Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-12-2009 Regular Meeting October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 1 of 39 MINUTES HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD October 12 2009 7:00 PM, Town Barn PRESENT: Mayor Tom Stevens, Commissioners Frances Dancy, Mike Gering, Evelyn Lloyd (arrived at 7:13 p.m.), L. Eric Hallman, and Brian Lowen. STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Eric Peterson, Assistant Town Manager/Public Works Director Nicole Ard, Town Clerk/Director of Administration and Human Resources Donna Armbrister, Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Finance Director Greg Siler, Police Chief Clarence Birkhead, and Town Attorney Bob Hornik. Mayor Stevens called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 1. PUBLIC CHARGE Mayor Stevens did not read the public charge but noted it would be followed. 7:01:51 PM 2. PRESENTATION A.Presentation of a Memorial Resolution honoring Dr. Joseph Gatewood Mayor Stevens read the Memorial Resolution honoring Dr. Joseph Gatewood into 7:02:06 PM the record. He noted that the resolution honored Dr. Gatewood’s achievements and his service to Hillsborough, as well as acknowledged the justly earned respect and admiration of all whom he came into contact with. Mayor Stevens offered the Board’s condolences to members of the Gatewood family that were present. 3. INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR TO FILL AN OUT-OF-TOWN VACANCY ON THE PLANNING BOARD John Bemis introduced himself to the Board, noting he was a former teacher at 7:04:14 PM Cameron Park Elementary and he had lived in Hillsborough for the past 10 years. He said his interest in serving on the Planning Board was to be able to give back to the community and be a helpful and productive member of the Planning Board by contributing to the decisions that shaped the Town. Mayor Stevens thanked Mr. Bemis for his willingness to volunteer, noting he had been very active in the community in many ways. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS REGARDING MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA No comments were offered at this time. 7:05:53 PM 1 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 2 of 39 5. AGENDA CHANGES & AGENDA APPROVAL Commissioner Gering requested that a discussion item regarding the Waterstone 7:06:05 PM Master Plan potential amendments be added to the Agenda. Mayor Stevens indicated it would be added just before Item 11G, Hot Topics. Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Dancy, the 7:06:40 PM Board moved to approve the Agenda as amended by a vote of 4-0. The motion was declared passed. 6. APPOINTMENTS A.Approve resolution asking the Board of Orange County Commissioners to fill an ETJ vacancy on the Planning Board Upon a motion by Commissioner Hallman, seconded by Commissioner Lowen, 7:06:56 PM the Board moved to approve the resolution recommending that the Orange County Board of Commissioners appoint John Bemis to fill an ETJ vacancy on the Hillsborough Planning Board by a vote of 4-0. The motion was declared passed. 7. COMMITTEE REPORTS (Critical) No reports were offered. 7:08:00 PM 8. REPORT FROM THE TOWN MANAGER Town Manager Eric Peterson indicated he had no report to offer at this time. 7:08:09 PM 9. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS Mayor Stevens remarked that there was an error on the 2010 calendar, noting that 7:08:22 PM rd the January calendar indicated a Joint Planning Hearing on January 23. He said that meeting st was actually on January 21. Finance Director Greg Siler said that the Finance Department would soon have 7:08:57 PM another tool to use to help them manage cash and protect the Town’s assets. He said it was called Positive Pay, which would allow them to transmit an electronic file to the bank of every check issued. Mr. Siler said the bank would have that record before a check was presented to the bank for payment, allowing the bank to match the amount and who the check was payable to. He said that new process would begin on November 1. Commissioner Gering asked for a status update on the Riggsbee enforcement. 7:10:00 PM Mr. Hornik said he had written them a letter 2 weeks ago saying that time had run out and if no response was received by today that the Board would be informed tonight and that they would begin assessing civil penalties. 2 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 3 of 39 Ms. Hauth said that Mr. Riggsbee had been in twice since receiving that letter and indicated he had secured a location to move the vehicles to, but as yet had been unable to physically move them all mainly due to difficulty in locating trucks to move the vehicles. She said that Mr. Riggsbee’s preference would be to receive an extension to November 15. Commissioner Gering said when they had first begun this process around the 7:11:04 PM beginning of the year, Mr. Riggsbee had presented the Town with a schedule for moving all of the vehicles. Ms. Hauth said that was correct, and the deadline was missed and was extended to June 30. Commissioner Gering asked had they heard anything from Mr. Riggsbee prior to the extended deadline indicating that he was not going to be able to meet it. Ms. Hauth responded no, that he had not been back in contact before the deadline had passed. Commissioner Gering said it was clear to him that Mr. Riggsbee had established a pattern of missing deadlines, and he for one would feel foolish believing that the next deadline would result in anything different that the prior two. Mr. Hornik said that he and Ms. Hauth today had discussed the possibility of commencing assessment of civil penalties at $100 a day, and then perhaps considering some kind of relief if he did in fact meet the November 15 stated deadline. He said if he did not meet the deadline, then they could immediately request a judgment for the civil penalties. Commissioner Gering asked why he believed that Mr. Riggsbee deserved that 7:13:10 PM type of leniency. Mr. Hornik said he was not sure that he did, but had wanted to put that option up for consideration. Ms. Hauth said the issue was compliance, and unless the Town was prepared to go in and move the vehicles themselves and then recoup the cost, a penalty would just take away resources that could be applied to correcting the situation. She said they could charge the penalty but that would not get the property into compliance. Commissioner Lloyd arrived at the meeting 7:13:30 PM Commissioner Gering said then they were asserting that the Board provide Mr. 7:13:50 PM Riggsbee an additional incentive to comply by forgiving a penalty. Mr. Hornik replied that was his thought. Commissioner Gering said an alternative strategy would be to assess a lien on the property if they actually had to take action to get the vehicles moved themselves. Mr. Hornik said ultimately they would want the court to allow the Town to remove the vehicles and to charge the cost of removal back against the property. Mayor Stevens said the chief intent was to bring the property into compliance, and it was not a matter of deserving a break but it may be a matter of escalating motivation. He said they could begin to assess a daily penalty with the incentive that it would be forgiven if indeed compliance was reached by November 15. Mayor Stevens said then if that deadline was not met he believed they should proceed with a lien on the property. 3 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 4 of 39 Commissioner Gering said he believed a stronger incentive would be to begin charging the th penalty now, and Mr. Riggsbee would work even harder to get the vehicles moved by the 15. He said he believed it was foolish of them to think that Mr. Riggsbee was motivated by anything, and they should impose the severest penalty possible. Commissioner Dancy said she understood Ms. Hauth’s comment regarding 7:16:13 PM financial resources, and even if they assessed the penalty the goal was to get the property into th compliance. She said if Mr. Riggsbee did not achieved that by the 15, then they could let the penalties stand and go to the next level, including a lien on the property. Mr. Hornik said if they began assessments today, they would eventually get to a point where they went into court and collected the assessment of the civil penalty as a debt that was owed by Mr. Riggsbee. He said they would then receive a judgment against the property. Commissioner Dancy asked what it would cost the Town to do that. Mr. Hornik said several hundred dollars. Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Dancy, the Board moved to approve the assessment of civil penalties at $100 a day beginning today against Mr. Riggsbee by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. 10. ITEMS FOR DECISION – CONSENT AGENDA A.Consider Approval of the Minutes of the September 14, 2009 Regular Town BoMs. Ard Meeting B.Consider Adopting the 2010 Town Board Meeting Schedule C.Consider Adoption of amended ordinance to Town Code concerning payment of capital facility fees. D.Consider Approval of resolution to approve Hillsborough Water Shortage Response Plan E.Consider Adoption of a Resolution Endorsing the Reality Check Guiding Principles for Quality Growth F.Consider Encumbering Designated Amounts of the 2008-2009 Budget Year in the General and Water Fund and various Other Budget Amendments G.Consider Adoption of an Ordinance to amend Chapter 14, Article II, Section 14015 of the Town Code to reflect the revised Leak Adjustment Policy approved by the Board at the September 14, 2009 Regular Board Meeting H.Request Orange County include provisions from the adopted Community Connectivity Plan in the Orange County Bike Plan, which is currently being updated Upon a motion by Commissioner Lowen, seconded by Commissioner Dancy, the 7:18:41 PM Board moved to adopt the Consent Agenda with an amendment to Item B to correct the January st Joint Public Hearing date to January 21 by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. 11. ITEMS FOR DECISION – REGULAR AGENDA A.Consider Approval of a Town Employee Wellness Expansion and Enhancement by authorizing a Contract with Alamance Regional Medical Center (ARMC) for 4 4 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 5 of 39 Hrs/Month of Physician Services and 4 Hrs/Month of Physician Assistant (PA) Services (Physician and PA working 2 Hrs per Week on alternating weeks) Town Clerk/Director of Administration and Human Resources Donna Armbrister 7:19:01 PM stated that approval of the two contracts with Alamance Regional Medical Center would enable the Town to enhance the Wellness Program for employees by adding 4 hours a month of physician services and 4 hours a month of physician assistant services. She said the schedule would provide a physician for 2 hours each week and a physician assistant for 2 hours each week on alternating weeks. She said that the Town’s Occupational Health Nurse, Cathy Johnson, as well as Aaron Nobel, the HR Director and Sheila Traywick he Full Time Occupational Health Nurse from the City of Burlington for present this evening. Ms. Armbrister said if the Board approved the contracts, they would become effective in November and office space would be provided at the Highway 86 North facility. Mayor Stevens said the information appeared complete and had addressed 7:21:04 PM potential concerns. Ms. Armbrister said one thing that had been shared with her by Burlington was that their program had been in effect since 1990, and the Town’s contract would be with the same physician used by Burlington. She said they had begun their program very small, but it had grown to the point that employees actually had to make appointments with the physician. Ms. Armbrister said as the Town’s program moved forward, they would determine how well it was working and make adjustments as necessary. Commissioner Lowen said he appreciated Ms. Armbrister’s efforts to get the program started, noting now that he worked in a hospital he understood the need for that kind of program and bringing on a physician and a PA would make a huge difference. He said he believed this was a great opportunity and the benefits far outweighed the costs. Commissioner Lowen said in the past he had brought forward the opportunity for the Board to get health insurance, although he had opted not to take it since he was provided that through his job. But, he said, it would be helpful if the elected officials had the opportunity to use this service if they needed it, and hoped that they would have the same opportunity to participate as employees should the Board approve the contracts. Mr. Peterson said that Board members were employees of the Town and would be 7:23:36 PM eligible to participate in the program. Commissioner Lloyd asked if an employee became sick, would the physician or PA be able to see them that day. Ms. Armbrister replied yes, noting their plan was to set a schedule with both the physician and the PA so that employees would know what day of the week they would be available, and for now they would see employees on a walk-in basis. She said they would monitor that to see how well it worked. Ms. Armbrister said that employees would not have to pay a co-pay, no insurance claims would be filed, and therefore it would not go against the Town’s claim history and in the long run that should benefit their insurance rates. She said she did not expect by the end of this fiscal year that it would affect their insurance rates, noting that would take more time. Ms. Armbrister said that since Burlington had put their program in place, they had saved enough money with the program that they had purchased a former bank building 5 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 6 of 39 to house the offices for the program. She said the potential was there, they just had to seek it out and utilize it correctly. Mayor Stevens agreed there was evidence that there was good return on the investment. Upon a motion by Commissioner Hallman, seconded by Commissioner Gering, 7:26:41 PM the Board moved to approve both contracts for a Town Employee Wellness Expansion and Enhancement by authorizing a Contract with Alamance Regional Medical Center (ARMC) for 4 Hrs/Month of Physician Services and 4 Hrs/Month of Physician Assistant (PA) Services by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. B.Discussion of the affordable housing units in Waterstone and the potential to convert the units from townhomes to tax credit rental units Planning Director Margaret Hauth stated that the Town, the Waterstone 7:26:34 PM developers, and the Community Home Trust had all been approached by Jim Yamin, the developer of Eno Haven, about a tax credit rental project in Hillsborough. She said she had since learned that Mr. Yamin’s focus had shifted somewhat and may not be wholly aimed at Waterstone, but it was still the concept of tax credit family rental housing in the Town. Jim Yamin said that the initial proposal to consider affordable rental units in 7:26:58 PM Waterstone in place of the affordable ownership units was now off the table. He said after having further discussions with Stratford Development it became clear that it made no sense to separately develop out the corner of pod 3 which would contain the 24 townhomes that would be designated as affordable. Mr. Yamin said that would mean that they were back to the status quo with the plan that the units in Waterstone would be affordable units. Mr. Yamin said he did want to gather feedback from the Board in regards to considering some new affordable rental units in the Town at some location. He asked were there any locations that the Board believed would be more appropriate or less appropriate, as well as what they thought about the idea in general of new affordable rental units in the Town. Mr. Yamin said a driving consideration from his perspective was the annual application cycle for federal housing tax credits, noting the NC Housing Finance Agency only administered one application cycle per year, and the preliminary application deadline was the first week of January, 2010. He said if there might be an opportunity to consider an application for tax credit development in Hillsborough, he was interested in trying to pursue that. Commissioner Lloyd asked did she understand Mr. Yamin to say that the 7:30:16 PM affordable units in Waterstone would not be rental units. Mr. Yamin replied that was correct, that those units would be ownership units as opposed to rental units as had been the plan all along. Commissioner Hallman said he had read the market study and was pleased they 7:30:58 PM had decided to stick with ownership of the affordable units. He said it was very clear that there 6 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 7 of 39 was a need for affordable rental units and would be interested in knowing more about that, although he did not believe the Board was ready to say where they might be located. Commissioner Lowen agreed, noting he would very much like to see some affordable rental units built in the Town. He said many times what they believed would be affordable rental housing in fact was not affordable for everyone, and that need should be addressed. Commissioner Lowen said his biggest concern about affordable rental units was management, noting that if the management was not adequate that would create other problems. He said he would like to talk more about it with him, including where the best location might be. Commissioner Lowen said he knew there was a need for such units. Commissioner Gering said one of the considerations he had with Waterstone was when the Board had approved that plan it was intended to mix in the affordable units with other unit types to create a whole community, rather than building something that was distinct and segregated from everything else around it. He said he believed those were desirable properties, and any other applications that came before the Board should have the kind of model he had described. Commissioner Gering said he would also like to hear from Mr. Dowling his views on that model rather than working in isolation. Mr. Yamin agreed. Commissioner Dancy said when the word affordable was used, she wanted to be 7:33:57 PM clear exactly what that word meant. She said they needed affordable housing, but asked what was affordable in Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough. Commissioner Dancy said that would need to be strongly considered. Mr. Yamin responded that the federal tax credit program income ceiling for eligible households was 60% of the County median income, and rents could not be charged any higher than that. He said typically rents were structured to range from 30% to 60% of the County median income. Commissioner Lloyd wondered what was being done at Eno Haven. Mr. Yamin 7:35:10 PM said he was happy to report that they would begin construction of Eno Haven early next week. He said they were in the last stages of getting final permits, and the Board would be receiving an invitation to attend the groundbreaking in mid-November. Commissioner Hallman said following up on Commissioner Gering’s comments, could a federal tax credit program be done as part of a larger development so that the units were built with another developer also building units in the same location. Mr. Yamin responded yes, noting there were all kinds of ways to creatively structure tax credit units into a community, although something like that would entail planning on a larger scale. Commissioner Gering said he believed the point made about management was an important factor. Mr. Yamin agreed it was absolutely key. Commissioner Gering said if the affordable units were managed as part of a larger development that would mean everyone was in the mix together. Mr. Yamin said the market study indicated that the one apartment development in Town that was not doing well happened to be the one tax credit development, and the market analyst had noted that it was likely a function of the management company not performing well. 7 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 8 of 39 Mayor Stevens observed that there was an interest in affordable housing in Town, 7:37:55 PM and believed the Board would like to find ways to make that work. He said with that being said, he believed they would all be challenged by the January deadline, particularly when they started looking at management and inclusion in other neighborhoods so that they did not have a stand- alone unit. Mayor Stevens said the other issue that struck him was that they had a few things that were in a real state of flux, one of which was the rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance and a lot of questions were coming out of that. He said there might be neighborhoods were such housing was appropriate or was not appropriate, but they would not know that until next May when the rewrite was planned to be completed. Mayor Stevens said the other part of that was that they were in the process of planning for the Collins property and the central development around it, noting there may be some potential for affordable housing on that site. He said as well, they were looking at issues around overall transit in the Town, so with all of those issues in flux it would be very challenging to meet the January deadline. Mayor Stevens stated that certainly did not mean they were not interested, only that there were other priorities ongoing. Mr. Yamin said he was exploring whether there might be any available development sites in the Town, and if so he would be back in touch with the Board. He said he would look forward to continuing the discussion about the process so that the Board remained fully informed and he had the benefit of their feedback. Mayor Stevens thanked Mr. Yamin for his interest in Hillsborough, noting he was 7:40:21 PM sure they would have formal and informal discussions as they moved forward and they appreciated his engagement in that process. C.Discussion of implementation of the Interlocal Agreement for the Strategic Growth Plan Ms. Hauth said the agenda packet included a red-line version of the Interlocal 7:40:47 PM Agreement for the Strategic Growth Plan, which included the adjustments made by the Orange County Commissioners as they adopted it. She said the two colored maps would refresh the Board’s memory of the water/sewer boundary area and all the boundaries associated with the agreement. Ms. Hauth said many of the changes were minor section references, but on pages 4 and 5 of the agreement were two that the Board might want to discuss before executing the agreement. She said the first was in Section 2.3.A on page 4, which would require that the Town amend its Zoning Ordinance to provide for an appointment of one Orange County Urbanizing Area resident to both the Planning Board and the Board of Adjustment. She said the Orange County Urbanizing Area was not subject to the Zoning Ordinance, or the Unified Development Ordinance as it would soon be called, and that was to facilitate the understanding of residents of that area that they may be subject to annexation and where they may be brought into the Town, but they would not be subject to the ordinance at that time. Ms. Hauth said she was concerned that that might create expectations that were different from what was intended under the ordinance, as well as actually having people participate in the Town’s process that were not subject to the regulations of the process. 8 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 9 of 39 Ms. Hauth said the second change was on page 5 under Section 3.2 that spoke to annexation of the Orange County Urbanizing Area, noting the new language said that development within the Orange County Urbanizing Area was intended to occur under Orange County regulations prior to any annexation of lands by the Town. She said that was different from how that was done now, but understood that would match the County’s process with what was done with Mebane. Ms. Hauth said when the Town sought annexation they processed the annexation, zoning, and development review all at the same time so that the Town Board, who allocated water and sewer services to the development, could decide to annex it, determine the zoning, and then decide what the development’s intensity was to match up with that water and sewer capacity and what was in the best interests of the Town. She said that new language would allow the County to make all those decisions and it would almost be as if they annexed something that was already developed after the fact. Ms. Hauth said an example would be if the County had approved Waterstone in its current state and the Town came in and annexed that development after those approvals were in place. She said that would mean they were accepting that development plan as approved by the County under the County’s ordinances. Ms. Hauth said in that scenario they would be accepting something into the Town that the Town had had no review of. Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, stated that he believed there 7:45:27 PM was some miscommunication regarding that language. He said the way Ms. Hauth had explained that Orange County would be approving something in its totality without any interaction with Hillsborough was not the intent. Mr. Benedict said their intent was that in the orange area on the map the County would have courtesy review, and that the orange area would have an agreed upon Joint Land Use Plan. He said all of the uses within that area, whether it was commercial or residential, would be jointly approved by both the County and the Town, and the zoning used in that area would be approved by the Town in implementation of that area. Mr. Benedict said an annexation agreement with the Town would be a necessary prerequisite in that a person would voluntarily sign a petition to be able to go into the Town’s jurisdiction and negotiate a water and sewer extension. He said the size of the development and when it went online would all be subject to the Town’s timing, with the only difference being that the review process would occur under Orange County’s jurisdiction and at such time the development was complete and a Certificate of Occupancy was obtained, then the Town could annex it. Mr. Benedict said that would be when the tax base went online and when the water and sewer would be available to the site. He said that process would give Orange County the opportunity to review under its planning jurisdiction, but consistent with the Joint Land Use Plan and zoning agreed upon by both the County and the Town. Mr. Benedict said the blue area on the map was the area outside of Hillsborough’s 7:47:34 PM ETJ, and the Town could annex that area and have complete zoning authority of that area in accordance with the joint plan. He said the only difference with the amendment they were making was that annexation would occur after the development was complete, but that development would be consistent with the Joint Land Use Plan and consistent with an agreement upon zoning designation that would implement that Joint Land Use Plan. Mr. Benedict said mention had been made of Mebane, and in some of the areas that Mebane had agreed to service with water and sewer they had gone through a similar voluntary annexation agreement so that the land could be annexed at some point in the future. He said that allowed the 9 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 10 of 39 County to be able to review the development applications, noting if they did not have that provision then all the areas noted in orange and blue on the map would be just the same as if they were all blue, because Hillsborough could annex it and then the County’s zoning regulations would not apply because the Town’s zoning regulations would. Mr. Benedict said the last important part of the agreement was that whatever zoning they used in the orange area was going to be very similar if not an element of the Town’s zoning code, because they understood there would be annexation of that area in the future and they did not want a County urban-looking development to be different than a Town urban-looking development. He said the purpose of the Joint Land Use Plan was to have it all work together. Commissioner Hallman said the critical piece of that was that they had not yet 7:49:50 PM agreed to any Joint Land Use Plan, so trying to understand it without that in place was difficult. He said they were not set up for any kind of Town approval in the orange area at all. Mr. Benedict said they did not really have a district, but that showed how important that Joint Land Use Plan would be as well as the joint implementation plan. Commissioner Hallman said his thought was there was a likelihood that in the next 15 to 20 years that the Town would annex into the blue area but be much less likely to do so in the orange area. Ms. Hauth said the way Mr. Benedict laid it out, it sounded as if there was no difference between the orange and the blue except for the Board that was approving it. But, she said, she could not help wondering why the County would want to review and approve something and oversee it all through construction only for the Town to annex it. Ms. Hauth said they had learned a very important lesson with Gold Park that depending on who was reviewing something, the interpretation of the regulations was very different. She said while it was fine to say there really would not be much difference, it still came down to the Orange County Commissioners and the Orange County Planning staff would be reviewing and approving projects that the Town would be committed to accepting from that point forward. Ms. Hauth said she did not understand why and did not see the benefit to anyone of doing it that way. She said it seemed to introduced all the heartache and difficulty they had experienced when looking at The Preserve, in that The Preserve had applied to the Town for water and sewer but the Town had no way to participate in the review of the subdivision even though they were asked to commit water and sewer to it. She said they had not been able to discuss such things as road improvements and other impacts. Mayor Stevens said the reverse would also be true, in that if the provisions were reversed then the Town would be doing all the reviews and approvals. He said his point was why put that area in the orange, asking what the difference was. Ms. Hauth said the difference was that they wanted to talk about having a joint adopted land use and if that did not match that plan then they would at least have to touch base with the County Board and go through some kind of process, rather than just annexing it. She said it was based more on the agreement on the land use side rather than the zoning regulations side. Commissioner Gering said he would like to understand how the process would 7:54:15 PM work with respect to the water/sewer agreements. He asked was there any part of the orange area that currently had water and sewer services. Mr. Benedict said he did not believe so, noting that 10 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 11 of 39 he believed only the light blue areas on the map had such services. Commissioner Gering said then anyone wanting to develop in the orange areas would have to get a water/sewer contract with the Town, and at what stage in the process would the Town consider granting that. Mr. Benedict said on day one. He said if a developer came forward with a proposal then the Town would be brought in as a utility provider, and the Town’s standards would be engineered into the project. Commissioner Gering said the Town Board was use to using water and sewer services as a strong lever for negotiating all aspects of a proposed development, and wondered how that negotiation leverage would be affected by the Town’s role in the approval process. Mr. Benedict said the Town could say no to a development in its ETJ, in the blue areas, or in the orange areas. He said there was no mandate in the agreement that the Town would have to provide water and sewer to those areas, noting those areas had been pulled in from the large green water/sewer boundary agreement map when it was thought that the Town could serve a larger area. Mr. Benedict said that area would eventually be compressed to a more achievable water allocation standard. Commissioner Gering said then the only difference as far as the Town was 7:56:38 PM concerned was that the land use rules would be in the County’s hands rather than the Town’s, and all the other discussions including special conditions would remain as is. Mr. Benedict said the process would be better than with The Preserve and was one reason they were moving towards this agreement, noting he did not believe they had had a good process at that time. He said the Interlocal Agreement would set out the steps of who provided what, and the only difference he saw was that the development review would be by the Orange County Planning staff and approved by the County Commissioners, and they did that because it would give them some urban planning like they were doing in small sections of Efland. Mr. Benedict said one important difference between the way it was now and the way it would be in the future was that there would be jointly agreed upon land uses and intensities, and jointly agreed upon zoning regulations that would implement those land uses and intensities. Ms. Hauth asked at what point Mr. Benedict saw the Town having to either commit or not commit water and sewer in order for a project to come in for review under the County. She asked would the Town have to commit at the time the application was deemed complete, or at the time that the County Commissioners made its decision. Ms. Hauth said that had been the problem in the past. Mr. Benedict said it would be before the Commissioners gave approval. He said the County had a preliminary review process to determine if a project was feasible as proposed, and if intensity was proposed that required public water and sewer, then that would need to be approved early in the process. Commissioner Lloyd said she had served on the Water Sewer Boundary 7:59:08 PM Committee and they had spent a large amount of time in getting the rural buffer in place, and they had not discussed going towards Efland. She said the Town Manager had done a water capacity study to identify how much was available for certain developments proposed for the future, so they could not exceed that without having to move to phase two of the reservoir. Commissioner Lloyd said that was pretty much set, and asked Commissioner Hallman, who had served on the Strategic Growth Plan Committee, if what was proposed went beyond that. 11 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 12 of 39 Commissioner Hallman said that did cause him some concern, noting that as he read through the new language and then referred to Section 3.9.B, that there was no guarantee that the zoning changes would occur in accordance with the Town’s rules. Mayor Stevens said it might be okay if the land use was already determined, but 8:01:15 PM at this point it had not been. Mr. Benedict said the in Section 3.9.B, it said that the amendments would not become effective until both Boards agreed to it. He said if the Town never agreed to it, then it never happened. He said the zoning that would be used in the orange area that would be implemented if that revision was accepted would be a zoning category that the Town would have agreed to. Mr. Benedict said what they were suggesting with the orange area was that the County would administer it and then it could be annexed at whatever point the Town could provide the water and sewer allocation. He said if they did not have that provision, then the orange areas might as well be blue because it would be annexable by the Town at any time and there may not be an opportunity at all for Orange County to do any urban fringe planning. Mr. Benedict said if it could be annexed without any development review process then Orange County would have nothing to do with even the orange area because it could be annexed by the Town and the rules would be whatever was jointly agreed to by the County. Mayor Stevens said then what were they trying to accomplish with this. Mr. 8:03:34 PM Benedict said they believed they could have planning standards that could implement the joint agreement adequately, and that the County could do it as well as the Town could do it for the orange area because that was on the distance horizon. He said they agreed that Hillsborough was more interested in the ETJ and blue areas, so why not leave the orange areas for County urban planning until such time as the Town wanted to annex it and offer water and sewer Commissioner Hallman said with the current zoning standards, you could not develop south of I- 40 but to one unit per two acres. Mr. Benedict said there were some areas that were within the Economic Development Zone which could be developed to a higher intensity. Commissioner Hallman said it seemed that it would be self defeating to the County to develop under its ordinances at much less density that the Town might have and not let the Town go ahead and exercise its zoning ordinances in the orange area. Mr. Benedict said they would not develop the orange areas at any of the current standards, noting they were waiting to implement that with the Interlocal Agreement. He said there was no Interlocal Agreement zoning standards now, rather they wanted the agreement to develop those standards by looking at Town standards in the blue area and County standards in the orange. Mr. Benedict said they would not be developing in the orange area at the one unit per one acre standard that they had now because that was not the intent of the urban designated area. Commissioner Hallman said then it seemed that adding that language to Section 3.2 was premature, and it could be addressed in the Joint Land Use Plan and not in the agreement. Mr. Benedict said if the Town wanted to address it at a later date, after the Town and the County agreed to a Land Use Plan and zoning standards to implement the Interlocal Agreement they could put it back in at that time if the Town was comfortable with it. Mayor Stevens agreed he believed the language was putting the cart before the 8:06:14 PM horse. Mr. Benedict said in the case of the blue areas the County was putting the cart before the horse. He said the County was willing to allow the Town to do urban standards outside its ETJ 12 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 13 of 39 and the County was ceding its zoning authority of the blue areas to the Town, instead of expanding its ETJ. Commissioner Gering said there was no gain for the Town because the County was taking it away from other areas. Ms. Hauth said the blue areas were in addition to the ETJ exchange, so the Town was coming out ahead in that regard. Mayor Stevens said a question would be what they wanted from a developer point of view, noting they did not want to create a process that would be confusing as to what the Town wanted to encourage or not encourage. Mr. Benedict said he hoped the standards would be similar on either side, noting the standards may be the same. He said the standards for the orange area may be the same as the blue area. Mr. Benedict said tonight the Board had appointed a representative to an ETJ seat on the Planning Board, recognizing that that perspective, which was a County resident, was important because they were in the path of going from County lands to potentially Hillsborough lands. So, he said, the Board had acknowledged tonight that ETJ lands were important, and the County had added a provision in the agreement that those urbanizing area representations were important. Mr. Benedict said the agreement was still to be voted on by the County and the Town, as well as what the specific language would be on how that representation occurred. He said perhaps a seat on the Planning Board could be recognized as coming from the Urbanizing Area. Commissioner Hallman said the Planning Board had three ETJ representatives 8:10:21 PM and he was in favor of that, but that was already at 30% of their Planning Board. He said he would not want to add a fourth, but would not be opposed to allowing a representative from that area to sit at the table and participate. Commissioner Gering said on the one hand Mr. Benedict was saying the Town’s Planning Board needed more representation by people who were in the path, but on the other hand they were not subject to the Town’s rules in the orange area. He said the Planning Board had been very open to members of the community as had the Town Board in considering all their opinions without the privilege of voting, and believed it was worth keeping the voting members to the Town limits or to the ETJ. Commissioner Gering said that non-voting status was no different than simply showing up to a meeting. Commissioner Hallman said he was talking about having observation rights and 8:12:46 PM sitting at the table to participate in the discussion, but he was willing to concede that Commissioner Gering was correct. Mr. Hornik said as Commissioner Gering had said there was a difference between an ETJ member on the Planning Board or Board of Adjustment and someone who might live in the orange urbanizing area in that the ETJ resident was subject to the Town’s regulations whereas someone in the orange urbanizing area was not. He said that caused him concern because the Board of Adjustment in particular needed to have members voting on quasi-judicial decisions that were subject to the same rules, and the same was true of the Planning Board. Mr. Hornik said he was not sure there was anything about that in the State statutes and he had not looked at the case law, but the wisdom or propriety of having someone who was not subject to the very 13 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 14 of 39 same regulations voting on applications and requests for permits was at issue. He said he would need to take a closer look to see if that was acceptable as a legal matter, and if there was a legal issue with it then it was more a policy question, in that did they want people who were not subject to the regulations to be voting members on the boards that applied those rules. Commissioner Hallman said he had thought they were talking about the area in 8:14:50 PM blue, and now that he understood they are talking about the orange area, he withdrew his statements and agreed with Commissioner Gering. Commissioner Lloyd asked if the County provided courtesy review for Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Mr. Benedict responded yes, noting it was a part of the process that proposals were sent to the County to confirm that the proposal was consistent with the Land Use Plan and it was okay to proceed. Ms. Hauth said that was for proposals within the joint planning area, not within Chapel Hill proper. Mr. Benedict said that was correct. He said the white area on the map would be a coordinated planning area where the County would administer a land use plan that was agreed to by the Town, and if that was a lower density then the County would continue to implement that lower density so that sprawl did not occur in the area and overburden traffic. Mr. Peterson said Mr. Benedict had said that once a development in the orange 8:16:28 PM area was completed then the Town could annex it. He asked if by complete did that mean that all CO’s had been issued. Mr. Benedict said it could be by section if it was a multi-phase project, or you could annex it once all phases were completed. He said the process would require voluntary petitions be filed with the application. Mr. Peterson said then the areas would have to request voluntary annexation but they would not have to be annexed. Mr. Benedict said that would be the Town’s choice. Mr. Peterson asked would the people have to request voluntary annexation or would they have the choice to ask. Mr. Benedict said the developer would be required to file the petition for voluntary annexation. Mr. Peterson said with the annexation laws being in flux, he did not know that they could craft something that would work around that. He said he was concerned that annexation laws would change and they would trip themselves up and not have the ability to annex the most valuable land in the State and in an area where they would not be able to address affordability issues. Mr. Peterson observed that if you looked at the orange area below I-40, if the hospital was approved that would spur development and that was one of the hopes of the Waterstone development. He said if you looked at where there might be semi-large tracts of land that the Town could potentially approve in the future there really was not much of anything. Mr. Peterson said he may be wrong, but it was his sense that the Town would be abdicating a great deal of their authority to potentially annex that area and giving up a lot of their control by not annexing something until it was completely built out in five, ten or even twenty years. He said at that point the laws may be different and you would have people paying double water rates. Mr. Peterson said it would get confusing because you would have the Sheriff’s Department providing protection, and someone else providing garbage services, and then there was a transition when the Town took it over, so it seemed to him to be potentially messy. 14 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 15 of 39 Mr. Peterson said regarding water capacity, still looking at the orange area below I-40, the way the water numbers currently looked he did not believe they had enough water to serve all of that orange area unless something happened to change that. So, he said, he believed they were really looking at a smaller orange area. Mr. Peterson said he believed they were all ultimately looking towards the same goal, and believed the interest of joint planning and wanting both the Town and the County to be happy with ultimately what would be out there was good, as well as figuring out the mechanisms to achieve that. But, he said, he believed that some of the other mechanisms that were included would cause problems for all of them, greater than what they may anticipate. Mr. Hornik said there was also a potential problem with annexation timing. He 8:21:37 PM said if a developer decided to petition and conveyed lots out before annexation, that developer no longer had the right to say yes to annexation with respect to those properties that he had conveyed out. Mr. Hornik said the law was that at the time of public hearing, you had to have signatures on a petition of all owners of property in the annexation area. He said he knew of one instance where ten years after development a jurisdiction had tried to do a voluntary annexation involving property owners who were the third owner of the property after the developer, and they had no idea whatsoever that they were claimed to have voluntarily signed a petition for annexation. Mr. Hornik said there was a current case in the State court on that very issue, so that was something they needed to be very careful about. He said his point was he did not know if you could accept a petition for voluntary annexation from a developer and then six years from now proceed with the annexation, in that he was not sure you could do the voluntary annexation if the developer had conveyed some of that property to someone else. Mr. Benedict said perhaps that clause was making much ado about nothing. He said the bottom line was that those areas were on the fringe within an urban growth boundary into which the County was agreeing to allow the Town to expand their ETJ. Mr. Benedict said it was by no means a restriction to their development potential in the future, but was actually an expansion. He said they were developing an urban services boundary that was more in tune with the Town’s water allocation program, and it gave clarity to people both inside the urban service line and outside that line. Mr. Benedict said there was a potential for water if you were inside the blue and orange and ETJ areas, but if you were outside that line then do not ask for water and sewer. Mr. Benedict said concerning annexation, the voluntary annexation petition would outline that they could not disclose a property that would have people fall out of that voluntary annexation agreement. He said if you wanted to lock it into a developer’s agreement which was allowed by State law you could specifically say that they would provide water and sewer, that annexation would take place at some time to be determined, and that annexation would occur before any transfer of land. Mayor Stevens said the only purpose of having the annexation follow at the back 8:24:51 PM end as opposed to the front end would be because if it was annexed then it would become part of their planning process. Mr. Benedict replied yes, that was the only difference. Mayor Stevens said then the only purpose it served would that it would get handled by a County department. Mr. Benedict said that was the only difference. Mayor Stevens said if they were agreeing to 15 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 16 of 39 some process that had joint reviews, he was not seeing where that ultimately served their joint interests. He said the annexation would be real sticking point for the Town. Mr. Hornik said he was thinking one way to deal with the issues he had mentioned would be to have the annexation occur right at the end of the development review process, either simultaneously with or shortly thereafter the development approval. He said then they would not have the potential issue of conveying out a property that could inadvertently thwart the voluntary annexation. Commissioner Hallman reiterated that if they just struck that language and took 8:26:27 PM the issue up under the joint planning discussions, they could move ahead with the Interlocal Agreement. Mayor Stevens said he believed they had carried the discussion as far as it could go tonight, and believed the joint planning discussions were the next step. Ms. Hauth asked what would happen if the Town signed one version of the Interlocal Agreement and the County signed a different version. Mr. Hornik said then there was no agreement. Mayor Stevens said perhaps a couple of the Board members needed to sit down with a couple of the County Commissioners as well as representatives from the planning staffs and the attorneys to work out a few of the issues highlighted this evening. Commissioner Gering said that may be extending the process out more than 8:27:21 PM needed. He asked if they just struck those two additions, did Mr. Benedict feel the County Commissioners would agree. Mr. Benedict said in the interest of moving the Interlocal Agreement forward he would try to explain to the Commissioners what the Town Board’s thoughts were. He said this was a Memorandum of Understanding about what they were suppose to do within about 18 months from now, and he would let the County Commissioners know that the Town Board would like to implement the two provisions the County had offered at a later time or in another manner, and that the MOU held together as written. Mr. Benedict said when they did move toward zoning and the Joint Land Use Plan and things like that, the need to have some way to activate the development process that was in two different jurisdictions would need to be considered in the further implementation processes. Commissioner Lloyd agreed with Mr. Peterson. She said the only thing she 8:28:28 PM believed the Town might have any interest in would be if the hospital came and whether or not they would have the water. Commissioner Lloyd said from working on the Water Sewer Boundary Committee, she did not see how they could extend water in the areas noted on the map. Mr. Benedict said they were not suggesting any urban growth beyond that magenta line noted on the map, so they were not going towards Efland or towards the rural buffer or too far north. Commissioner Lloyd said but they were showing them moving out farther than anticipated. She said she believed the Town might just run out of water if the hospital became a reality, noting they were not looking for anything new. Mr. Benedict said perhaps they could take the Mayor’s suggestion and put together a small work group to work out the issues with the two provisions the County had added. He said if the Town agreed to the Interlocal Agreement 16 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 17 of 39 with the two provisions removed, he would be in favor of going back to the County Commissioners and asking them if they would agree to that. Commissioner Gering said he hoped they were not considering redrawing the boundaries. Ms. Hauth said no, but there was a second part to this issue. She said the first part was the Interlocal Agreement, and the second part was that the County did intend to move forward with amending the Water and Sewer Boundary, which would amend the agreement, to change the map because of other small area plans that the County was trying to implement. Ms. Hauth said the question posed was if the Town was okay with the large green area being substituted with the area inside the red line on the map, and they had discussed during the task force meetings about potentially keeping that green area as a long term service area since the other utility providers had a long term service area. But, she said, did it meet the area inside the red line as their short term interest area on the other map so that the terminology lined up, and that would become the new dark green area on the map and the area in between would become light green on the other map. Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Hallman, 8:32:43 PM the Board moved to approve the Interlocal Agreement for the Strategic Growth Plan with the exception that the asterisked items under Section 2.3.A and Section 3.2 would be deleted, and that the Town would participate in adjusting the water and sewer boundary map to be consistent with the Strategic Growth Plan by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. D.Discussion of design contract for pedestrian access to Gold Park Ms. Hauth said that staff had been pursuing options for safe pedestrian access to 8:33:53 PM Gold Park, and there were options that did not involve a design contract. She noted that there were three alternatives listed in the agenda material, noting that everyone was aware of the difficulty the Town had experienced in trying to open the pedestrian underpass they had constructed under the railroad trestle because of permitting issues on the north side of the site with NC Railroad. Ms. Hauth said the initial response from the railroad was no because of agreements with Norfolk Southern, so the Mayor had written a letter that highlighted safety issues for pedestrians. She said after that letter was sent two representatives from the railroad had visited the Town and had said they would consider letting the Town build the other road that ran closely parallel to the existing road that would require the removal of some trees and grading. Ms. Hauth said rather than just agreeing, they had asked a local designer to prepare a proposal of what it would take to design that new path, let alone construct it, and that proposal was included in the packet. Ms. Hauth said the design for the new path, which was the dotted line on the map, would be about $15,000. She said a rough ballpark estimate for construction could go to $50,000. She said it was not a lot of work but you had to clear a path to allow vehicles to enter, trees would need to be removed, and work would be taking place very close to the buffer. Ms. Hauth said almost everyone who had been contacted about the plan, including the Division of Land Quality and the Division of Water Quality, all asked why they were pursing that when there was a perfectly good path already there. 17 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 18 of 39 Ms. Hauth said she had wanted the Board to have enough information to at least frame it in their minds, as far as did they go back and try harder to get the railroad to agree, did they spend the $15,000 so that they knew how much money it would really cost to construct the new path, and then possibly go back to the railroad at that point, or did they just say forget it and find some other method or some other path. She said obviously pedestrian access to Gold Park was very important, and people were walking under the trestle now which was not safe. Ms. Hauth said they had received suggestions from the community about doing something on Dimmocks Mill Road by changing traffic patterns, but that would be very involved. She said they believed they had enough information at this point to lay out the issues and frame it in a way to get some guidance from the Board in terms of how to proceed. Mayor Stevens said if they went back to the railroad they would actually be 8:37:39 PM dealing with two entities. Ms. Hauth replied that was correct, NC Railroad and Norfolk Southern. Mayor Stevens said Ms. Hauth had expressed to him that they had had a very good experience with NC Railroad, and wondered if she had some feeling of what their odds were for success. Ms. Hauth responded the Town did not have a relationship with Norfolk Southern although Nichole Ard had formed one during the Nash Street sidewalk project. She said part of the issue was that Norfolk Southern was such a large entity and they had no incentive whatsoever to communicate or work with the Town by even listening to what the Town had to say. Ms. Hauth said this was about pedestrians and the railroad was about trains. She said they would need to find the right person to talk to and then get that person to come out to the site to see what the issue was. Ms. Hauth said if they could find that right person who had the authority to say yes or no, and get them to come to the site and see now non-intrusive the Town would be, then in exchange for allowing the Town to use it perhaps the Town could offer to build them a fence or to improve the existing path, or even solve other problems that they were not even aware that they had. She said the Town would still come out way ahead of where they were now. Mayor Stevens said he believed they should pursue that avenue with Norfolk Southern. Ms. Hauth said she wanted to be sure that was what the Board wanted to do before they went that route. Commissioner Gering asked was there any way they could exert some public 8:39:22 PM pressure on Norfolk Southern, noting they were a corporation and would likely not enjoy being cast in a poor light. Ms. Hauth said they could investigate that quietly with the staff at NC Railroad. Commissioner Hallman said there had to be some way they could locate someone at Norfolk Southern that had some community values, noting they were not trying to do anything that would damage the property but were only trying to provide for safe pedestrian access. He said it may take some more time, but he would not want to see the Town spend that kind of money to build an access when there was already one there. Commissioner Hallman said they needed to get in touch with the right people, write some really good letters, and encourage them in any way possible to get them to work with the Town. Commissioner Hallman said there had been representatives from Norfolk Southern who had given a presentation at a recent railroad conference. Ms. Ard said what Ms. Hauth was talking about was that the Board had given staff permission to talk with Norfolk Southern about some maintenance issues at other locations. 18 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 19 of 39 Mayor Stevens said there was a difference between running up against a brick wall and not having connected with the right people. Ms. Hauth said they had not connected with the right people and had been discouraged in doing so. Mayor Stevens asked Commissioner Hallman to supply him with the names of the representatives from the conference he had mentioned and he would pursue that. Ms. Hauth said a piggyback item was that they had gotten their permit approvals 8:42:09 PM from the State for the pedestrian underpass, which she had previously estimated to be about $20,000. She said the question was did the Board have a strong opinion about whether or not to allow Mainline do the work. She said they were under Chapter 11 protection, but it was part of the work they were suppose to do under the original contract. Ms. Hauth said it would be an additional cost because there were things discovered after the letting of the contract that needed to be done, but since they now had the permits and were ready to start she had wanted the Board to provide staff some feedback. She said they could get estimates from others, but another company would not be familiar with the site. Commissioner Lowen said he would like to get other prices before he agreed to allow Mainline to do the work. Ms. Hauth said she could get other bids, and if lower bids were received that were determined to be responsible then they could proceed in that manner. Mayor Stevens said he would have real concerns with working with Mainline, and if they could identify alternatives then that would be his preference. Ms. Hauth agreed to get bids. E.Discussion of potential sidewalk project to provide a pedestrian path from Churton Street to the Orange County Library Ms. Hauth said the packet included a drawing of the potential sidewalk path from 8:44:15 PM Churton Street to the Orange County Library. She said they had looked seriously at trying to provide the sidewalk on the north side but Planning staff had asked why they would want to put in extra crosswalks and make people cross the street twice, and putting it on the south side would mean they would not have to move any utilities. Ms. Hauth said looking at the drawing, it appeared they could do that without acquiring any additional right-of-way except a very small corner at the corner of Churton Street and Margaret Lane, and without relocating utilities or introducing curb and gutter. She said it would entail removal of the four parking spaces there, noting they were not entirely sure that all of those spaces were legal parking spaces or spaces that people had created for their own use. Commissioner Lowen asked if the utility pole at that corner would remain. Ms. 8:45:23 PM Hauth said if you looked really closely at the corner of the building on the drawing you would see a circle there, and the engineers had indicated the sidewalk would allow the utility pole to remain. Commissioner Lowen asked how far they were coming out into the right-of-way. Ms. Hauth said it was a four-foot-wide sidewalk, not five, with a two-foot curb and gutter, so it would narrow the street and would preclude the ability to ever put turning lanes at that intersection. She said there had been some preliminary discussions with the property owner on the corner, in that she wanted to maintain her driveway access to Churton Street that she had now 19 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 20 of 39 until she knew exactly what she wanted to do with the building, and as long as they could talk through with NCDOT bringing the curb down Margaret Lane and around the corner enough to create the handicap ramp to create the crosswalk, they should be able to preserve her driveway as is. Ms. Hauth said they would need to stamp it, paint it, or do whatever it took so that people would know they were crossing a sidewalk when they pulled up there as a short term solution, and then finish the rest at some later time. Ms. Hauth said the drawing was probably the maximum you would see, and depending on how discussions went with that property owner, it may not be in Phase 1. She said that NCDOT would require pedestrian signals for the new crosswalk across Churton Street, but they did not preclude the fact that they may have some funding available that the Town could apply for. Ms. Hauth said that was not included in the cost estimate. Commissioner Hallman said at the TAC meeting on Wednesday they would begin 8:48:02 PM putting together pedestrian projects for next year, and asked could that be placed on the list. Ms. Hauth said likely, depending on whether the allocation for Nash Street had or had not used up their amount for a period of time, because that was an annual allocation that was condensed. Commissioner Lowen asked could it be added as a new bike/ped project, or were they looking to do it right away. Ms. Hauth said that was the question. Commissioner Lowen asked what the projected opening date was for the library. Mayor Stevens replied December 10. Commissioner Lowen said obviously they would not have it done by then, but if they went the route suggested by Commissioner Hallman that would take some time. He said he honestly believed the sidewalk should have been included a long time ago. Commissioner Hallman said his thought was if they applied for it then paid for it, perhaps they would be able to get some reimbursement after the fact. Ms. Hauth said she did not believe that would be possible, noting you had to have a development agreement in place first. Commissioner Gering said this was very important, and if it was a question of 8:49:17 PM parking spaces or a sidewalk then the sidewalk won. He said it seemed that there was no perfect solution but this was the best that had been offered. Commissioner Gering said regarding future sidewalk projects, they might want to look at the Connectivity Plan and figure out where the next most important sidewalk projects were, but treat this one as a very high priority item. Ms. Hauth said her plan was in the next budget round that the Board would see some items coming forward from the Connectivity Plan. Commissioner Hallman said for connecting schools, he believed the Cameron Park access was a top priority. Ms. Hauth agreed. Commissioner Gering said there were others that perhaps they should talk about at another time. He said he was in favor of directing staff to go forward with this plan. Mr. Peterson asked should they consider talking with Orange County to see if they had some interest, because he believed unofficially that there may be some interest in addressing this 20 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 21 of 39 concern, and especially since it was connecting major County facilities they may be willing to partner with the Town and work out some details to make it more affordable for both of them. Commissioner Lowen said that was his idea as well, noting if the sidewalk was 8:51:20 PM not built the County would have significant numbers of people walking in the streets. He said he believed their next step should be to contact the County to see if they would participate. Mayor Stevens asked if staff understood the direction. Mr. Peterson responded yes, noting the next question would be who would be the most effective point of contact with the County, and in his opinion a Mayor/Chair dialogue would be more likely to stimulate some action. Mayor Stevens said he would be happy to take that on. Mr. Peterson said he would contact the County Manager to pass on the information. F.Discuss Preparations for the Town Manager’s Annual Performance Review Mayor Stevens said just to brainstorm to the extent it would work, they should 8:53:23 PM continue to be concerned about ongoing development. He said he wondered if it would be helpful in arranging for a 360 as a part of this process, in that the Board may be fine with the Manager’s performance, but in terms of his own development there might be some other ways that they could provide some feedback. Mayor Stevens said he would be happy to consider that, and believed others may be was well. Mr. Peterson said he would be interested in doing a 360, but he would also want to do it at a time when he was mentally open for it and did not have as much on his plate. Mayor Stevens he believed that was reasonable, and asked Mr. Peterson if he had 8:54:27 PM any concerns. Mr. Peterson said not that he could think of. Added Item: Waterstone Master Plan Commissioner Gering said when they had discussed Waterstone in public hearing 8:54:51 PM and had then discussed the UNC Hospital and amending the Master Plan, one of the things they had also talked about was the need to re-evaluate the other portions of Waterstone to make it more optimal perhaps for the developers and for the Town. Commissioner Gering said the only thing he could offer at this stage would be that two or three of the Board volunteer to initiate the discussion with them to come up with one or two proposals to bring back to the full Board as the next step. Ms. Hauth reminded the Board that they had extended the Special Use Permit for residential to December 31. She said they believed the State law of action probably extended it beyond that for another year, noting the State had passed a law to suspend the processing or expiration of vested rights on projects if approved between January 1 of 2008 and December 31 of 2010. Ms. Hauth said that basically pushed everyone’s deadlines out. Ms. Hauth said the one item that did still expire on December 31 was the need to give the Town Waterstone Park, and believed they were all of the mind that they did not want it until it had road access and the developers did not seem anxious to move forward with Cates Creek Parkway. 21 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 22 of 39 She said she hoped that discussion could be added as well, that is when they planned to dedicate Waterstone Drive to the Town so they could allow school buses to drive on it. Commissioner Gering said he believed that discussion should be included, as did 8:57:28 PM Commissioner Lowen and Commissioner Lloyd. Commissioners Gering and Lowen volunteered to serve in that capacity. Commissioner Gering said he would set up a meeting. G.Discuss possible “Hot Topics” for the October 26, 2009 Workshop Mayor Stevens said he believed their agenda was already set for that Workshop, 8:58:12 PM with the results from the Annual Citizen Survey as well as the Annual Report on the FY09 Balanced Scorecard. The Board agreed by consensus to take a short break before moving into Closed Session. 12. CLOSED SESSION A.Closed Session as authorized by North Carolina General Statute Section 143-318.11 (6) regarding Personnel Matters 13. ADJOURN Upon returning to Open Session and upon a motion by Commissioner Dancy, seconded by Commissioner Lowen, the Board moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 p.m. by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. Respectfully submitted, Donna F. Armbrister, MMC Town Clerk 22 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 23 of 39 23 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 24 of 39 24 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 25 of 39 25 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 26 of 39 26 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 27 of 39 27 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 28 of 39 28 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 29 of 39 29 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 30 of 39 30 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 31 of 39 31 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 32 of 39 32 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 33 of 39 33 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 34 of 39 34 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 35 of 39 35 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 36 of 39 36 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 37 of 39 37 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 38 of 39 38 October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Approved: November 9, 2009 Page 39 of 39 39