all it can to use recycled paper, and Mr. Horton offered to bring back a report.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m.