SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.

 

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

 

Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Pat Evans, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.

 

Mayor Foy explained that Council Member Ed Harrison was attending a Durham City Council meeting on behalf of the Town Council and would arrive later in the evening.  Council Member Harrison arrived at 9:47 p.m.

 

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 Strom, Planner Than Austin, Inspections Director Lance Norris, Fire Chief Dan Jones, Police Chief Gregg Jarvies, Human Resources Director Pam Eastwood, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, Finance Director Jim Baker, Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.

 

Item 1 - Ceremonies

 

1 a.  Recognition of Town Retirees.

 

Mayor Foy explained that tonight Chapel Hill was honoring fourteen employees who were retiring from a variety of positions with the Town.  He thanked each of them for their hard work and for the vital role they had played in providing services to citizens.  Those in attendance were:

 

Lorin Mueller, six years with the Chapel Hill Police Department (October 1995 to November 2001). Mr. Mueller worked as a traffic officer and a patrol officer and was a weapons expert. 

 

Ben Wiseman, thirteen years.  Mr. Wiseman began as a public safety officer in July 1988 and retired as a fire equipment operator in December of 2001. 

 

Marvin Clark, twenty-seven years with the Chapel Hill Police Department (April 1974 to May 2002).  His positions with the Town included Director of the Police Department Firearms Training and Director of Chapel Hill's Basic Law Enforcement Training Program.  Mr. Clark was also on the Special Emergency Response Team for eighteen years and was in Investigations for ten years.

 

David Lewis, twenty-eight years with the Chapel Hill Fire Department (May 1970 to September 2002).  Mr. Lewis began as a firefighter and retired as a battalion chief. 

 

Others who were honored but were not in attendance were:

 

Barry Coe, seven years with the Chapel Hill Police Department (February 1995 to April 2002).

 

Carol Mitchell, seven years with the Town (January 1995 to August 2002).  Ms. Mitchell first worked in the Finance Department and then at the Chapel Hill Public Library.

 

Tommy Teague, ten years with the Chapel Hill Police Department (September 1992 to August 2002).

 

Mary Dexter, fifteen years with Chapel Hill Transit (January 1987 to June 2002).   

 

Jane Brinkley, twenty years with the Chapel Hill Public Library (November 1981 to December 2001).

 

Michael Neal, twenty years with the Engineering Department, from June 1981 to April 2002.  

 

Laurie Hill, twenty-one years in the Personnel Department (July 1981 to July 2002).

 

Cristine Carlson, twenty-seven years with Chapel Hill Transit (July 1974 to June 2002).   

 

Joe Jackson, twenty-eight years with the Chapel Hill Police Department (May 1970 to September 2002). 

 

Ken Davis, thirty years with the Inspections Department (January 1972 to April 2002).

 

1b.  Retirement of Two Police Dogs and Donation to Replace One.

 

Council Member Flicka Bateman read the biographies of two dogs, Xaro and Kopper, who were retiring from the Town's K-9 Police Force.

 

Mayor Foy asked Police Chief Greg Jarvies and Kiwanis Club president Mark Brown to come forward.  Mr. Brown presented a $4,000 check to the Chapel Hill Police Association for purchase of another dog for the K-9 unit.  Chief Jarvies, noting that the K-9 program was funded through private contributions, thanked the Kiwanis Club for their donation.

 

Item 2 - Public Hearing: Sidewalk and Bicycle

Facilities Construction Plan for 2002-03

 

Town Planner Than Austin listed the year's completed projects: Emily and Partin Streets, Bolinwood Drive, Scarlette Drive, and Ransom Street.  Projects still in progress, he said, include Culbreth Road, Fordham Boulevard, and West Rosemary Street. Mr. Austin estimated that the Town had $60,000 in residual Capital Improvements Program funds.  He said the staff intends to pursue $100,000 in Direct Allocation Funds for these projects, adding that such funding would require a 20% local match.  Mr. Austin also noted the potential for new CIP funds. 

 

Citing a sidewalk ranking system, Mr. Austin recommended that the Council approve the top eleven on the list:  Airport Road, Legion Road (two projects), Culbreth Road, Seawell School Road, Fordham Boulevard, McCauley Street, South Graham Street, University Drive, Ephesus Church Road and Estes Drive Extension.  These projects would be constructed as funding becomes available, he said, adding that the staff would return on November 11th with a prioritized list of those eleven projects and cost estimates.

 

Wayne Pein, Chair of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, recommended that the Council keep to the top eleven projects when deciding which ones to fund.  He also recommended that the Town Council increase the level of funding for those projects if the State releases funds for Capital Improvements.  Mr. Pein stressed the importance of crosswalks, particularly along four- and five-lane streets such as Airport Road.  He urged the Council to consider improving crosswalks as well as sidewalks.

 

South Graham Street resident Sandy Walker stated that three years had passed since her neighborhood had been promised sidewalks along one side of the street or the other.  She described the road as dangerous.  Ms. Walker said that residents had to call the Town to have gravel placed along the street and roadside.

 

Denise Halfors expressed support and gratitude to the Town for placing the Sewell School Road sidewalk project on the priority list.  The area is a very busy place with three schools, she said, and the road has been dangerous for students.   Ms. Halfors suggested that the Town schedule the rest of Sewell School Road for sidewalks as well.

 

Mayor pro tem Evans requested that Mayor Foy approach the University and ask them about sharing the cost of a sidewalk by Battle Park.  Mayor Foy agreed to do that.

 

Council Member Verkerk noted a letter to the Council from Transportation Board Chair Loren Hintz who, she said, had recently been struck by a car while bicycling.  Council Member Verkek recommended creating a priority list for crosswalk improvements to correspond with that for sidewalk improvements.  Town Manager Cal Horton suggested that the Council make a direct referral to the two boards regarding that.       

 

Council Member Wiggins verified that Ms. Walker's street (South Graham) was on the priority list.  She then asked how far down on the list the Town would be able to go with the available funds.  Mr. Austin noted that costs can fluctuate greatly from area to area, but estimated that South Graham Street would cost about $20,000-25,000.  Council Member Wiggins urged the staff to find a way to keep that street a priority for this year.

 

Mayor Foy asked the staff to come back with a cost for each project.  He recommended pursuing Community Development funding for the South Graham Street project.   Mayor Foy determined that the ranking did not mean that the projects must necessarily be done in order of ranking.  He noted that the rankings could be eliminated when the Council acts on November 11th.

 

Council Member Ward referred to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board's comment that the Council could eliminate rankings within the eleven.  He asked how additional requests, such as those that were in the Council's packet, would get to the Board.  Mr. Horton explained that the staff routinely sends such requests to both boards.

 

Council Member Wiggins suggested including on the list ways to deter people from crossing where they are not supposed tot.  This is the greatest problem on Airport Road, she said.

 

Mayor Foy suggested that the Council only refer comments to the Manager at this point, since Airport road would be coming up later on the evening's agenda.

 

MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY BOARD AND TO THE MANAGER.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0). 

 

Item 3 - Petitions

 

3a(1)  Thomas Higgins for Sellers Properties re Application for Site Plan Approval to be Considered Under Current Development Ordinance Regulations.

 

Elizabeth Stanfill, Vice President of Sellers Properties Inc., explained that her company had owned and paid taxes on a parcel at the Timberlyne Shopping Center for 18 years.  They had finally found a local business (Chapel Hill Tire) that could be viable for the long term, she said.  Ms. Stanfill asked Council members to consider the application for site plan approval under the current Development Ordinance.  Otherwise, she said, the value and marketability of the site would decline drastically.  Ms. Stanfill said that her company's efforts to respond to staff requests had pushed them to the next available slot for consideration, on December 1.  She asked that that they not be penalized for trying to do the right thing.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

 

3b.  Petitions by Council members.  None.

 

3c.  Announcements by Council members.

 

Mayor Foy announced that he had met with the High School Planning Committee and discussed three potential sites at the southern part of the Town.  One was in Carrboro's Urban Services Boundary, he said, and the other two were within and outside of Chapel Hill's Urban Services Boundary.

 

Mayor Foy noted that having the goal of opening a new high school by the fall of 2005 puts the School System on a tight time schedule.  He explained that some other properties are not for sale and that the School System would have to condemn them if it wants to use them.  So, for now, said Mayor Foy, the School System is looking at these three potential sites.  They want 50 acres for a 1,000-student high school that can be expanded to 1,500 students, he said.

 

Mayor Foy explained that he had encouraged the School System to look at an urban design, since Chapel Hill is encouraging a more urban environment.  But they need flat land outside the Resource Conservation District, he said, and this is difficult to find in Chapel Hill.  Mayor Foy stated that the Board would meet again at 1:00 p.m. on November 7th at the Southern Human Services Center.

 

Item 4 - Consent Agenda

 

Mayor pro tem Evans removed Item #4f.  She asked that the Visitors Bureau be added to the list of representatives to the Street Fair Review Committee.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO ADOPT R-1 WITH ITEM #4f REMOVED.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

 

 

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2002-10-21/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.

Adoption of Minutes (September 9, 18, and 23). 

b.

Adoption of the International Building Code with N.C. Amendments (O-1). 

c.

Multi-way Stop Signs at Intersection of Old Oxford Road and Ridgecrest Drive/Oxford Hills Drive (O-2).

d.

Acceptance of Bureau of Justice Assistance Block Grant (R-2); (O-3). 

e.

Resolution and Ordinance Authorizing Provision of High-Speed Communication, Software, and Hardware for Town Council Members (R-3); (O-4).

 

This the 21st day of October, 2002.

 

 

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE II OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ADOPT THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE  (2002-10-21/O-1)

 

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

 

Section 1.  of the Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

 

Sec. 5-15.  State Building Code, 1991 Edition adopted.  2002 International Building Code, with North Carolina Amendments, adopted.

Volume I, General Construction, Volume IA-Administration, Volume IB-N.C. Uniform Residential Building Code, Volume IC-Accessibility, Volume ID-N.C. Regulations for Modular Construction, Volume II-Plumbing, Volume III-Mechanical, Volume IV-Electrical, Volume V-Fire Prevention, and Volume IV-Gas of the North Carolina State Building Code, 1991 edition, Adoption of The 2002 International Building, Residential, Plumbing, Mechanical, Fuel Gas and Energy Code with North Carolina Amendments,  2002 Edition of the National Electrical Code (NFiPA -70)  with  North Carolina Amendments, 2002 North Carolina Administration and Enforcement Requirements Code, North Carolina Accessibility Code 2002 Edition, Volume 8 North Carolina Regulations for Modular Construction 1994 Edition, and North Carolina Regulations for Manufactured and Mobile Homes 1995 Edition, with 1996 Amendments, are hereby adopted by reference and shall control construction and installation of improvements within the town and its extraterritorial planning jurisdiction the same as if set out at length herein, except as the same shall be amended in this chapter.

 

Section 2.  This ordinance shall become effective on December 31, 2002.

 

This the 21st day of October, 2002.

 

 

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING STOP REGULATIONS (2002-10-21/O-2)

 

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

 

Section 1.         Section 21-13(a) of the Town Code of Ordinances, “Right-of-way and stop regulations.” is hereby amended by deleting the following:

 

“Through Streets                                Stop Streets

 

Old Oxford Road                                 Ridgecrest Drive”

 

Section 2.  Section 21-13(c) of the Town Code of Ordinances, “Right-of-way and stop regulations.” is hereby amended by inserting the following, in appropriate alphabetical order:

 

“Intersection(s)

 

            Old Oxford Road and Ridgecrest Drive/Oxford Hills Drive”

 

Section 3.  This ordinance shall become effective November 18, 2002.

 

This the 21st day of October, 2002.

 

 

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT (2002-10-21/R-2)

 

WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Assistance have made funds available to enhance the quality of law enforcement services provided to local communities; and

 

WHEREAS, the Town’s Law Enforcement Block Grant application in the amount of $44,510 was approved by the Bureau of Justice Assistance; and

 

WHEREAS, the block grant funds would be used to purchase supplies and equipment that would increase training opportunities, provide technology upgrades, and help to implement crime prevention programs;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to accept the Bureau of Justice Assistance Law Enforcement Block Grant and to make all necessary assurances.

 

This the 21st day of October, 2002.

 

 

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2002 (2002-10-21/O-3)

 

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Budget Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Concerning Appropriations and the Raising of Revenue for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2002” as duly adopted on July 26, 2002, be and the same is hereby amended as follows:

 

ARTICLE I

 

                                                            Current                                                           Revised

APPROPRIATIONS                           Budget             Increase           Decrease                      Budget

 

GENERAL FUND

            Police                                   9,141,694              44,510                                          9,186,204

 

 

ARTICLE II

 

                                                            Current                                                           Revised

REVENUES                                        Budget             Increase           Decrease                      Budget

 

GENERAL FUND

            Grants                                     502,750               44,510                                            547,260 

 

 

This the 21st day of October, 2002.

 

A RESOLUTION REGARDING COMPUTER SERVICES FOR THE TOWN COUNCIL (2002-10-21/R-3)

 

WHEREAS, the Town Council has received a recommendation for the Town Manager regarding the need to improve the capability for Council member’s to access Town electronic documents and email; and

 

WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that there is a significant benefit to the Town’s ability to process and distribute information associated with public meetings and hearings;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is directed to include in the FY 2003-2004 budget a plan to provide each Council member with a suitable laptop or home computer and related software and equipment for accessing Town documents and email during their term of office.

 

This the 21st day of October, 2002.

 

 

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2002” (2002-10-21/O-4)

 

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Budget Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Concerning Appropriations and the Raising of Revenue for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2002” as duly adopted on July 26, 2002, be and the same is hereby amended as follows:

 

ARTICLE I

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPROPRIATIONS

Current

Budget

 

Increase

 

Decrease

Revised

Budget

 

 

 

 

 

GENERAL FUND

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     Non-Departmental

 

 

 

 

          Contingency

31,629

 

3,000

28,629

 

 

 

 

 

     Mayor/Council

231,206

3,000

 

234,206

 

This the 21st day of October, 2002.

 

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO ADOPT R-3.1 AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE VISITORS BUREAU.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

 

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER AND THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION TO RECRUIT MEMBERS FOR A STREET FAIR REVIEW COMMITTEE (2002-10-21/R-3.1)

 

WHEREAS, the Council has requested that a thorough review of the Town-sponsored annual street fairs be conducted; and

 

WHEREAS, a conceptual plan committee would allow citizens, nearby residents and property owners, business owners, churches, and local artists to participate in the review process;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Manager and Parks and Recreation Commission are hereby authorized to recruit the following applicants for a Street Fair Review Committee:

 

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL that the Manager is authorized to report back to the Council with a recommended list of participants on November 25, 2002.

 

This the 21st day of October, 2002.

 

 

Item 5 - Information Reports

 

Regarding 5c, January-September 2002 Chapel Hill Transit Ridership Report, Council Member Bateman inquired about the status of the Ronald McDonald House Board's request for a transit stop near the House so that parents could more easily commute to UNC Hospitals.  Mr. Horton agreed to bring back a report at the next Council meeting.

 

Mayor Foy pointed out that 5c shows enormous increases in bus ridership (40%-50% in some cases) during this first year of free fare.  He congratulated the Town's Transportation Department staff for accommodating the increase so well.  Mr. Horton agreed that the drivers, mechanics, and staff troubleshooters had all done an impressive job in a very challenging situation.

 

All other reports accepted without comment.

 

Item 6 - Presentation by Orange Water and Sewer Authority

on Drought Conditions

 

Ed Kerwin, Executive Director at OWASA, displayed  slides contrasting the Town's two reservoirs (Cane Creek and University Lake) before and after the recent "miracle rains."  He pointed out that the reservoir system had last been full in June 2000.  Last year, he said, was the first time ever that the lakes did not refill over the winter.  Mr. Kerwin pointed out that there was 250 days of remaining storage, up from 100 days in August.  He recommended continuing to conserve water in order to avoid running out if next year is as dry as the last year and a half.  Mr. Kerwin noted that OWASA had recently recommended reducing restrictions, from Emergency to Stage II.  He then outlined the next steps:

 

·        Closely monitor water supply and demand.

·        Continue public awareness efforts.

·        Explore short- and long-term alternative water supply and demand management options.

·        Remember "Lessons Learned."

·        Improve Water Conservation Ordinance.

 

Council Member Strom inquired about the timeline for changing the Conservation Ordinance.  Mr. Kerwin replied that with the Council's help and input there will be a much improved conservation ordinance in place by March 2003.  Council Member Strom noted that March is when OWASA would expect to see rapid declines in the water supply.  Mr. Kerwin pointed out that March also is just prior to the heavier irrigation season.

 

Council Member Ward questioned the wisdom of waiting until March when future shortages can be seen in January.   Mr. Kerwin replied that not much water is being put at risk from November through February.  He agreed that it would be better to do it sooner but said that getting it done by March 1st would allow higher participation.  Mr. Kerwin added that, practically, it probably would take that much time.

 

Mayor Foy commented that if OWASA wants to schedule a meeting with all of the elected boards together then they should do it now, since getting everyone together is difficult.  He asked if OWASA anticipated keeping Stage I and Stage II restrictions throughout the winter.  Mr. Kerwin replied that there would be some level of mandatory restrictions if the lakes do not refill and the reservoirs do not recover from this worst drought on record.   He added that OWASA would be looking at longer-term practices, both indoor and outdoor.

 

Council Member Ward asked how the additional demand from new developments was being addressed.  Mr. Kerwin replied that OWASA was obligated to meet the needs of the community.  He said that growth, on an annual average, is about 2-3% and adds about 150,000 gallons a day.

 

Council Member Strom, acknowledging that OWASA does not decide policy, asked if OWASA would make some recommendations on water use policy and provide information on various irrigation systems, and so forth.  This, he said, would help the Town understand the trend and know that it is using best management practices to preserve and extend the capacities of its reservoirs.  Mr. Kerwin replied that this would be part of what OWASA would bring to the elected boards.

 

Responding to a question from the audience regarding the rock quarry, Mr. Kerwin replied that there was an abandoned rock quarry that holds about 200 million gallons when full and another quarry, which will be available in 2030, to capture water from the reservoirs.   He explained that these were very much part of the long-range supply plan, even though they cannot provide relief at this time.

 

Mayor Foy said that the maps show how important it is for the Town to invest in protecting the watersheds around the reservoirs.  He noted that some other communities are not under restrictions because they are served by University Lake, which has run-off from the Town’s  parking lots.  Mr. Kerwin agreed that there are trade-offs.  And one to cherish, he said, is that the local government has chosen to protect these watersheds much higher than State regulations.   

 

Item 7 - Solid Waste Advisory Board Annual Report

 

Jan Sassaman and Albert Vickers, the Town’s representatives to the Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB), were present to provide comments on the annual report.

 

Mr. Sassaman summarized the SWAB's composition, charge, activities and objectives.  He discussed the Solid Waste Management Plan and the Board of County Commissioner 2001-2002 goals for SWAB.  Mr. Sassaman said these goals include helping to implement the integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for the County.    He said they also include identifying and developing an effective and efficient system to meet the short- and long-term disposal needs of Orange County for solid waste and construction and demolition waste that remains after reduction, reuse, recycling and composting activities. 

 

Mr. Sassaman stated that the SWAB had been evaluating alternative financing mechanisms for future waste management needs and options within the County.  The ultimate task, he said, will be to determine whether the SWAB will support the current version of the Solid Waste Management Plan as prepared by the staff, or some other plan, and to recommend how to fund the plan as part of the County's overall solid waste system.

 

Mr. Sassaman explained that the SWAB had recently accepted and endorsed the Plan that had been approved by the elected officials of the County and the three towns, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and Carrboro.   He noted that the landfill will close in 2009 and explained that there will have to be a transfer station and environmental maintenance and monitoring for at least 30 years.  Funding sources, in addition to tipping fees, must be sought, he said, if the Plan is to be implemented.

 

Mr. Sassaman reported that the SWAB was in the midst of an extensive and thorough review of financial needs and alternative funding sources.   Mr. Sassaman said that funding options being considered include property taxes, district taxes, availability fees, billing each government, and user fees.  The SWAB will review these options and report to the County Commissioners on one or more mixes of fees and taxes, he said.

Mayor Foy asked when the SWAB would decide on its advice to the County Commissioners.  Mr. Sassaman replied that it had been scheduled for November but will most likely be delayed until December or January.

 

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Horton if the Town could develop a ranking of preferences with regard to financing.  He noted that the Town had much experience with this issue, since it had managed the landfill for many years.  Mr. Horton replied that the staff could develop a description of the advantages and disadvantages of the various financing mechanisms and make recommendations to the Council.

 

Mr. Sassaman remarked that the SWAB had been using a memo that it had received from the Manager several years ago.  He said that they were also preparing a model through the Institute of Government at UNC for developing estimates of cost for individual homeowners.  Mr. Horton described that as valuable news and said it would be worth waiting to see that product.

 

Council Member Strom agreed with Mayor Foy's suggestion to have the Town state its priorities on both service and fiscal issues.

 

 Mayor pro tem Evans inquired about the beginning date for the waste reduction goal of 61% by 2010-2011.  Mr. Vickers replied that it had begun in the mid-90s.

 

Council Member Ward asked if UNC was a likely partner in the future.  Mr. Sassaman replied that UNC would continue to partner by taking its waste to the landfill and paying tipping fees.  Mr. Vickers noted that UNC's participation was voluntary.  Council Member Ward commented that UNC's participation probably should be included in the mix of issues that the Town will be discussing with the University. 

 

Item 8 - Continuation of Public Hearing on Proposed

Land Use Management Ordinance

 

Mayor Foy noted that there would be a Citizen Information Session on this issue on October 24th, a workshop on Saturday, October 26th, and another public hearing on October 28th.  He said that the Council was scheduled to take some action with regard to specific items this evening, but not regarding the new ordinance itself. 

 

Town Planning Director Roger Waldon gave a brief overview of the process from January 2001 to the third draft, which was brought to public hearing on September 18, 2002.  He said that the staff hoped to adopt the Land Use Management Ordinance before the end of the year.  Mr. Waldon noted that there were two issues, involving duplexes and nonconforming status, being presented for possible action by the Council tonight.

 

With regard to duplexes, Mr. Waldon pointed out that the third draft includes provisions that would eliminate them as a permitted use in zoning districts R-1, R-2, R-2a and R-3.  This is because of the changing nature of duplexes in Town, he said, and the impact that they are having on Chapel Hill neighborhoods, particularly those surrounding the Town Center and the University.  Mr. Waldon explained that the staff was recommending that the Council take action on the piece of the ordinance that would eliminate duplexes as a permitted use in those zoning districts.  This could be a temporary measure, he said, until the Town has a precise tool for identifying where duplex development is compatible, as compared to where it could do considerable damage to an existing neighborhood.  Mr. Waldon recommended that the Council adopt Ordinance O-5a tonight, adding that alternative O-5b would place a size limit on duplexes throughout Town.

 

With regard to nonconforming status, Mr. Waldon noted that the staff had been discussing how to keep existing uses unaffected by changed regulations, including some that have been in the ordinance for twenty years.  He recommended adopting O-5c, which changes the language to say that existing structures are affected as minimally as possible by any change in regulations and two-family structures are hardly affected at all.

 

With respect to the RCD changes, Mr. Waldon recommended that the Council exempt, as of tonight, those structures that are on the ground or for which a building permit had been issued.

 

Council Member Bateman asked Mr. Waldon to clarify that enacting O-5a would have no effect on current duplexes.  He replied that this was correct, and noted that enacting O-5c would further solidify that.

 

Council Member Verkerk asked Mr. Waldon to explain what "the changing nature of duplexes" meant.  Mr. Waldon replied that there were many duplexes of different types all around Town.  Over the last six or so years, he said, there had been a change in the kinds of duplexes being built.  Mr. Waldon explained that large duplexes with parking lots tend to dwarf the structures around them.  Also, conversion of single-family and two-family homes into duplexes has been doubling the size and intensity of their use and creating neighborhood problems, he said.

 

Council Member Strom expressed interest in allowing for more than 10% expansion of existing nonresidential areas while making them subject to the more stringent stormwater practices that are a component of this new ordinance.  Mr. Waldon replied that the nonconforming rules in the ordinance for the RCD say that if the RCD gets bigger then any existing single-family or two-family dwelling will not be affected.  But for something other than a single-family or two-family dwelling, he said, it seems reasonable to have a 10% limitation on expansion of the footprint.  Mr. Waldon noted that this is "all balancing" and pointed out that the Council has many choices.

 

Council Member Ward asked if the full range of existing developments included platted lots within the RCD.  Mr. Waldon replied that platted lots would not fall into the category of existing structures that are on the ground tonight.  And the question of what should be done about platted lots, he said, was not before the Council tonight.  Mr. Waldon pointed out that this would be a regulation decision to be made after deciding whether or not to expand the RCD boundary.

 

Mayor pro tem Evans clarified that structures, but not unbuilt lots, were grandfathered in 1984.  She also inquired about the status of information that she had requested regarding the number of duplex and single family applications the Town had received since May, with a comparison of those two numbers to this time last year.  Mr. Waldon replied that in May through October of last year the number of single-family dwelling applications was 143 and the number of duplex applications was seven.  For the same time period this year, he said, single family applications were down to 85 and there were 16 duplex applications.  Mayor pro tem Evans asked where those permits were issued, and Mr. Waldon replied that it was "all over."

 

Mayor pro tem Evans inquired about the financial implications of non-conformities, and Mr. Horton explained that the staff had not yet completed its investigation of that.  She asked if single-family homes and duplexes would end up with a nonconforming label, or if it would be written that they will not be affected at all.  Mr. Waldon replied that it would depend upon circumstances, since lots, uses or features can be nonconforming for various reasons.  Regarding O-5c, Mayor pro tem Evans verified that there were no nonconforming skateboard ramps in Town and that the Town does not allow them.

 

Council Member Wiggins determined that enacting this ordinance tonight would mean that duplexes would no longer be permitted all across Town.  She requested that the Council members look at this again in the not too distant future and determine where duplexes can be appropriate.  Mr. Horton replied that the staff hoped the Council would not consider this to be the last word on duplexes.  He said that the staff would develop a more precise way of distinguishing among them.  Mr. Horton noted that the Council could consider developing neighborhood conservation areas and rules that would prohibit the development of duplexes in some areas of Town.  The Council might also impose restrictions on duplexes so they would conform to what the Council and community found fitting for the area, he said.  

 

Mayor Foy inquired about language to sunset the duplex ban, in at least zones R-2 and R-3, so that citizens would not see this as a stealth measure by the Council to get rid of a certain stock of housing.  He noted that there was no better way, right now, to confront the problems in the Northside neighborhood.  But if the Town were to solve those problems in the next 12-18 months, said Mayor Foy, then this Town-wide ban would not have to be kept in place.

 

Council Member Wiggins, commenting that that was to be the next part of her question, asked if the Council could add such language to the ordinance.  Mr. Horton replied that another Council member had asked the Town Attorney to draft some language in that regard.

 

Council Member Bateman revealed that she did have language that would create a temporary ban to achieve discreet purposes.  She said, though, that she'd prefer to hear what citizens had to say before reading it.

 

Northside resident Estelle Mabry expressed strong support for O-5a, adding that her neighborhood had already "had enough."  She expressed concern about the changing ratio of rental property to home ownership.  The balance was tipping toward rental property, she said, and toward turning single-family houses into duplexes.

 

Northside resident Jeff Caiola suggested a permanent ban on duplexes in Northside.  That neighborhood has already done its fair share toward having a diverse housing stock, he said.  Mr. Caiola noted that some Northside development is out of character and out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood.  He said that duplexes there were not being rented to low- and moderate-income households, but to people who pool their resources to out-afford working class households.  Mr. Caiola asked Council members to ban duplexes in Northside in perpetuity.   

 

Northside resident Delores Bailey said that more duplexes in Northside would add to the deterioration of her neighborhood.  She stated that duplexes do not provide single-family housing or affordable housing for low-income families.  Ms. Bailey asked that Northside be allowed to continue to grow in the way it was intended.  She stated that her neighborhood supported the staff's recommendation. 

 

Northside resident Donna Bell, who said she had recently returned to the community after leaving for graduate school, noted that this community of less than 50% homeowners believes in and tries to support each other.  Ms. Bell asked Council members to keep Northside as cohesive as it is.  Adding more duplexes, she said, would not achieve that. 

 

Daniel Brisson, a doctoral student in the school of Social Work at UNC, expressed support for the staff's recommendation.  He said that he had been working with Northside for the past year on issues of community development.  Mr. Brisson stated that he had not signed a letter to the Council from the Federation of Graduate Students.  The Federation had failed to recognize that Northside is being developed with a disregard for the vulnerability of its current residents, he said.   Mr. Brisson predicted that low-income families in Northside would be displaced for more financially lucrative residents if careful development plans were not put in place.  He suggested that the University take a more active and responsible role in providing student housing, adding that he'd like students to take a petition to the University.

 

UNC/Chapel Hill Student Body President Jen Daum urged Council members not to support O-5a, since that would restrict students' housing options.  She said that UNC students respect the needs and concerns of their neighbors and that they are more than willing to work with the Town on problems, such as too many cars.  Ms. Daum asked the Town Council to work toward a solution that addresses everyone's needs.

 

Derrick Preston, Chair of the Executive Relations Committee of Student Government at UNC, said that all students love the uniqueness and diversity of UNC/Chapel Hill and the Town.  He encouraged Mayor Foy and Council members to contact one of the members of the student government and work with them to address the real problem, "which is the friction that we're having right now between the students in the Northside area and the current residents of the Northside area."  Mr. Preston warned against being "irresponsible" by applying a merely expedient solution.

 

Woody Claris suggested that there might have been sixteen rather than seven duplex applications this year because developers, such as him, were concerned about not being able to build duplexes in the future.  He opposed the ban on duplexes, even temporarily, he said.  Mr. Claris described duplexes as a means of providing affordable housing that has been more successful than other Town efforts.  He pointed out that duplexes cut down on traffic by enabling more people to live closer to Town.  Mr. Claris proposed holding a duplex design guideline planning session to address the negative aspects inherent in such housing.  He volunteered to participate or to chair a committee, and described himself as a citizen with a vested interest who worries that the temporary ban might become a permanent one.

 

Anthony Larson, Speaker of Student Congress at UNC/Chapel Hill, predicted that the ban on duplexes, combined with the occupancy requirements, will drive students out of Town.  He acknowledged that noise, parking, and property maintenance are issues that can come with having students as neighbors.  Mr. Larson argued, though, that there are ways other than limiting their housing options to help students learn to be better neighbors.  He listed the benefits of having students living in the community.  They volunteer in schools and churches and coach Rainbow Soccer teams, he said.  Mr. Larson stressed that students are not in Town simply to have loud parties and create litter.  Most were seeking to be productive citizens, he said.  He asked Council members not to vote for O-5a, but to find a more reasonable solution that will not drive students out of Town.

 

Branson Page, President of the Graduate Student and Professional Federation at UNC, said that the Land Use Management Ordinance does not follow some of the priorities of the Comprehensive Plan.  Graduate students often stay and participate in their communities after they graduate, he said, but they are single and penniless before they have their degree.  Mr. Page pointed out that the University does not provide enough housing for its students.  He said that the ban on duplexes and the occupancy limits would be a setback for students at UNC.  Mr. Page stated that the Federation would contact the Council about helping to solve this problem.

 

Rudy Juliano, representing the Board of the Cocker Hills Neighborhood Association, approved of the prohibition against duplexes and other multi-unit dwellings in R-1 neighborhoods.  He expressed hope that the current draft would maintain current standards for setbacks and that the Council would allow facile use of the neighborhood conservation district provision to increase protections for traditional neighborhoods.  Mr. Juliano said that many residents were concerned about the issues addressed in Mayor Foy's recent open letter to the Chapel Hill News.  He asked that the final ordinance contain very clear language that will protect the interest of current homeowners by grandfathering existing properties.  Mr. Juliano also asked that the ordinance apply some of the more novel provisions to new developments rather than existing homes.

 

Dan Herman, Vice President for Internal Affairs of the Graduate Student and Professional Federation at UNC, stated that he was the primary author of the letter to the Council.  Mr. Herman noted that the Comprehensive Plan describes erosion of affordable housing options leading to a relative lack of affordable housing.  The way the ordinance seeks to implement preservation of Northside, Mr. Herman said, greatly impacts students and other residents.  He said that this runs contrary to the ideas presented in the Comprehensive Plan because it will result in a further erosion of housing options with no other options to take up student demand.  The Federation supports the University providing more housing for students, he said, but noted that this capacity does not exist at this time.  Mr. Herman said that while the Federation approves the concept of protecting established neighborhoods, this is too drastic a measure and not the right time due to the lack of available capacity.

 

Ron Gallant stated that the open letter from Mayor Foy had drawn his attention.  He described himself as feeling "appalled" after reading the ordinance.  The 40-year provision means that he will be deprived of the use of his property, he said, since it will become nonconforming and useless.  Mr. Gallant described the ordinance as "just plain wrong and unfair." 

 

Mayor Foy stated that he was finding it difficult to understand this line of argument.  He stated that what had happened was that people bought property that had this forty year restriction, and what the Council is considering would lift that 40-year restriction.  Mayor Foy added that the misinformation that is being given out in some quarters is really not serving anyone well.  Mr. Gallant replied from the audience that he had read the ordinance and that it says that in 40 years his house will be worthless.  Mayor Foy replied: "That's what the ordinance said when you purchased your house.  We're changing that."

 

Robert C. Loomis, president of the Lake Ellen Homeowners Association, referred to a copy of the Association's position on the RCD, nonconforming status, stormwater management, and dwelling units.  Focusing on the dwelling units, he argued that existing laws on noise, litter, and others need to be enforced.  But, since this is sometimes not enough, he said, limiting the number of unrelated persons living in dwelling units is also needed.  Mr. Loomis stated that the limits had been completely dropped from the third draft on the number of unrelated persons living both in a single-family dwelling with five or fewer bedrooms and a two-family dwelling with six or fewer bedrooms.  If enacted, he said, this would result in a greatly increased problem in conflicting neighborhoods.  Mr. Loomis described the approach as "completely ill-advised," but said that the Planning Department's alternative was also unacceptable.  He stated that the Lake Ellen Homeowners Association supports the following:

 

·        Exclusion of duplex units from established residential neighborhoods, such as R-1.

·        Continuation of the current provision for two-family dwellings with not more than two unrelated persons inhabiting either of the two units, for a total of four.

·        Expansion of the current provision for single-family dwellings from a limit of two unrelated persons to four unrelated persons.

 

Mr. Loomis suggested that another approach to solving neighborhood disruption is to find a way to address the number of vehicles per dwelling and where they can park. 

 

Irwin Road resident Kurt Mueller stated that properly planned neighborhood duplexes can provide affordable housing to Chapel Hill.  Both of the proposed changes to the current duplex ordinances were too broad, he said.  Mr. Mueller explained that he was in the process of building the first of two three-bedroom duplexes on two half-acre lots that are zoned R-2.  He said that these duplexes were not in an existing neighborhood and pointed out that they have two twin garages.  Mr. Mueller said that he was awaiting approval on the second duplex.  He explained that he had made a sizeable investment, including a sewer extension, and that the proposed broad ordinance will stop him from finishing his project.  Mr. Mueller described this as an example of repercussions of overly broad ordinances and asked Council members not to penalize his project when it is not relevant to the issues at hand.  He suggested that the new ordinance exclude duplexes not located in existing neighborhoods and exempt permits that are awaiting approval.

 

James Carnahan noted that the Village Project, which he represents, had tried to make sure that the new ordinance would facilitate much more intense development and redevelopment in the Town Center.  He stated that one of the biggest obstacles in the ordinance is the floor area ratio.  Mr. Carnahan suggested going back to the ratio of four that had been proposed in the second draft.  He also recommended that the Town consider 2.5 in Commercial, O-I, and Mixed Use zones.  He suggested that a provision in the ordinance, called "incentive for residential construction," be applied to these other zones as well and that it be expanded to 100% with no numerical limit to residential use.  Mr. Carnahan suggested that the Town create new urbanist design guidelines.  And he advised the Council and staff to identify building heights by floors rather than numerically.

 

Aaron Nelson, Executive Director of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, asked for more information on the status of nonconformities arising from the issue of watershed protection regulations.  Because of the impervious surface limitation, he said, it seems that all commercial property would have a nonconforming feature.  He asked for more on what that would imply.  Mr. Nelson noted the impervious surface policy that was followed in 1993 with the creation of the watershed protection district.  He recommended that it be applied to the extension of this water protection district Town-wide.  This would mean taking those regulations for the southern part of Chapel Hill and extending them across all of Chapel Hill rather than adopting the proposal in the third draft, he said.   Mr. Nelson requested more information on the implications for nonconforming features on other parts of commercial and residential property, such as floor area ratio, impervious surface, and building heights.

 

Phil Post, speaking on behalf of the Chamber, argued that the schedule for adoption of the Land Use Management Ordinance was too fast for the Chamber to absorb.  He asked Council members to consider a more reasonable schedule that would extend discussion to at least the end of December.  Mr. Post also inquired about an implementation schedule for the new ordinance.

 

Scott Maitland, Chair of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, encouraged the Council to adopt the staff recommendation to treat commercial and residential property in the RCD as not nonconforming.  He also urged them not to treat commercial and residential property in an RCD in different ways.   If the Town Council decided to limit expansion, he said, the constraining factor should be the impervious surface ratio because this is what will protect the environment.   Mr. Maitland suggested examining the buffer for intermittent streams to see how it needs to be reworked.  He recommended defining intermittent streams and ephemeral streams more clearly and following Carrboro's definitions based on drainage area and width of streams.  Mr. Maitland advised Council members to take time and not rush the end of this two-year process.

 

Charlie Nelson, Vice Chair of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, expressed support for the staff's recommendation to adopt special regulations for recently improved developments, such as Larkspur and Cross Creek subdivisions.  He also supported the recommendations that any changes in the RCD boundary not apply to developments that have been approved since the RCD was established in 1984.  Mr. Nelson reported that the Chamber agreed with the staff recommendation to change the statement of intent regarding nonconforming uses or structures to support the continued existence of those structures.  And the Chamber supports the recommendations that there be no restrictions on repairs or maintenance of nonconforming structures, he said.  Mr. Nelson added that the Chamber also supports removal of the provision requiring the Manager to conduct an annual survey of nonconforming uses and features.

 

Charlie Fisher, also representing the Chamber, said that the Chamber was in favor of a diverse mix of affordable housing stock.  It is, therefore, philosophically opposed to a ban on development of new duplexes, he said.  Mr. Fisher recommended a six-month sunset provision if the Council does adopt a Town-wide ban.

 

Mill Race resident Keith Symmers said that every lot in Mill Race would be nonconforming under the new ordinance, since Mill Race is impacted by both the RCD and steep slopes.  He predicted that the new ordinance would ban any additional growth in Chapel Hill and wondered if that was the unstated intent.  Mr. Symmers advised Council members to grandfather properties such as his, as well as private lots that already had been approved. He added that the recommendations of O-5c do not go far enough.

 

Mill Race Drive resident James Stimson asserted that Mr. Waldon had been inconsistent in his recommendations to the Council.  He argued that decency requires the Town Council to exempt all current developments from the new regulations.

 

Mill Race Drive resident David Lowery explained that he had never intended to build on his lot that is adjacent to his home, but had thought of it as an investment that he could sell some day if he wanted to.  Mr. Lowery described the Town Council and Mr. Waldon as having been "utterly obscure" about whether or not lots such as his platted one will be exempt from the new regulations.   

 

Attorney Mike Brough, representing Mill Race homeowners and the Larkspur developer, noted that some of the proposed changes to the third draft were not widely understood because they had only been available for a few days.  He praised the proposed language regarding RCD nonconformities.  He remarked, though, that he was not able to praise the language for the other issues:  steep slopes, impervious surface, floor area and new building height regulations.  Mr. Brough stated that the label of nonconformity has impact on property values and prevents homeowners from expanding their homes.  He said that the language before the Council did not address the undeveloped lot situation.

 

Mr. Brough stated that the simple solution would be to grandfather lots from all provisions that were not in effect at the time people purchased their lots and built their homes.  This would solve those homeowners’ problems, he said, without creating significant environmental or aesthetic problems.  Mr. Brough stated that homeowners would suffer significant losses if the Council did not do this.  He said that the language before the Council did nothing to help the Larkspur subdivision with anything other than the RCD.  Mr. Brough pointed out that he had suggested language to deal with Larkspur and said that those issues remain to be addressed since they were not being addressed this evening.

 

Rebecca Battye expressed support for the ban on duplexes.  She stated that a "rooming house" next to her home had taken a toll on her quiet, peaceful neighborhood and that a ban was certainly necessary immediately.  She wondered, though, if landlord regulations and design regulations might be a better choice in the long run.   Ms. Battye suggested that the Council adopt the most protective environmental rules possible to put a brake on growth, even though that would impact her directly since her house is in the RCD.  She advised the Town Council to take the lead in the State by doing the most environmentally protective thing it can.

 

Jay Brenman thanked everyone involved for working toward a resolution to the Larkspur power line issue.  He commended the Town Council's responsiveness to the matter and said that quick implementation would benefit existing and future residents of the area.  Mr. Brenman recommended issuing the required Zoning Compliance Permit only after poles are actually moved.  Stating that he supports the intent and most of the details of the new development ordinance, he suggested that the Town consider other language in Article V, or beneficial inducements to make burying three-phase power lines more likely, if not mandated.  Mr. Brenman made three other suggestions:

 

·        That Duke notify private property owners in advance of cutting trees or spraying herbicides on private property.

·        Requiring a setback of 15 feet from private property for overhead power lines.

·        Notifying residents within 1,000 feet of any new overhead power line installations and/or hold public hearings on these projects.

 

Northside resident/UNC student Jon Kirby said that he wholeheartedly supported a ban on duplexes, adding that year by year he sees more vinyl-sided atrocities defacing the historic neighborhood.  Mr. Kirby described these structures as unfair to his neighbors, many of whom are multigenerational Northside residents.  The ban was reasonable, he said, because it was not a ban on students themselves but on duplexes which, he said, do nothing but increase profits for landlords, degrade land values and the appearance of property, and affect people's lives and culture.  Mr. Kirby suggested having the same respect for the Northside neighborhood as the Town does for other neighborhoods in the historic district that have been developed in a more tasteful manner.  He asked the Town Council not to allow builders and landlords to exploit Northside.

 

Jewell Blackwood expressed resentment over the possibility that the Town might take land that she was born on 74 years ago.  She listed the personal contributions that she had made to the Town over the years and asked Council members to do some long-range planning before extending the RCD buffer to 150 feet.

 

Northside resident Edwin Caldwell Jr. stated that he had been asking the Town to save his neighborhood for 25 years.  He praised the Council's current plan, and remarked that it is not possible for them to please everybody.  Mr. Caldwell said that developers were building rooming houses, not apartments at Northside.  While he was out of Town last week, he said, 1,000 students were all over his property.  Mr. Caldwell asked for respect from the students.  He praised Mr. Waldon, in particular, for his efforts to protect Northside and expressed anger toward those who had criticized Mr. Waldon.  He encouraged the Council to adopt the ban on duplexes, adding it was the least they could do.

 

Jack Smyre, representing SAS Development Company at Cross Creek, stated that he had been confused by contradictory information coming from the Town.  But tonight, he said, he had learned that the language in O-5c was intended to be a preview of how the eventual language will address those developments that are caught in the middle.  Mr. Smyre said he was encouraged by the appearance that staff was proceeding under the assumption that these developments would continue under the current regulations.  He presented "our preview" of language in a letter from Gordon Brown to the Council.  Mr. Smyre suggested that the language be inserted to address the concerns of Cross Creek, either tonight or as the Council moves forward.

 

Chapel Hill resident Mark Chilton noted that he was once a UNC student who rented in Northside.  He pointed out that students have rented there for a century.  The key question, he said, is what the balance of students to non-students will be for the long term.   Mr. Chilton pointed out that if O-5a had been enacted a while ago the "monstrosity" on McMasters Street would have been avoided.  The "series of monstrosities" at the end of Sykes Street and the "ridiculously long monstrosity" on Mitchell Lane would never have been built, he said.  Mr. Chilton noted that this would have left the "regulatory crisis house" on McDade Street as the only one not addressed by O-5a.  O-5a would suffice as a stop-gap measure, Mr. Chilton said, to prevent developers from buying historic homes and converting them into something that is incompatible with the neighborhood.

 

Richard Zaffron addressed a possible unintended consequence of the ban on duplexes.  Noting that he taught Mark Chilton at UNC and that he and Ed Caldwell had taken their kids to the Friends School together, Mr. Zaffron stressed that he had nothing but sympathy for the residents of Northside.  But, to ban duplex zoning in R-2, R-3 or R-4, he said, would prevent the building of "twin townhomes."  Twin townhomes provide non-subsidized but genuinely affordable housing to the people that everybody talks about when they talk about affordable housing, he said.  Mr. Zaffron predicted that banning duplexes would leave only two kinds of houses in Town, subsidized and those that begin at $376,000.

 

Chapel Hill resident Milton Heath spoke nostalgically about the Chapel Hill where he was born.  He praised the Town's preservation efforts and noted that much of that had changed since he was a child in the 1940s.  Mr. Heath pointed out that the Town was not completely gone and that there was much to be saved of the Bolin Creek and Booker Creek watersheds and the perennial streams.  He recommended preserving as much of the "forward-looking" ordinance as the Council can, adding that this is the way of conservation and progress.   Mr. Heath noted that his colleague David Owens, a land use lawyer, was available to address aspects of the nonconforming use issues, if the Council wishes.

 

Chapel Hill resident Seth Reice, a stream ecologist at UNC Department of Biology, said he strongly supported the 150-foot buffer zone as well as the restrictions on building and on steep slopes.  He said that the increase in impervious surface in Chapel Hill had greatly expanded the 100-year floodplain.  Mr. Reice added that the 150-foot buffer would allow significant stream biodiversity and prevent flooding and flood damage to homes and buildings near streams.  He recommended keeping it in the ordinance.

 

Vivian Foushee read a statement saying that the residents of Northside were not, as a whole, against students.  But Northside residents do believe that UNC has a responsibility to house their students, she said.  Ms. Foushee asked for protection from what she called "duplex city."   She described having felt desperate and expressed gratitude to the Manager, Planning Board, Mayor and Town Council for listening to her and her neighbors.  Ms. Foushee expressed concern that comments by others might have changed the Town's decision.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO OCTOBER 28, 2OO2.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ENACT O-5A AS AMENDED TO SAY THAT THIS WOULD BE EFFECTIVE FOR ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ADOPTION.

 

Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt offered a friendly amendment to make the ordinance effective only to June 30, 2003.  Council Member Bateman replied that she would agree if this would give the staff enough time.  Mr. Horton said that a June deadline was feasible as long as the Council works with the staff to develop a schedule and process.

 

Mayor pro tem Evans verified that the staff would bring back a process other than a Town-wide ban to address the Council's concerns.

 

Council Member Ward inquired about what would happen to citizens, such as Mr. Mueller, who have partially constructed duplexes.  Mr. Waldon replied that the staff's recommendation is to enact O-5a and that any structure that exists tonight would not be nonconforming and may expand.  Also, any development for which a vested right has been established would be entitled by law to follow the old rules under which that vested right was granted, Mr. Waldon said.  He noted, however, that a subdivision does not grant a vested right.  So, if there is a vacant lot with no development on it in an R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone, then upon enactment tonight the owner cannot put a duplex on that, Mr. Waldon said.

 

Council Member Ward asked that Mr. Mueller be allowed to come forward and explain the status of his project.  Mr. Mueller explained that one of his duplexes was beside his house and is half-way completed.  The other is beside that, he said, and he had done the engineering, had submitted for a permit, and was awaiting approval.  Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos explained that the ban would not apply to the lot that has a building permit but would apply to the one that does not.

 

Mayor Foy wondered if Northside could begin the process of being designated as a Neighborhood Conservation District before the Town passes the ordinance.  Mr. Waldon explained that there is a guideline for that in the Comprehensive Plan.   But the new ordinance, he said, was proposing a concept that has some teeth of zoning in it.  The new ordinance would allow a neighborhood and the Planning Department to write a zoning district for that neighborhood that the Council would ultimately be asked to adopt, Mr. Waldon said.  He pointed out that the tool does not exist yet, and will not exist until the Council adopts the new ordinance.   

 

Mayor Foy asked if there was anything the neighborhood could do to prepare in the event that the Council  enacts the ordinance in the next two months.  Mr. Waldon replied that the Planning Department did not have a moment to spare on that right now.  Mr. Horton added that the staff was doing all it could to meet the June 30th deadline.  But first, he said, they need to get an ordinance established.  Mr. Horton added that June 30th deadline would be very difficult to meet if the Council decided not to establish the neighborhood conservation district rules on their own or as part of the ordinance.

 

Council Member Bateman expressed appreciation to the students for their overtures.  Last year, she said, the Council had approved an apartment complex off Airport Road with 550 bedrooms, which is primarily for students.  She added that UNC had also provided 960 new beds for students this year.  Even though Northside is being focused on, she explained, there are other neighborhoods that are becoming impaired and have come to the Council for help.  Council Member Bateman added that she wants diversity and would never vote for a permanent ban on any type of housing stock.

 

Council Member Strom agreed that even though Northside had been the "squeaky wheel" this issue had repeatedly come up as a concern for neighborhoods throughout Town.   He pointed out that the Town Council must find a creative and well thought out solution to this problem.

 

Council Member Ward described the ban as a "blunt instrument," adding that this is why it is temporary.  He then asked what would happen if the Town were not ready by June 30th.  Mr. Karpinos replied that this ordinance ends on June 30th and to extend it the Town would have to go through the public hearing process, get a Planning Board recommendation, and get another ordinance.  Mr. Horton said that the staff would bring back a schedule of work with critical timelines that would enable the Council to judge the probability of concluding the work on time.

 

Mayor Foy asked if the Town would have to go through the same process if they adopt the ordinance for a year and then want to terminate it early.   Mr. Karpinos replied that the process would require the same steps.

 

Mayor pro tem Evans explained that the concern was over the design of duplexes and how they are placed on the land.  It is not about duplexes across the board in all neighborhoods, she said.  Mayor pro tem Evans stated that she was happy to support this with the June date.

 

Council Member Bateman asked if adding, "this ordinance shall be effective no later than one year from its date of adoption" would work.  Mr. Karpinos replied that the ordinance, as written without the amendment, would achieve that.  It gives the opportunity to amend it at any time prior to the end of the one year period, he said.  Council Member Bateman then rejected Council Member Kleinschmidt's friendly amendment, but Mr. Horton asked the Council to challenge the staff to get this done by June 30th anyway, if at all possible.  Council Member Bateman then agreed to leave the amendment in for June 30th.  Council Member Verkerk, the seconder, also agreed.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN AMENDED HER MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ENACT O-5A AS AMENDED TO BE EFFECTIVE UNTIL JUNE 30, 2003.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

 

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE to prohibit TEMPORARILY two-family duplex dwelling units in particular residential zoning districts (2002-10-21/O-5a)

 

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has been concerned about the impact of the two-family duplex land use in lower density residential zoning districts; and

 

WHEREAS the Town Council has during the process of revising the Development Ordinance found that adjustment to the two-family duplex dwelling units provision is desirable, and finds that the amendments are appropriate as a temporary measure due to changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally and achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;

 

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

 

Section 1.  Article 12 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance, Section 12.3, Schedule of Use Regulations, USE GROUP A, columns for R-1, R-2, R-2A and R-3, in the row for Duplex Two-Family Dwelling Unit(s), is hereby revised to read as follows:

 

 

R-2

R-2A

R-3

 

 

R-1

DWELLING UNIT(S)

Two-Family:

 

·        Duplex

 

 

 

 

- -

 

 

 

- -

                                                KEY: “- - ”  Not Permitted

 

 

Section 2.  This ordinance shall be effective until June 30, 2003, after which time the previously existing Ordinance Schedule of Use Regulations regarding Duplexes shall be again effective; provided, however, that nothing contained herein shall prevent the Town Council, after following procedures for amending the Development Ordinance, from taking action to amend this Ordinance during this period.  That That, subject to the provisions of the previous sentence, all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

 

Section 3.  That these amendments shall become effective upon adoption.

 

This the 21st day of October, 2002.

 

Regarding O-5c, Mayor pro tem Evans asked it the Council could change what they adopt, since they had not had a chance to read some of the comments submitted tonight.  Mr. Horton replied that they could.  Mayor pro tem Evans said that she was comfortable then with moving ahead then.

 

Council Member Ed Harrison suggested taking Mr. Heath's suggestion that the Council discuss nonconformity and vested rights issues with David Owens.  

 

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ENACT O-5C.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

 

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE to adjust nonconformity provisions (2002-10-21/O-5c)

 

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has been concerned about the impact of nonconformity regulations on two-family duplex land uses and the impact of nonconformity regulations on future, potential changes to the Resource Conservation District; and

 

WHEREAS, the Town Council has during the process of revising the Development Ordinance found that adjustment to the nonconformity provision are desirable, and finds that the amendments are appropriate due to changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally and achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;

 

Section 1.  Article 22 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance is hereby revised to read as:

 

“ARTICLE 22 - NONCONFORMITIES

 

22.1           Intent

 

It is the intent of this Article to minimize the impact of changed regulations on structures that existed (or for which a vested right had been established) as of the effective date of the changed regulations. chapter to recognize that the eventual elimination, as expeditiously as is reasonable, of existing uses or structures that are not in conformity with the provisions of this chapter is as much a subject of health, safety, and welfare as is the prevention of the establishment of new uses or structures that would violate the provisions of this chapter. It is also the intent of this chapter that any elimination of nonconformities shall be effected so as to avoid any unreasonable invasion of established private property rights.

 

22.2           Nonconforming Lots

 

22.2.1        Definition

 

A nonconforming lot is a lot that was lawfully created prior to the effective date of this chapter or a subsequent amendment thereto, but does not conform to the minimum gross land area or minimum lot width requirements established in Article 13 for the zoning district in which it is located.

 

22.2.2        Required Combination or Recombination of Nonconforming Lots

 

Where a nonconforming lot abuts another lot of record (whether conforming or nonconforming) held in the same ownership at or subsequent to enactment of this chapter, such lots shall be combined or recombined as necessary to form a conforming lot or lots and shall not thereafter be subdivided except in compliance with all of the requirements of this chapter.

 

Where a nonconforming lot was created by public taking action or as a result of a court order, the above combination or recombination of lots shall not be required.

 

22.2.3        Use of Nonconforming Lots

 

Where a nonconforming lot cannot be combined or recombined with other lots to form a conforming lot or lots, such nonconforming lot may be used subject to the compliance of the intended use and structure(s) with applicable use regulations and with applicable LUI ratios and setback and height regulations. However, any use (e.g. two-family or multi-family dwelling) that requires a greater gross land area than the minimum gross land area listed in Section 13.3 for the appropriate zoning district shall not be permitted on a lot which does not conform to such minimum gross land area requirement.

 

If compliance of the structure(s) intended on the nonconforming lot with applicable setback regulations is not reasonably possible, the nonconforming lot may be used as a building site subject to the granting of variance from such setback regulations by the Board of Adjustment in accord with the provisions of Article 24.

 

22.3           Nonconforming Uses

 

22.3.1        Definition

 

A nonconforming use is a use of land, buildings, or structures that was lawfully established (or for which a vested right had been established) on a property prior to the effective date of current use regulations, prior to the effective date of this chapter or a subsequent amendment thereto, but does not conform to the Use Regulations of Article 12 for the zoning district in which it is located.

 

22.3.2        Regulations

 

Two-family duplex dwelling units existing or for which a vested right had been established as of October 21, 2002 may be continued as a use without limitation and shall not be considered as a nonconforming use as defined herein.  Nonconforming uses, other than two-family duplex dwelling units, may be continued subject to the following limitations:

 

a)     No nonconforming use shall be extended, expanded, enlarged, or moved to occupy a different or greater area of land, buildings, or structures than was occupied by such use at the time it became nonconforming, provided that a nonconforming use may be extended throughout any parts of a building which were specifically designed and arranged for such use at the time it became nonconforming.

 

b)     No building or structure devoted to a nonconforming use shall be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or moved, or structurally altered unless such building or structure is thereafter devoted to a conforming use.

 

c)     When a building or structure devoted to a nonconforming use is damaged to the extent of fifty percent (50%) or more of its current assessed taxable value, such a building, if restored, shall thereafter be devoted to conforming uses.

 

cd)   If a nonconforming use ceases for more than ninety (90) consecutive days or a total of one hundred and eighty (180) days in any twelve (12) month period, subsequent use of the land, or structures previously devoted to such use shall thereafter be devoted to conforming uses.

 

22.3.3        Discontinuance

 

Any nonconforming use of land and any nonconforming use involving structures with a total replacement cost of less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) at the time such use became nonconforming shall cease within five (5) years after the date of the notice of nonconformity required in Section 22.7.

 

Any nonconforming use involving structures with a total replacement cost of five thousand dollars ($5,000) or more at the time such use became nonconforming shall cease within fifteen (15) years after the date of the notice of nonconformity required in Section 22.7, or within forty (40) years after the construction of such structures, whichever is later.

 

22.4           Nonconforming Features

 

22.4.1        Definition

 

A nonconforming feature is a physical feature or characteristic of a use, building, structure or other development of land that was lawfully established (or for which a vested right had been established) prior to the effective date of this chapter or a subsequent amendment thereto, but does not conform to the Intensity Regulations of Article 13 or the Design Standards of Article 14 applicable to such use, building, structure, or development of land. Nonconforming features include, but are not limited to, physical features and characteristics of development that exceed allowable maximum standards (floor area, height), and those that lack or fall short of required minimum standards (outdoor space, livability space, recreation space, setback, building spacing, access and circulation arrangement and design, sight line triangle, off-street parking and loading spaces and design, water supply and sewage disposal arrangement and design, utility design, refuse storage and collection facilities and design, buffer width and landscaping design, screening height and design, landscaping maintenance, outdoor lighting design).

 

22.4.2        Regulations

 

Nonconforming features may be continued subject to the following limitations:

 

a)     No action shall be taken which increases the degree or extent of the nonconforming feature. Any enlargement, extension or structural alteration shall conform to all current requirements of this article.

 

b)     For development existing (or for which a vested right had been established) prior to the effective date of current regulations, nonconforming features created by a change in regulations may continue to exist, and structures with such nonconforming features may be reconstructed if demolished or destroyed.

 

b)     When a building, structure, or other development of land having a nonconforming feature is damaged or demolished to the extent of fifty percent (50%) or more of its current assessed taxable value, such building, structure, or development of land may be reconstructed only if the nonconforming feature is eliminated and the building or structure shall thereafter conform to the provisions of this chapter.

 

22.4.3        Discontinuance

 

Any sign having a nonconforming feature shall be either eliminated or made to conform with the provisions of this chapter when any substantial alteration to the sign is proposed.

 

Any building, structurally independent or free‑standing structure other than a sign, or other development of land (lighting, fencing, parking area, or accessory structure) having a nonconforming feature and having a replacement or correction cost of less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) shall be either eliminated or made to conform with the provisions of this chapter within five (5) years after the date of the notice of nonconformity required in Section 22.7.

 

22.5           Nonconforming Signs

 

22.5.1        Definition

 

A nonconforming sign is a sign that was lawfully established prior to the effective date of this chapter or a subsequent amendment thereto, but does not conform to the Design Standards of Article 14 applicable to such sign.

 

22.5.2        Regulations

 

Nonconforming signs may be continued subject to the following limitations:

 

a.      No nonconforming sign, including its permanent message or its structure, shall be extended, enlarged, moved, or otherwise altered unless such sign is made to conform to the current regulations of this chapter.

 

b.     When a nonconforming sign is demolished or damaged to the extent where more than fifty percent (50%) of its display area requires replacement, such sign shall be eliminated or made to conform to the current regulations of this chapter.

 

c.      When the repair, maintenance, or replacement cost of a nonconforming sign exceeds five hundred dollars ($500), such sign shall be eliminated or made to conform to the current regulations of this chapter.

 

22.5.3        Amortization of Nonconforming Signs

 

Any nonconforming sign shall be either eliminated or made to conform to current regulations of this chapter in accord with the following schedule:

 

a.           Any nonconforming sign that does not conform to the requirements of Subsection 14.13.5, Traffic Safety Precautions, shall be either eliminated or made to conform to the current regulations of this chapter within ninety (90) days after the date of the notice of nonconformity required in Section 22.8.

 

b.     Any nonconforming sign that is exempt from regulation under Subsection 14.3.4, but that does not conform to the temporary sign limitations in Subsection 14.13.4(f) - (k), shall be either eliminated or made to conform to the current regulations of this chapter within ninety (90) days after the date of the notice of nonconformity required in Section 22.8.

 

c.      Any nonconforming sign other than those to which a. or b. above applies shall be either eliminated or made to conform to the current regulations of this chapter within three (3) years after the date of the notice of nonconformity required in Section 22.8.

 

22.6           Nonconforming Outdoor Skateboard Ramps

 

22.6.1        Definition

 

A nonconforming outdoor skateboard ramp is an outdoor skateboard ramp which was lawfully established prior to the effective date of this chapter or a subsequent amendment thereto, but which does not conform to the regulations applicable to such outdoor skateboard ramps and is not a public nuisance.

 

22.6.2        Regulations

 

Nonconforming outdoor skateboard ramps may be continued subject to the following limitations:

 

a.      No nonconforming outdoor skateboard ramp shall be extended, enlarged, moved, or otherwise altered unless such outdoor skateboard ramp is made to conform to the current regulations of this chapter.

 

b.     When a nonconforming outdoor skateboard ramp is demolished or damaged to the extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its value, such outdoor skateboard ramp shall be eliminated or made to conform to the current regulations of this chapter.

 

c.      When the repair, maintenance, or replacement cost of a nonconforming outdoor skateboard ramp exceeds one hundred dollars ($100), such outdoor skateboard ramp shall be eliminated or made to conform to the current regulations of this chapter.

 

22.6.3        Amortization of Nonconforming Outdoor Skateboard Ramps

 

Any nonconforming outdoor skateboard ramp shall be either eliminated or made to conform to current regulations of this chapter in accord with the following schedule:

 

a.      Within three (3) years after the date of the notice of nonconformity required in Section 22.8.

 

22.67         Nonconforming Parking areas in Front Yards

 

Within designated Historic Districts any nonconforming parking area in a front yard shall either be eliminated or made to conform to current regulations of this chapter within six (6) months after the date of notice of nonconformity.

 

22.8           Repairs and Maintenance

 

Minor repairs to and routine maintenance of land, buildings, structures, or other development of land or portion thereof, devoted to a nonconforming use or having nonconforming features are permitted, provided the cost of such repairs and maintenance within any twelve (12) month period does not exceed ten percent (10%) of the current assessed taxable value of the land, buildings, structure, or other development of land, or portion thereof.

 

Any structure or other development of land, or portion thereof, devoted to a nonconforming use or having a nonconforming feature, that is declared unsafe by the Building Inspector because of lack of repairs and maintenance shall not be restored, repaired, reconstructed, or used except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter.

 

Any structure or other development of land, or portion thereof, devoted to a nonconforming use or having a nonconforming feature, that is declared unsafe by the Building Inspector, but not because of lack of repairs and maintenance, may be repaired and restored subject to the requirements of subsections 22.3.2 and 22.4.2.

 

22.9           Nonconformity Survey and Notice

 

Within eighteen (18) months after the effective date of this chapter, or subsequent amendment thereto, the Town Manager shall make an inventory of all nonconforming uses, signs having nonconforming features, and other significant nonconforming features existing within the Town jurisdiction.

 

On completion of the inventory, the Town Manager shall notify the owner(s) of the property on which each nonconformity is located of the determination of nonconformity, the reasons therefore, and the deadlines, where applicable, for compliance with the provisions of this chapter.

 

The above requirements shall not preclude the further inventory and subsequent notices of nonconformity.”

 

Section 2.  Article 5 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance, Subsections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3  are hereby revised to read as follows: 

 

“5.4.2        Application of Resource Conservation District Ordinance to Lawfully Established Development Existing on October 21, 2002 (or for which a vested right has been established) March 19, 1984 Outside of the Regulatory Floodplain.

 

This Article shall not apply to the continued use, operation or maintenance of any lawfully established development (outside of the regulatory floodplain) existing, or for which construction had substantially begun, on or before October 21, 2002 (or for which a vested right had been established)March 19, 1984.  With respect to the requirements of this Article, such development shall not be considered as nonconforming within the meaning of Article 22 of this Chapter.

 

5.4.3          Exemptions for Expansion, Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, or Renovation of Lawfully Established Development Existing on October 21, 2002 (or for which a vested right has been established) March 19, 1984 Outside of the Regulatory Floodplain.

 

a)     This Article shall not apply to use, operation, maintenance, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or renovation of any lawfully established development (outside of the regulatory floodplain) existing, or for which construction had substantially begun, on or before October 21, 2002 (or for which a vested right had been established) March 19, 1984.  With respect to the requirements of this Article, such development shall not be considered as nonconforming within the meaning of Article 22 of this Chapter.

 

b)     Within the part of the Resource Conservation District that is outside of the regulatory floodplain, expansion of development is allowed only under the following circumstances:

 

1)       With respect to the requirements of this Article any single family or two-family dwelling or single dwelling unit within a townhouse development may be expanded.  With respect to the requirements of this Article, the dwelling or dwelling unit as expanded pursuant to this subsection shall not be considered as nonconforming within the meaning of Article 22;

 

2)       With respect to the requirements of this Article, development, other than single-family or two-family dwellings or single dwelling units within a townhouse development, on any single zoning lot may be expanded to the extent of ten percent (10%) or less of its footprint as it existed on October 21, 2002February 11, 1985; however, this exemption shall not apply in cases where a development has been expanded one or more times since October 21, 2002 February 11, 1985, and where the past and proposed expansions, considered together, would increase the development's footprint by a total of more than ten percent (10%) of its footprint as it existed on October 21, 2002February 11, 1985.  With respect to the requirements of this Article, such development as expanded pursuant to this subsection shall not be considered as nonconforming within the meaning of Article 22.”

 

Section 3.  That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

 

Section 4.  That these amendments shall become effective upon adoption.

 

This the 21st day of October, 2002.

 

 

Item 9 - Disposition of the Greene Tract

 

By consensus of the Council, this item was deferred until the Council’s November 11th Council meeting.

 

Item 10 - Update on Current Year Revenues and Estimates of

Additional Revenue Expected for the Current Year

 

By consensus of the Council, this item was deferred until the Council’s November 11th Council meeting.

 

Item 11 - Downtown Street and Pedestrian Lighting Options

 

By consensus of the Council, this item was deferred until the Council’s November 11th Council meeting.

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 11:04 p.m.