Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-08-2007 Regular Meeting October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 1 of 47 MINUTES HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD October 8, 2007 7:00 PM, Town Barn PRESENT: Mayor Tom Stevens, Commissioners Frances Dancy, Mike Gering, L. Eric Hallman, Evelyn Lloyd, and Brian Lowen. STAFF: Town Manager Eric Peterson, Town Clerk/Personnel Officer Donna Armbrister, Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Engineer/Utilities Director Kenny Keel, Finance Director Greg Siler, Police Chief Clarence Birkhead, Public Works Supervisor Ken Hines, Budget Analyst Emily Bradford, and Town Attorney Bob Hornik. 7:02:33 PM Mayor Stevens called the meeting to order. 1. PUBLIC CHARGE 7:02:37 PM Mayor Stevens did not read the public charge, but noted it would be followed. 2. AUDIENCE COMMENTS REGARDING MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA 7:02:47 PMNone. 3. AGENDA CHANGES & AGENDA APPROVAL 7:03:06 PM Commissioner Lowen added to the Closed Session an item on the possibility of property acquisition. Mayor Stevens called attention to Item K on the Consent Agenda, noting that Billy Strayhorn was an important figure in Hillsborough history. 7:03:56 PMUpon a motionby Commission Hallman, seconded by Commissioner Lowen, the Board moved to approve the agenda as amended by a vote of 4-0. The motion was declared passed. 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS (Critical) 7:04:14 PMNone. 5. REPORT FROM THE TOWN MANAGER 7:04:17 PM Town Manager Eric Peterson stated at last month’s meeting there was a discussion about an annexation feasibility study regarding Tripp Grove, and they were going to try to provide an estimate about how long it might take to do such a study. He stated the staff had not yet had the time to do that, although they had begun work on it. 1 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 2 of 47 Mr. Peterson stated they were awaiting the delivery of the new leaf collection truck, and hoped to have it by early November. He said that Public Works would begin leaf collection with the old equipment in mid-October. 6. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 7:05:48 PM Police Chief Clarence Birkhead distributed a copy of Police Department’s report, and provided updates on some of the activities. He said parking was an issue in the downtown due to construction, so they had stepped up parking enforcement; for the month of September they issued 39 citations, with 4 voided for various reasons. Chief Birkhead added that complaints regarding parking difficulties were nearly as high as the number of citations issued. 7:06:15 PM Commissioner Evelyn Lloyd arrived at the meeting. th Chief Birkhead stated they had conducted a drug raid on October 20 which netted a large amount of cocaine and resulted in several arrests. He said that the NCAT Committee had met and had a target area they would focus on for the next few weeks, which was the Gateway community due to housing code issues, ranging from noise complaints to drug activity. 7:08:05 PM Commissioner Lloyd stated she was pleased that the Police were watching the Lakeshore area carefully for traffic violations at and near the crosswalk. Chief Birkhead said they would continue their efforts in that area. 7. ITEMS FOR DECISION – CONSENT AGENDA A.Consider Approval of the Minutes of the September 10, 2007 Regular Town Board Meeting B.Consider Approval of Various Budget Amendments C.Consider Approval of NCDOT Municipal Agreement for Inspection of Bridges on the Municipal Street System D.Consideration of a resolution authorizing the Town Attorney to petition Superior Court for a compliance order regarding Minimum Housing Code violation at 402 Buttonwood Drive E.Consider approval of Ordinance to amend Chapter 7 of the Town Code to include Appendix A - Street Construction Standard Specifications F.Consider Approval of a Resolution endorsing the placement of a historical plaque recognizing Billy Strayhorn 7:09:17 PM Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Lowen, the Board moved to approve the Consent Agenda by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. 2 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 3 of 47 8. ITEMS FOR DECISION – REGULAR AGENDA A.Authorize a Boy Scout project in Kings Highway Park to construct a picnic area 7:09:33 PM Boy Scout Kevin Thomas, a potential Eagle Scout from Chapel Hill, explained his offer to construct a picnic area in Kings Highway Park, to include the addition of mulch, steps from the trail to the picnic area, a 6-foot long picnic table constructed of recycled plastic lumber for low maintenance, a sign to alert people to remove their trash when they leave the area, and to improve the scenic view from the picnic area to the river by removing low branches, vines and brush. Mr. Thomas said they would cut as few branches as possible and disturb as small an area as possible, adding that no funding from the Town was being requested. He said all materials would be donated or purchased by those directly involved. Mr. Thomas estimated the work would take 2 on-site work days between November and December. 7:11:31 PM Mayor Stevens said it sounded like a terrific project that would be a great amenity for the Town. 7:11:37 PM Commissioner Gering offered Mr. Thomas his encouragement and his thanks for taking on this project and for his efforts in other scouting projects. 7:12:08 PM Mayor Stevens offered thanks to Tom Magnuson from Trading Path who had posted a number of these projects and provided technical assistance. 7:12:25 PM Upon a motion by Commissioner Hallman, seconded by Commissioner Dancy, the Board moved to authorize a Boy Scout project in Kings Highway Park to provide a picnic area by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. B.Receive Report on Water Audit for FY07 7:12:49 PM Town Engineer/Utilities Director Kenny Keel stated that their percentage for unaccounted-for water was still high at 19% but it was a 3.23% decrease from FY06. He stated that 1.2% of that decrease was due to their efforts to begin tracking utility account adjustments in the audit, but that still meant a 2% reduction due to Town efforts to reduce lost water. Mr. Keel stated their goal was to continually reduce the unaccounted-for water percentage down to 12% by FY12, their Balance Scoreboard stretch target. He stated that their AWWA (American Water Works Association) Infrastructure Leakage Index dropped to 2.53 in FY07 from 2.97 in FY06, adding their target range was 1.0 to 3.0. 7:16:45 PM Commissioner Hallman asked what percentage of water meters had not yet been switched out. Finance Director Greg Siler stated about 50%. Commissioner Hallman wondered if the improvement shown in the percentages was due to the new meters. Mr. Keel said that was certainly one of the variables. He noted they hoped to get the other 50% of the water meters replaced by the end of this fiscal year. 3 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 4 of 47 C.Discussion/Presentation about possible Continuing Care Retirement Center to be integrated in the Corbinton Commons project 7:17:57 PM Ellis Coleman of EYC Companies stated they wanted to discuss the possibility of providing a Continuing Care Retirement Center (CCRC) rather than a licensed assisted living facility, known as a MAHS, at Corbinton Commons as part of their Special Use Permit. He stated that Bob Lippard would make a presentation on the best way to proceed with the senior multi-family piece of the development and what it would bring to the community in the form of skilled nursing and continuum of care. 7:20:05 PM Commissioner Lloyd asked if on the MAHS was being proposed for change, and if all the single-family and apartments were still in the plan. Mr. Coleman said with a few exceptions, the proposal that Mr. Lippard was making would incorporate some of the single- family into the CCRC, but that was not yet finalized. 7:20:51 PM Bob Lippard, Director of Drucker & Falk, LLC – Senior Housing, provide some background of his company and projects they were responsible for creating, a description of what a CCRC was, and spoke about the CCRC they were evaluating on the site for Corbinton Commons. Mr. Lippard stated that a CCRC in this project would be done in partnership with a prominent not-for-profit health care system, which would likely be the Duke health system. He described the types of services that would be provided through that partnership, which would include fitness services, hospice services, pharmacy services, rehab services, and any others that made sense to be delivered in the community. Mr. Lippard stated that a CCRC was a very heavily regulated, particular type of community in the State that was regulated by the Department of Insurance and the Department of Health Facility Services. He said in general a CCRC was an age-restricted community with a minimum age of 62, with an average age on entry across the country of 78. Mr. Lippard said residents would live independently and as they aged they would be able to migrate over into assisted living, and ultimately over into skilled nursing if needed. He said it was a distinctive concept and structure among senior living communities, and the only one that offered all those aspects of services as part of the community. Mr. Lippard stated that a CCRC was a service-rich environment, which might included various dining rooms and venues, a theater, a technology station, a bar area, a billiards room, a retail store, or a banking center. He described such a facility as a little city, with all its amenities available for the benefit of its residents. Mr. Lippard stated that a CCRC would involve someone paying an entrance fee when they moved in, and then paying monthly service fees which cumulatively would cover the costs of services. Mr. Lippard said one obvious question about a CCRC at this particular site related to the fact that there was not a critical mass of residents that were aging living in Hillsborough today that could by themselves support a CCRC. He said the only way a CCRC on this site would be successful was if they could successfully jar residents from Chapel Hill, about 8 miles away, and Durham, about 6 miles away. 4 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 5 of 47 Mr. Lippard stated they had several key plans they believed would potentially make a CCRC at Corbinton Commons successful: ? the ability to deliver a product that was relatively affordable - that would include getting as many units onto the site as possible which would lower the land cost for these stick- built units and include modulating the average size of the units; ? structuring the facility as a not-for-profit CCRC; and ? advertising to perspective residents that the facility was being located within the historic area or around the historic area of Hillsborough, which was far more valuable and important that if they simply advertised that the facility was in the Hillsborough area. Mr. Lippard stated it was their plan to build the number of units at a level already approved, which would be 157 in the first phase, with 142 on the side of the site where there were no single-family homes; and, to have about 42 combination skilled and assistant living and dementia beds in the health care center. He said they had considered price points in terms of trying to bring into the market a relatively affordable product, noting there would be a 90% refundable entrance fee which meant this was not a property you would hold title to. Mr. Lippard said they believed their smallest unit would be about 750 square feet with a 90% refundable fee of around $225,000 to perhaps $235,000. 7:35:22 PM Commissioner Lloyd asked about the 90% refundable fee. Mr. Lippard stated this fee would be paid on the front end and when that person passed away, 90% of the entry fee reverted to that person’s estate. He said the average person lived 12 years in such a community. 7:35:54 PM Town Attorney Bob Hornik said then whether you lived a year or 40 years, your estate would receive the 90%. Mr. Lippard stated that was correct. 7:35:58 PM Commissioner Lloyd stated that was better than other plans she was familiar with. Mr. Lippard said there were a number of different plans available, and they might have some type of an amortizing plan where if for someone the cost was a major driver they would pay an entrance fee and then over five years it would decline. So, he said, if you lived longer than 5 years you got nothing back, and that would provide for a lower cost. Mr. Lippard emphasized that they were in the early stages of planning and nothing had been decided. He stated they were planning on having 15 free-standing cottages on the same side as the single-family homes, which might be as large as 2,500 square feet and might be priced at as much as $600,000. 7:36:03 PM Mr. Lippard said that as part of making this a relatively affordable community, they wanted, at some point, to add more units on that site as a second phase. He said in a CCRC you had to pre-sell 70% of your units before you could start construction, which was a regulatory requirement. Mr. Lippard said when they got to the point where they had reached 70% pre-sells of the first-phase of 157 units they would then seek to begin planning for a second phase. He emphasized that they were well aware that that was not a part of Mr. Coleman’s approval, but was something he wanted the Board to be aware of because it helped to support more moderately priced units. Mr. Lippard said at this time they were engaging in four separate and discrete activities which he called due diligence about this project: 5 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 6 of 47 ? In the next couple of weeks they would be sending out about 10,000 letters to aging and income-qualified households to invite them to meet with them and their health system partner to get reaction to the site and site plan, and what elements of the CCRC was important to them. The turnout they got from that invitation would be critically important to assessing whether there was enough interest. ? Their architects would be providing that audience with site plans of the project. ? They would then have a financial model drawn up to bear out some of those assumptions, which was important to projections about what they believed the case would be about this community in terms of its finances. ? They would be conducting a market study to evaluate other CCRC’s, where they were located and how well they were doing, to give them demographic information to support the case for this community moving forward. Mr. Lippard said at the end of these activities they would make the decision to move forward or not to move forward. He said they believed that this was a proposition that would be successful; that is, that they would be able to draw people from Chapel Hill and Durham to this site. 7:40:59 PM Mr. Lippard distributed the original site plan Mr. Coleman had prepared as a part of his presentation on Corbinton Commons, and then distributed their architect’s post-rendering of a site plan. He said he would hope to have some indication from the Board of Commissioners as to whether this was a concept they could support. Mr. Lippard said a major not-for-profit health care system would not take part in a development that the Town was not behind and supported. Mr. Lippard described on the site plan the possible location of approximately 260 independent living units. He said their architects had said if 260 units were what they wanted to end up with at the end of the life of the project, then that was how they might fit on this site. Mr. Lippard then described on the site plan where the commons area and other amenities might be located. He then pointed out the area originally programmed as multi-family and was now the projected site of the health system’s primary care center and fitness/wellness function which would be opened to everyone, including residents of the Town. Mr. Lippard stated they were also working on an understanding with Mr. Coleman that they would have 15 of the single-family home sites actually be a part of the CCRC. 7:46:34 PM Commissioner Gering stated he was on the Board when they first considered Corbinton Commons, and the majority of the Board had gotten a thorough education about senior living. He said he had always been enthusiastic about the prospect of having a CCRC or multiple CCRC’s in Hillsborough. Commissioner Gering said one part of the Waterstone development had been designated for a CCRC. Mr. Lippard said he was aware of that proposal. Commissioner Gering said his point was that in the past this Board had been very supportive of this type of model, and he was encouraged by the prospect of another one. 7:47:29 PM Commissioner Hallman added when they had given their approval to Mr. Coleman, they had encouraged him to pursue a CCRC, and he was personally glad to see that was happening. Mr. Lippard said he was familiar with Hillsborough and it had always had a cache that was critically important in persuading people to come here, adding it was important to be able to say that it was a part of the Town of Hillsborough. 6 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 7 of 47 7:49:06 PM Commissioner Gering asked procedurally what did this mean for the Board. Mr. Hornik stated this would be considered a modification of the SUP for Corbinton Commons, so they would have to go through the public hearing process. 7:49:50 PM Ms. Hauth agreed this could not be approved as a minor modification by staff, but would have to go through the formal public hearing process. 7:50:10 PM Commissioner Gering stated as they go through that process he would appreciate some information prior to the public hearing stage as far as what the plans were looking like, so that the Board could have time to think about it and perhaps respond in an informal way. Mr. Lippard stated the architects, as part of preparing for the focus group sessions, would have in addition to the site plan some elevations, some renderings of what the buildings might look like, some sample floor plans, and other information. 7:52:08 PM Mayor Stevens reiterated Commissioner Gering’s point that it would be most helpful to have that information prior to the public hearing, noting it was part of the Board’s vision to keep in tact the unique aspects of the Town. Mr. Lippard responded that before they started the formal process, the due diligence work he had described would lead him to say yes, they were going forward or no, they were not going forward. He said they would want to complete that due diligence activity and then come back to this Board. 7:52:40 PM Mayor Stevens said as a gauge, he had heard from at least one neighbor in the area who had asked if a CCRC was coming, and it had been very well received. Mr. Lippard stated that many years ago after he had educated himself about senior living, and he had discovered that a CCRC model was the most compelling model available. 7:53:11 PM Mayor Stevens said that Mr. Lippard’s comments regarding a possible second phase was something that would require a great deal of conversation. Mr. Lippard said they understood that there were many factors that would have to be considered. 7:54:11 PM Commissioner Lloyd said regarding the discussion about someone entering the CCRC with an amortized five-year plan, she understood that with such plans if a person left the facility after three years, then their estate would receive a prorated amount. Mr. Lippard stated that was correct. Commissioner Lloyd stated you also had to be aware of the distances the elderly or injured would have to travel within the development to reach amenities. Mr. Lippard agreed, which was why their development was not proposed to be spread out but to be compact for easy accessibility. 7:56:20 PM Mayor Stevens thanked Mr. Lippard for his presentation and the information, noting it had been very informative. D.Consideration of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to remove the provision for a density increase with a Conditional Use Permit from Section 5.4.d. 7:56:40 PM Ms. Hauth stated that the Planning Board had spent a fair amount of time on this issue, and had recommended that this be deferred and addressed during the rewrite of the Zoning 7 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 8 of 47 Ordinance, because there may be areas where the density bonus was desirable and removing it at this point may not be helpful. She said that recommendation carried a unanimous vote of the Planning Board members present at the time. Ms. Hauth said if the Board wanted to move forward she had included in the packet the Section 160A-383 statement as well as an ordinance for consideration. Ms. Hauth said depending on how this went tonight, the Planning Board and staff would continue to look at this section because as people have actually attempted to apply if for more than just 2 or 3 dwelling units, the weakness of that section had become obvious. She said even if this provision was removed regarding the density bonus, there were other parts of that section that needed rewriting. 7:58:25 PM Mayor Stevens said then the Board’s choices were to strike the ordinance or leave it as is. Mr. Hornik said that was correct, to either strike Section 5.4.d, or leave it as is. He said the Planning Board had indicated they would rather it be left as is while they worked on a more specific and perhaps more complex modification to the new ordinance. 7:59:00 PM Commissioner Hallman asked what kind of exposure they might have from now until the ordinance rewrite, if they left this section as is. Ms. Hauth responded she knew of one other parcel in Town that was considering applying for the density bonus. She said basically, you could say that any parcel that was ½ acre of larger, depending on where it was in Town, could apply for the density bonus. Ms. Hauth said it had not been well-used since it was placed in the ordinance, adding that the two they had received this year were the first two. She said there were a fair number of oversized lots in a wide variety of parts of Town that could apply for this bonus. 8:00:07 PM Commissioner Hallman said he understood that if such property was in the historic district, it was be an HDC matter. Ms. Hauth said a density bonus would require a vote of the BOA no matter where it was located, but if it was in the historic district it would also require HDC approval. She said during the most recent proposal, they had seen just have difficult that process was when those two boards could not sit together in a joint review because their issues were very different. Ms. Hauth said that posed a real difficulty for the volunteers on both boards to review the applications, particularly in the historic district. 8:00:45 PM Commissioner Hallman if they had an application where they desired that density, they would perhaps need only a rezoning. Ms. Hauth said that was correct, although if you tried to rezone to multi-family you might get into the issue of spot zoning since a minimum of two acres was required. She said she believed the Planning Board in particular was considering the US 70 corridor, since some of the plans there was to introduce attached dwellings on the larger lots, and they did not want to remove that possibility now that the plan had been approved. 8:01:42 PM Commissioner Hallman said if they want to rewrite the ordinance to allow such things, and they struck this provision out now, were they looking at a year before such a project could come forward. Ms. Hauth said no, she hoped to have something ready for this Board’s January hearing. She said she knew that an applicant was pending, but this section was now incredibly weak and it was not clear exactly how someone would negotiate the process. 8 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 9 of 47 8:02:42 PM Commissioner Hallman asked was the Planning Board aware of the timeframe Ms. Hauth had just described when they voted unanimously to leave the provision in the ordinance. Ms. Hauth said not in August when they voted, but in September she had brought them a list of projects she wanted to continue to work on for public hearing, and this one was noted on the January schedule. She said the Planning Board had agreed to that. Ms. Hauth said staff and the Planning Board agreed that this section of the ordinance could not wait for the rewrite. 8:03:19 PM Mayor Stevens said he thought he spoke for the Board when he said this section did give the Town some exposure, but he was encouraged that there were at least four or five people involved at the Planning Board meeting where that density bonus was perceived as problematic, both in the BOA and HDC area. He said those were the same people who were saying they needed to wait, and that gave him more confidence than otherwise. 8:04:08 PM Commissioner Lowen agreed, noting that since they were looking at a January timeframe he would agree with what the Planning Board was saying. Ms. Hauth said it was important to note that the timeframe was actually mid to late March, even though the Board would hear the public hearing in January. 8:04:57 PM Commissioner Gering said he would rather err on the side of caution given the exposures they had experienced recently and the problems they had created. He said even if they could have the rewrite done in the January-March timeframe, what was the harm in enacting the ordinance now to gain some protection. Commissioner Gering said that could preclude the Board running into problems, particularly with the US 70 corridor. He said he saw no harm in adopting the ordinance now and amending it or replacing it in a short timeframe, noting he was weighing the possible missed opportunities against the possible damage. 8:06:04 PM Commissioner Lloyd said something could be adopted to say that nothing could be done until the ordinance rewrite, which sounded like a moratorium. 8:06:51 PM Commissioner Gering said his point was to eliminate the density bonus now for a period of five or so months, which gave them some insurance but did not create an undue burden on anyone who had serious plans for economic development or revitalization plans. 8:07:25 PM Mayor Stevens confirmed that the Planning Board was aware of the timetable. Ms. Hauth replied that was correct, but not at the time they made their recommendation. 8:07:49 PM Mayor Stevens said either way, with this quick timetable, either decision would be workable. 8:08:09 PM Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Hallman, the Board moved to approve the Compliance Statement per G.S. 160A-383 to delete the density bonus provisions for attached dwelling authorized in Section 5.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, in that the Board has determined that the language as is was problematic and the provision was being struck to provide time to create language that was better suited to the Town. 9 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 10 of 47 8:09:16 PM Commissioner Hallman stated that he had been prepared to support the Planning Board’s recommendation, but in light of the new evidence regarding the timing he was now in support of Commissioner Gering’s motion. Commissioner Lowen agreed with Commissioner Hallman’s statement. 8:10:40 PM The vote was 5-0. The motion was declared passed. 8:10:50 PM Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Hallman, the Board moved to approve the ordinance amendment by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. E.Special Use Permit modification for Eagle Enterprises to replace the approved Huddle House restaurant with a Burger King with a drive through, reduce the carwash to one bay and reduce the hours of operation at 620 Hampton Pointe Blvd (TMBL 4.45..4L) 8:11:14 PM Ms. Hauth stated that the Planning Board had asked that the applicant meet with the Town’s consulting engineers to determine a driveway solution that would allow the left turn into the exiting traffic, but still provide a safe condition. She said the Planning Board had been pleased with the revised plans that showed a “Z” island that would still allow inbound traffic into the development to turn either right into the site or left into the Home Depot site, and still allow vehicles leaving the site to turn left into this site, but vehicles trying to exit this site would have to turn right. Ms. Hauth said the “Z” island would create a small concrete island to keep vehicles where they were supposed to be. She said all other requests from the Planning Board had been met to align the island with the building to improve the on-site traffic flow. Ms. Hauth said the vote was 7-1 to recommend in favor, with Ms. Ellis opposed. Ms. Hauth said she had included a resolution in the agenda materials with “a-h” conditions noted. She said the Planning Board had not spent a lot of time on the changes in hours of operation, noting they were recommending that the restaurant operate from 5 a.m. to midnight as well as the convenience store. She said the applicant had requested that the carwash could also be placed on those same hours, but the Planning Board had not been clear in its recommendation as to whether they had intended to allow the hour modification or not. Ms. Hauth said the resolution was written to maintain the carwash hours as previously approved. She said the packet contained a cost estimate of the various street improvements, and believed the applicant and Ken Hines had discussed the possibility of some cost sharing. Ms. Hauth said the Planning Board had not made a recommendation regarding that because the cost estimates were not available at that time and because that was not something they would normally do. She said Hampton Pointe Boulevard was a Town street and there was some recognized weakness in the existing pavement striping in that it was confusing as you came in off of NC 86. Ms. Hauth said the applicant and Mr. Hines had recommendations for the Board to consider. 8:14:53 PM Mayor Stevens said in the resolution, rather than the language being “will operate from…” that it should say “will be limited to the hours of…” There was general consensus from the Board. 10 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 11 of 47 8:15:24 PM Commissioner Hallman said he had a question about the road improvements and how the Town asked developments to carry the cost of the impacts they put onto the street systems. He asked did they determine who carried that cost. Ms. Hauth said in most cases they asked the applicant to bear that cost. She said there were two factors which she believed made this case slightly different, the first was that the existing striping was confusing and the second was that part of that confusion was caused by the left turn into the Home Depot and they were not a party to this agreement. Ms. Hauth said the Town had allowed that left turn into that site which was a modification to that approved plan, so there was another party to the agreement that was “not at the table.” 8:16:25 PM Commissioner Hallman said he would think in examples where there was an existing driveway access and a new applicant came along that made an impact on that existing access then they would not go to that existing landowner and insist that they make improvements. Ms. Hauth agreed that was not something that they saw very often. She said she would term this particular situation as rather unusual, adding that in 95% of the cases improvements were wholly the responsibility of the applicant because it was their project causing the problem, so to speak. 8:17:17 PM Mr. Hornik agreed that Ms. Hauth was correct, noting the “rule of thumb” was you had to look at the extent to which the applicant’s proposal caused or contributed to the conditions to be addressed. In this case, he said, they were looking at an existing condition that was being affected to some extent by the applicant’s operation, but certainly not entirely. 8:17:52 PM Mayor Stevens questioned that, in that they were actually talking about removing one of the conditions for right in/right out, which was to the enhancement of the applicant but may be necessary in any case. He said he was not sure that the Town should necessarily share that cost. 8:18:37 PM Ray Watts, the Civil Engineer for this project and speaking for the applicant, stated that in the packet was the overall site plan with the changes as modified, as well as an enlargement of the pavement markings. He said he had met with Ken Hines directly before this meeting, and then noted the items they would be responsible for: the widening, the grading, pavement demolition removal, and curb and gutter. Mr. Watts said they would pay the costs for those four activities, as well as the cost of the “Z” island and the sidewalks. He said in talking with Mr. Hines regarding the re-markings for the widening, Mr. Hines had stated that was something the Town would do at the Town’s expense. Mr. Watts said there were four items the Planning Board had asked them to address: addressing the crosswalk which was not delineated on the plans; they had shifted the canopy over to give more room for people visiting the carwash or the restaurant drive-thru; added a cross-access with caused some decrease in the parking area due to the impervious area requirements; and, added the “Z” island. 8:21:25 PM Public Works Supervisor Ken Hines stated that at Hampton Pointe there was some work required not related to this project, noting it needed to be restriped and some asphalt and paint needed to be ground off and redone. He said what he had proposed to Mr. Watts was 11 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 12 of 47 that the Town would take care of the work already earmarked as being needed, plus the Town would take on the additional painting and striping to allow the applicant access and to allow citizens to know where to turn left or right. 8:22:02 PM Commissioner Lowen asked was he talking about adding arrows. Mr. Hines said that was correct. Commissioner Lowen agreed that was necessary, noting he visited the area frequently and it was in bad shape. Mr. Hines said the total cost for striping and the additional work was around $4,200, as estimated by Summit Engineering. 8:22:50 PM Mayor Stevens said then the Town’s burden was $4,200 and the applicant would bear the other costs. Mr. Hines said that was correct. 8:23:46 PM Commissioner Lowen said the original complaints when this project came forward were from residents in Beckett’s Ridge who were very concerned about the 24-hour operation that had now been addressed. He said he was pleased that had now been settled, and he liked the revised plan and would like to see it go forward. 8:24:40 PM Mayor Stevens stated the hours as noted were: for the carwash 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., and for the restaurant and convenience store 5 a.m. to midnight. Ms. Hauth said she believed it was the applicant’s desire to get all of the timeframes the same, but it was not clearly discussed by the Planning Board. She said they had been focused mainly on the transportation issues. 8:25:08 PM Commissioner Lowen said it would mean two more hours for the carwash and most people would not wash their cars at midnight. He said the carwash was at the furthest point, almost at the road, so he did not believe it would annoy anyone. Commissioner Lowen said he had no problem with making the hours for all three uses from 5 a.m. to midnight. 8:25:52 PM Commissioner Hallman said he could make the reverse argument, but he would go with the discretion of the Board. 8:26:32 PM Commissioner Lowen said he did want to say to Mr. and Mrs. Ford that he was proud and happy to have an African-American couple take such an interest in Hillsborough, and hoped the Board would approve the project. 8:27:14 PM Commissioner Lowen moved to approve the resolution with provision modified to state the hours would be limited to 5 a.m. to midnight. 8:27:41 PM Commissioner Gering asked about the road improvements to be paid for by the applicant. Mr. Hornik agreed they needed to add a provision for the applicant to have financial responsibility for the widening, the grading, pavement demolition removal, the curb and gutter, the “Z” island, and the sidewalk; and, the remarking/restriping would be the Town’s financial responsibility. 8:28:29 PM Commissioner Lowen amended his motion to include the Town Attorney’s provision. 8:28:39 PM The motion was seconded by Commissioner Dancy. 12 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 13 of 47 8:28:44 PM The motion as amended was approved by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. F.Discussion of Town participation in upgrading traffic signal at the new Nash and Kollack Street intersection 8:29:24 PM Ms. Hauth noted that Kollock Street had been misspelled in the agenda item, noting it should be “Kollock” and not “Kollack.” She said that the traffic signal at the intersection of Churton Street and Nash and Kollock Streets was in need of upgrading. Ms. Hauth said in both the Churton Street Plan and the Downtown Streetscape Plan there was a request to and a recommendation for mast-arm poles. 8:30:59 PM Commissioner Hallman asked had they met the warrants for that. Ms. Hauth said they would as far as providing the documentation and the estimated traffic flows when the garage opened. She said there was about a 14-week lead time on ordering those posts if they had the black powder coating rather than the galvanized look, which was what the Town’s plans called for. She said DOT had no problem with the galvanized posts, but if they went up with the black powder posts they wanted the Town to accept the responsibility for the long-term maintenance and the cost for the difference between the galvanized post and the black powder post. Ms. Hauth said if the post was damaged and had to be replaced, the Town would be expected to pay the difference between the galvanized post and the black powder post. She noted they did not have enough experience with the posts to say what the difference would be between the two, but said after a number of years the black powder coating could be done on site, but she did not know how many years that would be other than to say it would be more than five. Ms. Hauth noted they also did not have the document from DOT at this time. Ms. Hauth said both the property owner and the staff were asking the Board to authorize an agreement with DOT to participate in the long-term maintenance of the mast-arm traffic signal pole at this location. She said there would be no direct out-of-pocket expense until there was damage to the pole. 8:33:26 PM Commissioner Hallman asked about the $25,000 in escrow. Ms. Hauth said that was for the traffic assessment. Commissioner Hallman said there may not be any out-of-pocket expense now, but two months after installation it could become damaged and the Town would be responsible for its repair. 8:33:56 PM Commissioner Gering he believed they needed to decide whether to install the galvanized pole or take on the extra cost of replacement of a black-powder coated pole. Mr. Peterson said you would also have to decide whether or not to utilize the insurance on the pole. 8:34:08 PM Mayor Stevens said they needed to determine if this was important to the Town and fit into the beautification of the Town and the character of the Town, noting that when you invested in such beautification the value would always return. He said he believed they were talking about the difference in any cost between the two poles. 13 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 14 of 47 8:35:01 PM Mr. Peterson provided a brief history of how this had come about, and complimented Ms. Hauth on her efforts to make this happen. 8:36:32 PM Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Dancy, the Board moved to authorize staff to sign an agreement with NCDOT regarding the long-term maintenance of the mast-arm traffic pole proposed for Nash and Kollock Streets by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. 8:36:47 PM Commissioner Lowen stated he would like the Town to take measures to pursue obtaining funds from the insurance carrier for repairs. Mr. Peterson stated they would do so. G.Update on Land Use Plan process and consider calling a special public hearing on November 8 8:37:29 PM Ms. Hauth stated rather than putting something as important as the Land Use Plan on the regular quarterly public hearing schedule, the Planning Board had asked that this Board consider holding a special public hearing on November 8. She said that would allow them to do a public workshop immediately before that meeting to allow the public to look at the map and ask questions. Ms. Hauth said then tentatively they could also hold a workshop on November 1 in a 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. timeframe to allow for more public comment. Ms. Hauth said that the Strategic Growth Plan covered an area much larger than the Town’s existing jurisdiction, and to address that they were proposing to take the future Land Use Map for their current jurisdiction only to that public hearing. She said while they would show the whole area within the proposed utilities boundary and what the potential land uses were, the public hearing would actually be on their currently jurisdiction only. Ms. Hauth stated she had included a list of definitions for land use classifications, noting that they were trying to match and keep their terminology the same as the Regional Transportation Plan. She said that was so that when they did a Land Use Map and projections for the transportation plan, the Town’s numbers would match the numbers in every other jurisdiction in the Triangle. Ms. Hauth said that would ensure consistency in the long run across the region. Ms. Hauth said she had not yet checked on the availability of the Courtroom, but if it was not available the public hearing would be held in the Town Barn. 8:40:53 PM Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Hallman, the Board moved to call a special public hearing on November at 7:00 p.m. by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. H.Discussion of October 22nd Workshop “Hot Topics” 8:41:33 PM Mr. Peterson noted there were two possible items at this time: an update on the Boone/Collins proposal if necessary; and, to continue or conduct an appeal of the Tree Board decision on the Snipes property. 8:42:12 PM Mayor Stevens called for short recess. 14 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 15 of 47 I.Conduct Appeal Hearing on Tree Board Decision Regarding 329 West Tryon Street at the Request of Mr. John Snipes 8:48:58 PM Mayor Stevens reconvened the meeting. Mayor Stevens stated they were going to conduct an appeal hearing of the Tree Board decision regarding 329 West Tryon Street, at the request of Mr. John Snipes. He said he acknowledged that people were before this Board this evening with very heartfelt concerns, and that as they moved along in their discussions he would like for everyone to put their interests on the table and work to solve everyone’s interests to the degree possible. Mayor Stevens said he would like to asked everyone to conduct themselves respectfully, that they proceed carefully and do everything as fairly as possible, and, as expediently as possible. He said he wanted to make sure they were all clear about what the objectives were and what they were trying to accomplish, talk about the process, then move on to hearing from the different parties. Mayor Stevens said Mr. Snipes had requested this hearing, with two items to be addressed. He said one was to directly appeal the decision of the Tree Board, and the second was for the Board to have general awareness of the issues involved in this matter. He asked was there still an issue that needed to be appealed; that is, was a sale pending or a plan that was moving forward. 8:51:20 PM Robin Taylor-Hall, the real estate agent for the sale of that property, stated the contract to buy had been cancelled because the prospective buyers had not been able to satisfy the conditions of the Tree Board. She said you had to have access to the lot, and with the trees where they were there was no way to preserve the trees and provide for a driveway or to bring in construction materials. Ms. Taylor-Hall said the prospective buyers had felt that their hands were tied and were now out of the picture, but Mr. Snipes needed to be able to take those trees down in order to have access to that lot in order to sell it to anyone else. 8:52:08 PM Mayor Stevens said for this Board, were they being asked to resolve a particular decision that was made on a particular plan, or being asked for a general decision. Mr. Hornik said that was an important distinction, primarily because he did not believe that anyone could just say yes, they were letting you have access to your lot, because the Town had to allow access to the lot. Otherwise, he said, the Town would have to purchase the lot. Mr. Hornik said unless there was a specific plan for the Town Board to be looking at to say yes or no to, then they could say yes or no to some abstract general access. Mayor Stevens stated that was a good point. 8:53:28 PM Ms. Taylor-Hall said no it was not, because anyone who purchased that lot would have to have a driveway at the same place, because if you moved it to the left you would be within the 50-foot Neuse River buffer that could not be disturbed. Mr. Hornik said that was the specific point of access that was being requested, which was all the Board could approve, and not just a general access. He said this Board could not say that they were allowed to access anywhere along the frontage. Ms. Taylor-Hall said that specific access was what they were requesting. 15 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 16 of 47 8:54:25 PM Mayor Stevens stated they had to determine the objective. Ms. Taylor-Hall responded the objective was to be able to get access to the lot, which would mean the trees in question would have to come down. 8:54:32 PM Commissioner Gering said she was referring to that specific plan. Ms. Taylor- Hall said yes. She said the only access to that lot was the upper right corner, and pointed that out on a map. Ms. Taylor-Hall said to get down into the lot you would have to bring in fill dirt which arborists had said would kill the trees. 8:55:34 PM Mayor Stevens stated if this Board approved any particular plan or driveway it would still have to go before the HDC. Ms. Taylor-Hall said that was correct, noting the HDC had approved the plan pending the outcome of the Tree Board’s decision on those specific trees. 8:56:19 PM Mayor Stevens said he had thought there were a couple of different driveways that could be considered, whether it was a single driveway or a circular driveway or configurations of how a driveway might go or how wide it might be. Ms. Taylor-Hall stated this was the only way that a driveway could enter the lot because of the steep topography and the need to stay out of the 50 foot buffer. Commissioner Hallman asked why the drive had to be a circular drive. John Snipes responded it did not, noting the prospective buyers had proposed that in order to provide extra parking and not block the street driveway to the back of the lot. Ms. Taylor-Hall said the Tree Board wanted assurances that the trees would live, but no arborist would certify that because bringing in the fill dirt would kill the trees, and fill dirt was necessary. 8:59:17 PM Commissioner Hallman asked if the Town had a reasonable steep slope ordinance such as other communities had, would development of this lot be allowed. Ms. Hauth said she did not know what the percent slope was and could not answer that. 8:59:43 PM Phil Ray, Chair of the Tree Board, asked if the Board had the packet of information that had been distributed to the Tree Board members. He said if so, there was a clear drawing of the lot which might be of help. Mr. Hornik said the drawing in the Board’s packet was the same as that provided to the Tree Board. 9:00:52 PM Mayor Stevens said his question remained could the Board approve a general driveway access, and, what was the next step. He said the plan as originally proposed would not be used, and someone else could potentially come forward with a very different plan. Mr. Snipes said essentially, the driveway would still have to be put in the same place since the area was so limited. Mayor Stevens said but there was some variance, correct? Ms. Taylor-Hall said she did not believe so. 9:01:31 PM Mr. Snipes stated that every builder he had contacted had indicated that because of the limited envelope, there was only one place a structure could go and the driveway would have to be put in on the upper side of the lot, which was exactly what had been previously proposed. 16 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 17 of 47 9:01:43 PM Mr. Hornik said his view on that was if this Board decided on that location for a driveway, either tonight or in the future, then that would be where the driveway would go no matter who purchased the lot or what was built on it. Unless, he said, someone came back to this Board of the Tree Board to ask for a different driveway location. 9:02:09 PM Commissioner Hallman said for access to this lot, the Town must allow for a driveway. Mr. Hornik said that was correct, noting that reasonable access had to be provided. Mr. Hornik noted he had attended one of the Tree Board meetings, and he had understood that this was a circular driveway. He said the stream buffer ended roughly where the eastern driveway began. Mr. Hornik said he recalled that where the driveway was conditionally approved, the idea was that they would have a “T” instead of the continuation of the eastern driveway. He said that was an effort to preserve the largest tree that would be affected, and the Tree Board had asked the applicants to come back with a preservation plan prepared by a certified arborist showing best management practices or best efforts to preserve the two Sycamore trees. 9:04:06 PM Commissioner Hallman said to be clear, the goal for tonight for this Board was to approve a driveway or access to this property. Mayor Stevens said his question was could they do that. Mr. Hornik asked why there was a question about that. Mayor Stevens said because he believed it would then have to go back to the HDC. Ms. Hauth commented that the plan had already been approved by the HDC. Ms. Taylor-Hall said it was a conditional approval, with the condition being that the Tree Board would have to approve the removal of the Sycamore trees. 9:04:53 PM Mr. Hornik said he could see the confusion. He said as a continuation of the last step of that approval process, if someone wanted to build something other than this plan they would have to go back to the HDC as well as the Tree Board, and possibly back to this Board. Mr. Hornik said what the Board could be doing tonight was providing the final approval in that approval process, for the plan as presented. 9:05:30 PM Commissioner Hallman said they did not have a plan presented; they had a u- shaped driveway. Mr. Hornik said the Board’s jurisdiction was not on the plan; its jurisdiction was that this was a street tree in the public right-of-way, and the Tree Board and ultimately this Board had jurisdiction to decide which street trees got planted and which got removed. He said the only limitation on that authority was that you could not say you could not cut down any street trees and therefore have no access to your property. 9:06:21 PM Phil Ray remarked that as far as this plan was concerned, for clarification it was approved by the HDC and it showed a retaining wall coming out of the side of the house going east, and then going north all the way to the street. He said the reason for that retaining wall was because the prospective buyers wanted to have a level yard so the retaining wall was for the fill up to the front of the house. Mr. Ray said the house was high in the back and to one side, so the 17 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 18 of 47 prospective buyers were leveling the yard. He said when you leveled the yard you were only a few feet from the road. Mr. Ray said if you were allowed to do that, you still could not save those trees. He said the little piece of land that made the U driveway was truly insignificant as far as the trees were concerned. Mr. Ray said if anyone purchased this lot and wanted a level front yard they would still have to fill in around the trees. 9:07:48 PM Commissioner Gering challenged the notion that someone could do that and thereby destroy the trees in the public right-of-way. He said that would be the same as taking a chain saw to them, which this Board had the authority to prevent. Mr. Hornik said you could not deny a property owner access to his property. 9:08:15 PM Commissioner Gering said let’s assume that the driveway entrance was on the western side of the property, so they took down whatever trees needed for that access, but that did not mean that they could go further and make a level yard and destroy other trees in the public right-of-way by compromising the roots. 9:08:44 PM Commissioner Lloyd stated she agreed with Commissioner Gering. Commissioner Gering said by doing something in that front yard that had the affect of killing the trees in the public right-of-way was the same as taking a chain saw to them. 9:09:10 PM Commissioner Dancy stated something was going to happen to those trees, because they had to allow access to that property. She said driving a car or a bulldozer over that driveway would likely damage the roots because they had already spread out into the yard. Commissioner Dancy said you were talking about denying a person access to their property. 9:09:51 PM Commissioner Gering said that was not what he was saying at all. He said he was saying they did not have a right to a level front yard if it killed the trees in the public right-of- way Mr. Hornik said he understood what Commissioner Gering was saying, in that the owners did not necessarily have to fill in and level the yard in order to still have driveway access. He said the Town had to allow access, but did not necessarily have to say you were allowed access and a level front yard. 9:10:25 PM Mayor Stevens said that was exactly the issue that was at hand. He said what he was hearing was that someone could have a plan and build to that plan, but it would apply only to that plan. He said if the plan was approved, it would only be for that particular plan and not for a general right. Mr. Hornik said that was correct, noting if the plan was varied in any way it would have to get a new approval or modification. Mayor Stevens said would that mean that someone could come in and do the fill, take out the trees, and then not build the plan. Mr. Hornik said that could happen at any time with any plan. 9:11:42 PM Mrs. Taylor-Hall stated that on this lot, there were beautiful old Oak trees in the rear yard that were planned to be preserved, and in the 50 foot buffer noting would be disturbed at all. She said it was not like someone would come in a clear-cut the entire lot and start over. 18 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 19 of 47 Mr. Hornik said procedurally the Board could approve the driveway connection and be specific about exactly where that was on the western side of the property, but that was all the Board could do. He said there was no plan for leveling the front yard at this point, there was no plan for a retaining wall at this point, and there was no plan. Mr. Hornik said the various boards would take this back up when and if they got a plan. Mr. Hornik said what this Board could do was say they would allow access to that property with that driveway connection at that location on the western portion. 9:13:00 PM Mayor Stevens said that was the question in front of the Board in terms of reversing what the Tree Board had decided. 9:13:06 PM Mr. Hines stated that the motion by the Tree Board had been to allow removal of one Sycamore tree that was on the western side, and the condition of approval which was not met was that the two larger Sycamore trees with the dual trucks be preserved using best management practices. He said by allowing removal of that one Sycamore tree, that would give the property owner driveway access on the upper western side. 9:13:49 PM Mayor Stevens said that was the decision, and the request from the applicant was to appeal or modify that decision. Ms. Taylor-Hall said the request was to start over with the trees, and allow access without the restriction that the two trees be saved. She said the lot was already restricted, noting almost 50% of it could not be touched. Ms. Taylor-Hall said by conditioning the approval on the two trees staying alive was almost the same as saying you could not develop this lot. 9:14:38 PM Mayor Stevens said the question then was to appeal the Tree Board’s decision to allow removal of the 14” tree and come back with a plan to save the two Sycamore trees. Ms. Taylor-Hall said the ruling was you could not harm the two Sycamore trees. Mr. Hornik disagreed, noting the ruling was to come back with a plan. Ms. Taylor-Hall said after several attempts, they could not find an arborist that would give them a plan that would ensure that the double-trunked Sycamores would stay alive. So, she said, the prospective buyers had come back to the Tree Board and stated that. 9:15:03 PM Guy Phillip Mayer, a Board-Certified Master Arborist in Apex, stated that in the meantime he had written a plan for the prospective buyers that provided for a level front yard using porous fill dirt that would allow for the preservation of the trees, but it had come in after some sort of deadline and was never presented. He said it was a fully valid plan for preservation of the trees, while allowing for full access and even allowing for a flat front yard. Mr. Mayer said it was not true that fill dirt would always kill the trees, noting there was a structural soil available to place on top of tree roots even at the depth of several feet, which would allow the tree roots to live. He said that was best management. 9:16:41 PM Ms. Taylor-Hall asked was Mr. Mayer saying that the plan was never submitted by the prospective buyers because they missed some kind of deadline. Mr. Mayer stated he had written the buyers on September 11 with the plan, but had not heard from them. 19 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 20 of 47 Ms. Taylor-Hall stated that could have been because the cost was $37,860. Mr. Mayer said that cost was based on very incomplete building plans, and the final figure may have been much lower. He said he was given scarce information about where the house would be placed and how much area would require the fill dirt. Ms. Taylor-Hall said at almost $38,000 that would be cost- prohibitive. 9:17:33 PM Mr. Hornik stated that part of the condition was that if the trees did not survive for five years then they would have to be replaced with two trees 3”inches in caliper. He said it was that decision that this Board was being asked to appeal tonight. 9:18:34 PM Mayor Stevens said this was a problematic lot and there was expense involved, so they were not ignoring that. But, he said, potentially what was the Board being asked to appeal. Ms. Taylor-Hall stated this was the first time she had seen a preservation plan for those trees, at a cost of $37,860. 9:19:45 PM Mayor Stevens said this still seemed like an open issue for the Tree Board, because they had not yet had a chance to look at the preservation plan which was part of the conditional approval. Mr. Ray said that was the intent of the Tree Board. 9:20:01 PM Mayor Stevens said he believed this issue should go back to the Tree Board. Ms. Taylor-Hall said she needed to know if a driveway would be allowed to go to that lot, so that when the next person was interested in purchasing the lot she would know what to tell them. 9:20:30 PM Commissioner Hallman said if you did not build the retaining wall all the way to the street, would this even be an issue. Mr. Hornik said that may be a question for the Tree Board, since now they did not even have a plan. 9:20:48 PM Mayor Stevens said they would not restrict access, but that access would be somewhat conditional based on what someone wanted to do with that lot. Mr. Snipes said in hindsight, he almost wished the buyers had not even asked to remove the trees, because they brought forward a contentious issue by doing that. He said they could have just gone ahead and put in their driveway, but there was an opinion that fill dirt would be required to put in a driveway because of the topography and that would affect the two trees and they would most likely not survive. Mr. Snipes said he was glad to see that there was a situation where they had a chance to survive, but the cost to do that was prohibitive. 9:22:10 PM Mayor Stevens said again, the intent was to preserve trees, to allow access to the property, and to meet the conditions in order to do that. He asked Ms. Taylor-Hall had she gotten what she needed. Ms. Taylor-Hall said she believed so. Mr. Rees said he would like to follow up on Commissioner Hallman’s remarks about an ordinance that would address steep slopes and the filling in when a lot was not really suitable for building on. Mayor Stevens said he believed that would be addressed during the ordinance rewrite since it would have other implications. 20 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 21 of 47 9:23:37 PM Mr. Mayer said that the driveway on the western border was one issue, and a driveway could be built there at a low cost that would affect a very small percentage of the tree roots and the trees would have a very good chance of living. However, he said, if someone wanted to also have a flat front yard that required a huge amount of fill, then that was where a great amount of expense would be required, or, a greater reduction in the trees’ chances for survival. Mr. Mayer said he wanted to be sure that the Board kept those two distinctions. 9:24:16 PM Mayor Stevens said that was his concern about approving a particular plan without the person who wanted to use the property being involved. He said he realized the difficulties with this lot, but any new plan would have to go before the HDC and meet all conditions. 9. CLOSED SESSION A. Closed Session as authorized by North Carolina General Statute Section 143-318.11 (3) to meet with Town Attorney regarding current Litigation Robins v. Town of Hillsborough (Asphalt Plant) B. Property Acquisition 9:25:22 PM Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, the Board moved to go into Closed Session by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. Upon returning to Open Session, and upon a motion by Commissioner Hallman, seconded by Commissioner Lowen, the Board moved to award the Town Manager a 5% Merit Increase by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. 10. ADJOURN Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Dancy, the Board moved to adjourn at 10:25 PM by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. Respectfully submitted, Donna F. Armbrister, MMC Town Clerk 21 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 22 of 47 22 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 23 of 47 23 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 24 of 47 24 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 25 of 47 25 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 26 of 47 26 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 27 of 47 27 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 28 of 47 28 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 29 of 47 29 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 30 of 47 30 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 31 of 47 31 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 32 of 47 32 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 33 of 47 33 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 34 of 47 34 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 35 of 47 35 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 36 of 47 36 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 37 of 47 37 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 38 of 47 38 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 39 of 47 39 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 40 of 47 40 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 41 of 47 41 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 42 of 47 42 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 43 of 47 43 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 44 of 47 44 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 45 of 47 45 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 46 of 47 46 October 8, 2007 Regular Meeting Approved: December 10, 2007 Page 47 of 47 47