Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the November twelfth meeting of the Chapel Hill Town Council.

As a heads up to the clerk, uh, Mayor Pro Tem, Amy Ryan, and Councilmember Adam Searing are unable to attend this evening.

Um, we have seven items on our agenda for discussion.

We will begin by considering options for an open council seat.

Um, our second and third items are topics that were pulled from the previous consent agenda to allow for clarification and further discussion.

Um, one is regarding changes to the council procedure manual, and the other concerns funding for a stream restoration project in the Glen Lennox neighborhood.

In order, the remaining topics include opening a public hearing on federal CDBG funding, um, an application for modification of an existing approval at one forty-six Stancil Drive, um a special use permit application for seven twenty seventeen twenty-one East Franklin, and a concept plan review for the UNC faculty club.

Uh, council will also be making appointments to the community design commission tonight, and I will read those names at the end of the meeting.

So, council, we have a lot of work before us tonight, and I urge all of us to be succinct with our comments.

Um to get things started.

Uh, we'll be recognizing Chapel Hill's twenty twenty-five Cal Horton Award recipient.

Uh, for our audience, the W.

Calvin Horton Service Award is Chapel Hill's highest employee honor, recognizing town staff with at least ten years of service who exemplify responsibility, equity, and teamwork.

Recipients are nominated by their peers.

This year's Cal Horton Award recipient is Dale May from the town's public works department.

Dale, would you please join me up front?

Today, we proudly recognize Dale May as the recipient of the Cal Horton Service Award.

With twenty four years of dedicated service, Dale has been a cornerstone of our traffic division.

He is known for his unwavering reliability, deep institutional knowledge, and exceptional work ethic.

Dale takes great pride in supporting community events from hanging banners for special occasions to stepping in to help with access issues.

Always willing to share his knowledge and collaborate across departments.

Thank you.

Okay.

That brings us to announcements.

I have a couple of quick things to share.

First, congratulations to our newly elected and re-elected council members, Louie Rivers, Wes McMahon, Camille Barry, and Paris Miller Fushi.

On December 3rd, they will be sworn into office.

Second, we want to say thank you to the Chapel Hill community for stepping up to help your neighbors impacted by suspension of SNAP benefits and other hurdles.

As always happens in difficult times, members of our community have been pitching in a lot.

As we all know, SNAP benefits are just one piece of the puzzle for folks who are struggling in our community.

So even if those are restored, we will continue to need to keep up the good work.

Third, we incorporate encourage people to mark their calendars for the parks and recreation listening session on November 20th at the Seymour Center from 6 15 to 7 30.

This is a chance to share your thoughts on town parks, recreation facilities, and open spaces as we create a parks master plan for the future.

Last but certainly not least, council meets again on November 19th, and the holiday parade is set for Saturday, December 6th.

Council members, does anyone else have something to share?

Councilmember Miller Fushi.

Good evening, everyone.

I just wanted to let everyone know that the town of Chapel Hill and alongside Northside Elementary School, we will be having a safe route to school, Ruby Bridges Walk to School Day this coming Friday.

It will start at 7 a.m.

And we will walk from Hargrave Center to Northside Elementary.

So please join us on Friday morning at 7 a.m.

And don't forget to wear purple.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Next up, we invite members of the public to comment on items not on the printed agenda.

For members of the public wishing to speak, please sign up with the town clerk in the front of chambers.

And if you are here to speak on a specific item, there will be a presentation on the item, followed by council clarifying questions and then public comment.

To help keep things running smoothly, Councilmember Barry will call two names at a time.

The first person should come to the podium.

The second person is on deck right in the front.

And if you're seated in the middle of a row or near the back of the chambers, please come on up.

Finally, public input is really important to us.

So I want to remind our audience that we want everyone to be heard and feel comfortable when they're at the podium, so please refrain from commenting or clapping.

Colleagues, Mr.

Nishimoto has brought a group of students to speak.

Typically, we try to limit the number of speakers on one topic during public comment to three.

However, at his request, there will be six speakers each speaking for two minutes.

So with that.

First, we have Tim Cruthers and then Emily Bergwanath.

Welcome.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

I'm here to speak on the issue of the Glen Lennox development of a grocery store.

And I just wanted to first introduce myself.

I'm Tim Cruthers, and I'm a journalism professor at UNC and a 25-year long resident of Chapel Hill.

And I live on Oakwood Drive, which is uh right next to where this development uh is supposed to be taking place.

Um I've spoken to Theo.

Uh hi, Theo.

Uh myself uh directly uh about this issue, and many of my neighbors have spoken directly to other council members, so I know you all are very familiar with it.

Um we we the way we look at it, we aren't just fighting for ourselves, we are fighting for all of our town members because this is the kind of corporate power play that is happening to us, but it could happen to anybody in Chapel Hill, and we really are hopeful that this can be an opportunity to stop it.

Um this issue essentially built comes down to a matter of trust.

Uh, when the development agreement was signed a decade ago, uh the neighbors trusted the spirit of the agreement, the Grub would maintain the village green feel of our neighborhood.

But from what I can tell, Grub's argument now is that nowhere in the agreement does it uh s stipulate that they can't build a 50,000 square foot grocery store, parking lot, and service road in Glen Lennox, uh right behind uh a lot of the homes in our neighborhood.

In our minds, that would be like saying, why you well you didn't stipulate that we can't build a landfill or a water treatment plant or a nuclear power plant in this in this particular spot.

Obviously, that's that's sort of ridiculous.

The residents didn't think it was necessary to even address such a ludicrous notion based on the original spirit of the agreement.

And I don't blame them.

I mean, why would they?

In their worst nightmares, none of them could have ever imagined this ginormous publics built essentially in their backyards.

Based on the discussions with Grub, I I don't know why they would, because there was no nothing ever mentioned in the development agreement about anything like this.

Back then, Grubb was also emphasizing the critical need for affordable housing.

The company's CEO is named Clay Grub, and he even wrote a book about it.

It was titled Creating the Urban Dream, tackling the affordable housing crisis.

Yet instead of refurbishing these existing affordable housing houses that are there on the site, um, he in instead ended up evicting the people who lived on the site so that they could set up a situation where those those um those townhomes would eventually deteriorate to the point that they could be wrecked, um, knocked down and replaced by ultimately this grocery store.

It's important to note that we don't oppose progress as part of this working group.

We'd we'd welcome a Weaver Street Market type of idea.

And the bottom line is that this is a corporate money grab that town planning has the power to stop.

When challenged about how he has broken his promises, Clay Cl Clay Grubb told some of my neighbors in a meeting that times have changed since the development agreement was signed, and he might be broke if he doesn't build the mega market in in our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I appreciate you listening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Rose Beregwanet, daughter of Emily Beraguaneth.

I care a lot about the place I live and the beautiful environment there.

And so do a lot of people and animals who live there to speak about the Glen Lennox development is someone who cares quite a bit about the place she lives, Emily Beregwanet.

So yeah, I'm just I think Tim got to the heart of it.

I'm another of the community living in the Glen Lennox area.

I've lived um in Chapel Hill for over 18 years, and um I'm a professor of classics um on the Hill at UNC Chapel Hill.

Um so I too wanted to come in.

I wanted also to thank you very much those of you who've met with some of the community.

I met with Melissa.

Um just to reiterate, um, just to reiterate what Tim said, urge Grub properties to honor not just the letter, but the spirit of this development agreement negotiated over many years with broad community input.

It was the result of a multi-year collaborative process involving town staff, elected officials, neighborhood associations, faith communities, and con concerned citizens from across Chapel Hill and not just Glen Lennox.

Um together the community shaped a vision for this roughly 50-acre Glen Lennox site that very effectively balanced development with conservation, enhanced community character, um, and it protected what made the area unique, um, not least including the trees, the you know, tree coverage, um, the SAR, the current residence part of this development, as many of you know, um, has already been completed, including these um quite a big um apartment uh block, um, the Calyx building.

Um, and people from there are very frequently wandering through the neighborhood, um, kind of next to them where there still are a number of trees.

Um, and and this is the area where the um mega grocery store is planned.

Um and it would actually remove what's special about this area for um you know, for all of those citizens, including those now living in the new um the new development.

I also wanted to mention the concern of um uh impermanent permeable um surface area.

Um area too was affected by the flooding um just a few months ago.

And this development would clearly make the situation a whole lot worse.

So that too is a is something that I think residents take take really um really seriously.

Ironically, too, um it was Grubb's original proposal for a smaller grocery store that first galvanized neighborhood participation many years uh many years ago.

So I thank you all for really, you know, use your power to put a stop to this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Craig Nishimoto.

Mini Chair.

Followed by Marcus Newlander.

My name is Craig Nishmoto.

I'm an arborist.

I've been working in this town for over a decade.

The six students speaking after me are members of the Tiger Roots Green Collective, a student-led not-for-profit at Chapel Hill High School, promoting intelligent environmental action.

They didn't start with an interest in zoning or local ordinances.

Their first project was restoring a uh creekside woodland at their school.

Over four weekends, they removed seven-year-old neglected so-called protective fencing along the creekside.

Uh broken tree protection signs, plastic orange mesh, buried silt fencing fabric, welded or the uh braided wire fencing and iron posts.

Garbage that was abandoned for years, they filled up dumpsters multiple times, multiple dumpsters.

Through that work, they saw firsthand how the so-called protective fencing, when installed or you know, carelessly abandoned, can cause lasting environmental harm.

And so 10 days ago, these students visited the Hillmont development.

They measured and photographed silt fencing trenched through the roots of many rare and specimen trees, some on the Hillmont property, others on the neighboring land.

Tonight they'll describe six clear ordinance violations they documented.

Hillmont is not an isolated case.

In 2023, there was a quarter mile along the Homestead Road at 2217 Homestead Road.

Same thing happened.

That was two years ago.

These mistakes were never acknowledged.

And as a result, we're watching them repeat.

Today, you can go less than two miles away and drive by 325 Glendale Drive and see the same thing happening.

Rare oaks being severed, their roots right near needlessly.

Listen to these students, ask yourselves, what else do you get need from us?

What other evidence do you need to hear?

Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor Mayor Anderson and members of the town council.

I'm Marcus Newlander.

I'm a member of the aforementioned uh Chair GC, and I'm a student at Chapel Hill High School.

I'd like to share with you all some like a clear violation of Chapel Hills Tree Protection Ordinance.

So there's a 25.5-inch willow oak at the southwest corner of 116 Little John Road.

And it's on the property of Gail Roberts, a resident of Hillmont.

And under the town's land use management ordinance, this tree is classified as a rare tree and should have been clearly identified and protected.

In fact, Lumo, section 5.7B, uh first and fourth sections require that all rare trees within 50 feet of land disturbance to be shown on the landscape protection plan with their critical root zone outlined.

And this willow oak lies only 4.2 feet from trenching, clearing, and grading.

And it does not appear visible anywhere on the plan.

Furthermore, Lumo section 5.7.4 C1 also requires protective fencing to meet town standards.

And in this case, the silt fencing was entrenched just 50 inches from the base of the tree.

And this is a big problem because you have all these structural tensioning roots that keep the tree upright, being cut, allowing the tree to lean to one side.

So the conditional zoning permit for the Hillmont development, which was approved around November 15th, 2023, requires further compliance with all design manual standards.

And those standards state that the critical root zone of the rare and specimen tree shown on page 138 must be protected.

Protective fencing must enclose at least 75% of each root zone.

And because silt fencing cuts roots, it should be placed outside the root zone as not to topple the tree.

And in the end, this is really just a big issue because you have all these trees along the edge of the silt fencing with their tension roots being cut.

And now they're weaning and they're falling on uh the residents' houses.

And I respectfully urge the council to enforce these ordinances and make sure that the town's rare trees and the residents who live near them are protected as your laws intend.

Thank you.

Next up, Max Chen.

Following um following Max, Ellis Condiff.

Good evening, Mayor Anderson and members of the town council.

My name is Max Shen, and I want to draw your attention to a 19-inch Loblolly pine located at Gail Roberts property at 116 Little John Road.

Under the town's land use management ordinance, this tree is classified as a specimen tree and should have been clearly identified and protected.

This pine stands only 29 inches from the entrenched silt fence, which is less than two and a half feet.

The trenching for that fence cut directly through its major support roots.

With its roots severed and its natural wind buffer removed by the clearing for the Hillmont development, this tall leaning pine now poses a significant risk to Miss Roberts' house.

Under LUMO section 5.7 C1, protective fencing must be installed according to the town standards.

And under the design manual on page 140, silt fencing should never be installed inside the critical root zones of trees, precisely to prevent this kind of root loss and instability.

The town's tree production ordinance exists to prevent this kind of outcome, but enforcement has failed.

Since this development began, multiple large trees have already fallen onto structures and yards along Little John Road, damaging property.

Each failure traces back to the same root causes.

Roots cut too close, buffers cleared away, and ordinances ignored.

This 19-inch Loblolly pine is another clear example of that pattern.

A preventable pattern has become a safety threat.

I asked the town council to ask to act decisively to make sure that tree protection laws are enforced, not just ridden.

Thank you.

So following Alice will be Thomas Bart.

Good evening, Mayor Anderson and members of the town council.

My name is Ellis Cundiff.

I'd like to share information about the 30-inch willow oak located at the rear of 116 Little John Road, the property of Gail Roberts.

With its broad canopy, this oak provides significant shade to Gail Roberts' house and deck from the afternoon summer sun.

A tree of this size is irreplaceable in the life of Miss Roberts.

Under the town's tree protection ordinance, this tree is classified as a rare tree, requiring the highest level of protection.

Yet the silt fencing for the Hillmont development was entrenched only 12.5 feet from its base, less than half the required distance.

Under the town design manual standards, which are required by both the town's lumo and the conditioning zoning permit, and that fencing should have been at least 30 feet away to protect the tree's critical root zone.

The placement of the silt fencing on this uphill boundary not only violates town ordinance, it also serves no practical erosion control function because Miss Roberts' property lies upslope from the cleared area.

The trenching offered no silt benefit, but it did cause irreversible damage to the tree's critical root zone.

When the town fails to enforce its own standards, this caused this the cost of is bored by its residents.

I urge the council to ensure that enforcement of its own ordinances, particularly when, as in this case, the violations are entirely pointless and yet highly destructive.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Following Thomas Theodore House.

Good evening, Mayor Anderson and members of the town council.

My name is Thomas Bart.

I want to share what has happened behind 114 Little John Road, the home of Felicia Chang and Jeff Brown.

In their backyard stands a 20.5-inch loblolly pine, located less than 13 feet from the entrenched silt fencing installed for the Hillmont development.

Under Chapel Hill's tree protection ordinance, this pine is a specimen tree, which means the silt fencing should have been installed at least 20.5 feet away to protect its critical root zone.

This violation is not just technical, it's consequential, because trees like this were allowed to be encroached upon in breach of town ordinances.

Many adjacent trees were allowed to be removed, resulting in the loss of a critical wind buffer that sheltered the trees along the property boundary.

This has had real consequences.

In June, a specimen elm broke and fell into Felicia's and Jeff's house, causing property damage.

Just weeks later, another large elm bowed over onto the roof, and a massive white oak crashed through their fence, covering the backyard.

These weren't old dying trees.

They were healthy, established, and part of the town's protected canopy and valued by these residents.

The town's tree protection ordinance isn't symbolic.

It was written to prevent exactly this kind of cascading damage.

To quote the words of the Lumo itself, its provisions are the basic and minimum requirements for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare.

When its violations are persistently ignored, it isn't just trees that are lost.

It's safety, property, and trust.

I urge the council to acknowledge the town's failure in these matters.

When violations that are so clear, measurable and consequential are ignored.

How can we entrust the town to do anything?

Thank you.

Following Theodore, our final speaker, Walter Nugent.

Good evening, Mayor Anderson and members of the town council.

My name is Theodore Hess.

I'd like to report what happened at 13 Little John Road, the home of Jennifer Leighton.

In her backyard stood a 25-inch DBH white oak, located only six feet from the entrenched silt fence installed for the Hillmont Development.

By town ordinance, this oak is classified as a rare tree.

Under Chapel Hill's Tree Protection Ordinance and under the conditioning zoning permit for Hillmont, the developer was required to follow the design manual's tree protection standards.

Those standards are clear.

Instead, the silt fence was cut just six feet from the trunk, severing the tree's major structural roots.

This tree was not declining or diseased.

A photo from May of this year shows it was perfectly upright and healthy, with a flourishing canopy and a flawless structure.

But after its roots were cut and the surrounding trees cleared, its remaining root plates failed.

In early July, the entire tree fell over, taking down a fence, several smaller trees, and landing across two backyards.

The cause wasn't weather.

It was noncompliance.

The town's ordinances and the council's permit conditions were explicit, yet they were not enforced.

Each tree that falls like this represents not just a private loss, but a failure of public policy.

Chapel Hills residents have a right to expect that the laws protecting their trees and safety will be upheld.

The town can correct past mistakes and improve future practices, but it will do neither so long as it refuses to acknowledge clear and consequential violations to its own ordinances.

I respectfully ask the council to force an acknowledgement of these clear and measurable facts and the violations they represent.

Good evening, Mayor Anderson and members of the town council.

My name is Walter Newgens.

I want to describe what happened to the 18.5 inch sweet gum tree behind the little the 12 little John Road within the Hillmont parcel.

This specimen tree should have been protected by keeping the silt fence at least 18.5 feet away.

Instead, it was trenched directly at the base, cutting through its roots.

April, the tree fell.

Its upturned roots clearly showing mechanical cuts.

It crashed onto a shed behind 13 Little John Road, damaging Jennifer Layton's property.

Seven months later, the wreckage remained.

Town staff was notified in April, yet no acknowledgement or corrective action was followed.

Since then, more trees have been fallen, each have a foreseeable result of the same violations.

Across these six cases, rare and specimen trees were neither identified nor protected as required by the LUMO and Hillmont permit.

These are not isolated errors, they reflect a pattern of neglect.

Acknowledgement is a final is the first step towards real enforcement and toward restoring in public confidence the Chapel Hill's commitment to protect health, safety, and welfare.

Thank you.

Is that it?

All right.

Um thank you to everyone who came forward with comments or requests tonight.

Um, a particular thank you to our um Chapel Hill High Students and what I can assume is an elementary school student.

Thank you for coming to visit us in council chambers.

We always want to hear from you, and it is your First Amendment right to speak to your government.

Um before we move on, uh, Mr.

Voorhees, you mentioned that you had some comments to share regarding uh the tree canopy at Hillmont.

Thank you, Ms.

Um, Madam Mayor, I should say.

Uh Council members.

Um I want to acknowledge Jennifer Leighton, Craig Nishimoto, and certainly all the speakers.

Uh I I've recognized the unfortunate situation out there.

Um we're you're you're not making this up.

Real damage has occurred.

Uh the challenge for me is to um assess whether ordinances have been violated.

And while I um agree that the spirit of the protection ordinance is not been upheld from a technical standpoint, we have reviewed whether ordinances have been by violated and have concluded they have not been uh mostly on the sort of technical uh reason that a written permit was issued that allowed what happened to happen.

I think that that's a failure of execution as opposed to a failure of policy, and so we're looking at three different ways to uh consider how we can do better in the future.

Uh one is either some improvements to the LUMO about how this should be carried out, uh one is consideration of the design manual and how it should speak to these issues, and one is a procedural change in how permits are issued.

I I'm confident that through one or more of these methods, we can uh significantly reduce the risk of something like this happening in the future.

But as it stands today, uh we're not of the position that a technical violation has occurred, though I certainly acknowledge damage has happened, it's real, it's there.

I'm not denying that.

And on behalf of the town, I I want you to know I I acknowledge that that exists, and we can do better.

So with that, thank you, Madam Mayor, Council members.

Appreciate the chance to comment.

Thank you, Manager Voorhees, and of course, thank you to the public for um giving our staff the time to assess and to uh make changes as necessary.

We appreciate you.

Uh that brings us to our consent agenda.

Uh, council members, do I have a motion?

So moved.

Second.

Motion by council member Barry, seconded by council uh member Nollert.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

Motion carries seven to zero.

I think my math is gonna be great tonight.

Um next is item eight, a discussion of the town council vacancy.

Uh, for those in the audience who have not been following this matter, a vacancy on the town council was created when council member Karen Stegman officially resigned her seat on June 27th.

Uh, this vacant position is one of the council seats that was on the ballot in November.

Um, as a result, an appointed member would serve until council's organizational meeting on December 3rd.

In accordance with town ordinance, we have announced the vacancy and received 10 applications for the position.

Um, council members, does anyone have clarifying questions?

Uh is there anyone from the public wishing to speak?

Council members, that brings the question back to us.

Does anyone wish to make a nomination?

Okay.

Not hearing any, this item will come back at our November 19th meeting.

And thank you to all who applied for your interest in local government.

Next up is item nine.

Um council members, before we get underway, I was asked to share very brief brief comments from Mayor Pro Tem Ryan.

Um, as she was unable to be here tonight due to a family medical matter.

Um, colleagues, I pulled the item out of concern that we were deleting procedures that spelled out how the public could present issues before council without without having a specific replacement plan that would keep these processes accessible and transparent.

The manager has proposed some new procedures.

Codifying these, posting them clearly on the website, and developing a public system for tracking outcomes will meet my interest.

Specifically, I'm asking that one we have written posted procedures so the public can know what to expect if they want to bring an issue to council, and two, we have a publicly accessible tracking system as opposed to emails based on individual interests.

I am sorry not to be there tonight and appreciate your consideration of these things.

Um I am assuming we do not have a presentation.

Okay.

Um council members, um, questions or comments?

Do we have anyone from the public wishing to speak?

Okay.

Back to you, council.

Sorry?

It's right here.

No one.

Just just being polite.

Um council, back to you.

Any final thoughts.

Um yes, council member Barry.

I would say that I'm good with the way that it's presented by the town manager's office.

Okay.

Um town manager Voorhees, is there a way that we can meet the interest outlined in Mayor Pro Tem Ryan's comments.

Uh thank you for that question, Mayor.

I think that's uh generally our intent.

Um our the exact uh format that that'll look in uh look look like uh remains to be seen.

But I I think the ability of folks to to get online and and track the issues and kind of where it stands, that's something we can we can accomplish.

So I'm happy to do that.

Great.

Thank you.

One more comment, Mayor.

Sure.

Um I want to applaud the clerk and the manager's office for bringing this to our attention because the petitions um troubled me.

Because we're no is sure what would happen with them afterwards, and then the fact that they seem to have more weight than a public comment also was problematic.

So I appreciate that the public now recognizes that anything that they share with us will be given the same due consideration.

So thank you for that.

Council members, I need um a motion to adopt R4 with a technical correction.

Is that true or just R4?

Uh the resolution can be adopted as R4.

The technical correction would be changing the ordinance as presented.

Oh, I see.

I got it.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Um council, do I have a motion?

So move.

Move by um wait, Councilmember McCullough, seconded by um council member sharp.

It's R4.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion is unanimous, seven to zero.

Oh no.

My math is not good again.

I wanted there to be two, I know.

And she would do better.

Um if we had nine, we would have seven here tonight, but we have six.

Okay.

Yet another week.

Um, all right, on to item number 10.

Uh, Glenn Lennox neighborhood stream restoration funding.

And um Robert Garris, our stormwater engineer is here to present.

Oh, I could just maybe spread out a little bit.

John Richardson also gets to raise the table.

Yes, I'm like it when he comes as well with sustainability things.

Yeah, sustainability also has that issue.

Um, and just as a reminder, um, this was an item that was pulled from our previous consent agenda as well.

And council member Searing is not here this evening, but we will continue on.

Yeah, well, uh good evening, uh, Mayor and Council members.

Uh, thank you for inviting us back to to talk through with y'all in more detail the um proposed grant application.

Uh as was included in the packet last meeting and again this time.

Um Public Works is recommending that council consider adoption of the resolution R5 to authorize a town's application for a water resources development grant uh from the state of North Carolina um for a proposed streambox stabilization project in the Glen Lennox neighborhood.

Um, this some context here, the Glenn Lennox neighborhood, it's it's you know it's it's one of the ones that's been in Chapel Hill.

At this point, we've had some people today even talk about it.

Um part of the development agreement 10 years ago included a uh really two specific items that this is state of the town would there's a there's a stream in the development the town would apply for a development grant or a uh restoration grant, sorry.

And if we got that restoration grant, we would then put forth the effort to restore it.

Um it's not mandated by anything.

The language is is fairly soft in the development agreement, but public works saw as an opportunity.

Uh the water resources grant is something that the DEQ issues.

It used to be every every uh six months with the current federal administration, it's now uh annual.

Um but we saw it as a good opportunity.

It's something where we have the documentation and the relationship with the developer.

Um, and there are known water quality issues at the site too.

It exists as uh approximately 500 feet of concrete line channel.

Um it's on it's one of the outfalls that stormwater staff monitor on a regular basis, and there's issues with algae and um high conductivity in the water uh just to be kind of quick with this.

This is a real quick brief map of it.

Um essentially it's a 70 foot wide easement that we're looking at re-vegetating.

Well, the the the scope wouldn't entail removing 500 feet of concrete channel, uh installing natural erosion control, flow dissipation, and then revegetating with native species.

Um and with that I'll I'll repeat the recommended action here.

Um like I said, it's it's not we're not committed to it with the development agreement, but it is an opportunity to restore a stream.

So we're recommending that council consider adoption of the resolution R5 um to allow us to submit for this grant application.

Um with that, I'd like to open discussion if needed.

Um council member McCullough?

Can we go straight to the discussion or do we have to ask questions first?

I don't think we have members of the public signed up to speak.

I don't know.

Um so why don't we do questions first quickly and then we'll get into it?

Got it.

Okay.

Councilmember Sharp.

I think just the um in the spirit of the reason that um Councilmember Searing asked that this be withdrawn from the consent agenda.

How did you all identify this stream restoration project as the one for which to apply for the grant money?

And are there others in town that could benefit from the same funds or a similar grant application, et cetera?

Yeah, no, that that's that's a fair question.

Um with this site specifically, it's that we had the opportunity.

You know, it was listed in the development agreement from 10 years ago, granted previous council, previous town staff, but it we we do have the relationship with the developer.

Um we're still working through our subwatershed studies.

So the question of are there streams throughout town that could also use funding?

Yeah, there are.

Um we've gotten to the subwatershed studies, some of them we haven't, though.

There's there's a big push to you know follow through with our stormwater um master plan.

Uh this one specifically, uh I said we we chose it because the opportunity presented itself.

Um and it is a site that we monitor and it does have known water quality issues.

Okay.

I'm all for the stream restoration.

I'm just curious a little bit.

I think that that was the concern was that you know um other people have sort of, I guess, around town asked for a similar projects to be undertaken in streams in their neighborhoods or near their properties.

Um I'm sorry, this may be a really question I should know the answer to, but why did the opportunity present itself in this case like why is this an opportunity all of a sudden?

Unfortunately, I've only been with the town for two years, so I wasn't on staff when that was added in.

Um from talking through with other people who have been with the town longer than I have.

Um the the staff member who was involved, she had grant experience writing or grant writing experience, I should say.

Um and Lisa, there's that relationship with the developer where it was put in in here, and uh personally I've not seen one with the town where the town takes on the onus of restoring this the stream.

We would usually put that on the developer.

I wasn't part of those conversations though.

Um but it's it's it's documented and recorded in writing, but you know, the town not a hard commitment, but if we do, you know, apply for this grant, we would be able to do it.

To fund it.

Okay, great.

Thanks.

I guess it's just a little bit of a follow-up to council member sharp's question.

Um are there my understanding is there was someone else who applied and they were told no.

And this one was submitted, so I'm just I guess I'm still not really clear about how we're deciding.

Well, I mean, I understand that this one was in a development agreement, so it had already been identified as a place that had an issue, certainly.

But I guess um, do we have other criteria that we use in order to determine who kind of gets assistance from the town in accessing these funds beyond just a kind of existing relationship or how you know?

Yeah, and and and truth be told, for the we don't have a drainage assistance program in place.

I think that was one that used to be on the town, that was before my time, but um without having that you know kind of budgeted um drainage assistance program, the process that we're stuck with is having private citizens partner with businesses in the area, whether it's it's you know a public in a backyard or an HOA or a bunch of you know interest like interested people coming together to fund it together.

Kind of existing relationship or how you know Yeah and and and truth be told for the we don't have a drainage assistance program in in place right I think that was one that used to be on the town that was before my time but um without having that you know kind of budgeted um drainage assistance program the process that we're stuck with is having private citizens partner with businesses in the area whether it's it's you know a public in a backyard or an HOA or a bunch of you know interest like interested people coming together to fund it together um I see yeah unfortunately we just without drainage assistance program it's there's not really no way to do it equitably um with this case it's something that we'd already committed ourselves to I see so there's really no way to uh to to submit an application on behalf of just an individual property owner is that what you're saying yeah okay um got it thank you that's helpful okay unless somebody has decided they would like to speak from the public I think we will move on to discussion council member McCullough thank you um so I'm really excited about this I think that this is a prime example of things that have been done in the past with a complete lack of understanding of the implications far in the future and stream channelization is one of the worst examples of of taking a natural system and and completely destroying all the beneficial functions of it um and so I'm I'm very excited um I hope that this can serve as an example of the kinds of green infrastructure that we need to do in upstream areas to be able to slow um and ameliate the the quantity of water to improve the quality of water to create some habitat um especially for you know our our um insects which are having such a hard time um and to help us with uh what we send downstream um and so I'm very excited I hope that we do a lot of outreach and an advertisement about how great it looks before and after and if we can do any kind of before and after quantification of of what kind of benefits we get out of this I will be also very excited.

There is a there is a cost share program in Carborough and um a good bit of the watershed that um the grant covers could be available or that the program covers can be available in Chapel Hill um I think it's the Bowling Creek um watershed and so I'm hoping we can figure out a way to tap into those funds for these very people who want to do the same thing I was at a stream restoration workshop with urban sustainability solutions uh a couple of weeks ago um and and I think we would be well served and and um private homeowners couldn't do cost share information with those grants um because this is exactly the kind of thing that we we need to start perpetuating council member sharp um I echo council member um a cullah's enthusiasm for the way this project looks like it would proceed and just I like seeing so many of the things that we learned from the Booker Creek Working Group about um stormwater management sort of best practices there seems like would be included in this project and I would be very interested in pursuing bringing by you know a cost share drainage manage assist drainage drainage assistance program back to Chapel Hill um it seems like one of the ways that we could mitigate a lot of the things that we hear from the pup the private property owners you know the ways that different private properties sort of impinge on each other in terms of stormwater flow et cetera um so yeah I think that would be I would love to hear more about that but in terms of this one I'm all in yes definitely all in as well um and I will just say um I know that um staff will be bringing stormwater to council hopefully in the spring um and so hopefully we can kind of look at some of the ideas and understand better um weight options see what would be the most effective and certainly if we were gonna um do something for private property owners and reconstitute such a thing I guess um it sounds like there would be some sort of criteria or some way that people would understand what you know whether they were eligible and why someone else got it and they didn't but it seems like in this case there wasn't um much option and it's a great thing to do obviously so um thank you for it very much for making sure we were aware and understood and um it's a great precursor to more stormwater work next year.

Yes, ma'am.

Moved.

Um move by council member Barry, seconded by council member McCullough.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed?

It is six to zero.

Um, sure is.

Six to zero.

Uh unanimously approved.

Thank you very much.

Um right, up next, item number 11 is our public hearing for our housing and community development needs assessment for the community development block block grant program.

Phew.

And you're not Sarah Venious.

I never am.

Nope.

That's right.

That's right, be yourself.

Oh, yeah.

So uh my name is Melissa Peters.

I am the funding programs coordinator for the affordable housing team.

And I am presenting the public hearing tonight, which is the first of two annual public hearings on housing and community development needs related to the community development block grant or CDBG.

It's a little quicker to say.

Uh, the comments received tonight will help the town develop priority goals for the 2026 to 2027 CDBG annual action plan, which determines how we allocate our funding for the next year.

Tonight we are opening this public hearing to receive comments on the town housing and community development needs for the use of 2026 to 27 CDBG funding.

No council action is required at tonight's meeting.

We are required by both federal and local requirements to hold these two annual public hearings and seek input from town residents on these housing and community development needs for the upcoming year.

These hearings are held during council sessions in the fall today and in the spring.

Again, this is the first of the two public hearings.

The town is classed as an entitlement community, which means we receive a certain amount of yearly funding as determined by HUD.

Our annual allocation is around 424,000, and we learn the exact funding amount every year in the spring.

With the shutdown, the grant agreement process is paused, but when the shutdown ends, which may be tonight or tomorrow, we expect the agreement and funding to proceed as planned.

CDBG funded activities must meet at least one of three national objectives that is benefit to low and moderate income households, aid and elimination of slum or blight, which is HUD language specifically, or to meet an urgent need.

As of the last decade or so, all of our CDBG funding has gone to benefit low to moderate income households.

The objectives of the program are closely aligned with town priorities, as the main purpose includes support of social services for low and moderate income households and affordable housing activities.

And the CDBG program is included in the town's affordable housing and community connections work plan.

CDBG funding is also included in the Affordable Housing Plan and Investment Strategy that council approved back in September 2023.

And programs that are frequently supported through this funding align closely with the plan's goals of expanding and preserving affordable housing and affordable homeownership and rental housing.

The five-year consolidated plan outlines the town's priorities for housing and community development needs for the next five years.

The town and county just created a new consolidated plan as of the last year, and this governs CDBG funding for fiscal years 2025 to 2029.

The priorities for the next five years are housing for people experiencing homelessness, housing for low and moderate income households, integrated housing for people with service needs, and community development and services, which is a wide range of things, but it's often uh IFC with their home start program and refugee community partnership with their case management.

So the fiscal year 2026 to 27 CDBG funding award will be for the second year of the consolidated plan.

So where we are in the process is at the first step for assessing these community development needs for the next year at the first public hearing.

After this public hearing, we will evaluate the funding needs of the town and our partners and then determine the upcoming year's allocation process.

Then we will evaluate funding proposals for the next year and hold the second annual public hearing in probably April 2026.

The second hearing will consider the 2026 to 27 draft annual action plan and we'll come back for council approval in May in time for us to submit by the HUD deadline in mid-May.

So again, tonight we are asking council to open the public hearing to receive comments on the town's housing and community development needs for the use of 2026 to 27 CDBG funding.

Thank you.

Council questions.

Are there members of the public wishing to speak?

I don't think so.

Okay.

Back to you, council.

Okay.

We will um I believe see you back at the next meeting.

All right.

Thank you.

Do you need us to do anything?

Nope.

Great.

Thank you.

That thank you very much.

And we will see you on the 19th.

Okay.

Next up.

Item number 12 is a modification to the conditional zoning for 146 Stanzel Drive.

Anna Scott Myers from Planning is here to walk us through.

Oh, that's online.

I'm going to let the applicant, Adam Golden, start first.

If I can get the right app uh presentation up.

So presenter mode, and then you know we can see down here.

Perfect.

Mayor, members of council, manager, um, nice to see you again.

Um I'm Adam Golden with Northwood Raven.

We are the developer of Helmont.

Um so we are here tonight.

Um, a little bit of a unique situation.

Um in September, I think it was September 10th, when we saw the affordable housing funding program report for 2026.

Um, we saw that I guess there were four projects proposed and only the funding for two projects to go forward.

Um when we saw that, it actually coincided.

We are in the process, as you know, we've been under construction with the site work at the Hillmot project for about seven months now.

And we are in the process as we speak of sourcing a loan to move forward on the vertical construction.

Um the financing environment today remains very challenging.

Um there's still a lot of uncertainty, and this is a large project.

So when we saw uh the funding needs in September, um, and we looked at where we are with the project, um we uh we kind of had an idea that um could be a win-win for both us and for the town.

Um really the idea was we have the current the current zoning approval that was approved in November of 2023.

Um the affordable housing offer is 10% of the market rate units, which we have a 468 unit project.

We have an approved zoning compliance permit for that translates to 43 units.

So we have 43 units that are currently part of the affordable housing condition.

Half of those units, 50 percent are at the 60 percent AMI level, half of them are at the 80 percent AMI level.

All of those units are located on block E, which if you remember the project, block E is the five largest buildings on the project.

It's 375 of the 300 and or the 468 units.

So the clubhouse, the majority of the units are on block E, and that's where all of the affordable units would be located.

And the unit mix would follow the unit mix of those, so there'd be one bedrooms, two bedrooms, and three bedrooms.

Um we have 43 units in the current proposal, again, half at 60 and half at 80 percent of the AMI.

Um we saw the gap in funding that was needed at the town.

We studied this and kind of crunched numbers and looking at you know where we are with the project.

Um if we were to take 23 of the units, or let's call it half of the current affordable number 43, um, and convert that into a one-time voluntary donation or payment that we would make to the town.

Um it just we we tweaked everything we could do, and it would enable us to make a payment that I believe would enable, at least on the funding that was shown on the 2026 needs to fill that gap.

And so uh we worked closely with um, you know, we presented the idea to the staff, um, the affordable housing team, and um realized this is a potential this is a change, and this is not um the the original approval stands today, um, but where it would help us significantly is it would help us secure the financing because right now we are you know this is a traditionally financed project and traditional financing is in essence like when you're buying a house.

We have a certain amount of equity that we put in, and then there's a loan.

Uh we are not using the more specialized financing that is used with LITEC and tax exempt bonds.

That is a much more complicated lender.

That is a much there's a different banks.

Um that is not who we are financing this project with.

Um in order in this crazy environment to keep this as easy to understand as possible.

We came up with this idea and um would like to put it forward for your consideration.

I'll stand by for questions.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Town Council.

My name is Anna Scott Myers.

I am the case planner for this modification request at 146 Stancil Drive, also known as Hillmont.

Um so to remind you all of where this project is located, it is off of NC 54, it fronts on Stancil Drive and Barbie Chapel Road.

Um the applicant already showed you the district specific plan and called your attention to block E.

If I can get the mouse, it is this section that shows the building, so all five of these buildings is block E.

Um, and the reason why we put this in the um presentation is because the affordable housing plan specifically specifically calls for the affordable um units to be in that block.

Staff recommends that the modification is aligned with the complete community goals and comprehensive plan, and we recommend that council consider this modification.

I'm gonna go through a summary of the existing approvals before I go into the modification request.

The ordinance for this project was approved on November 15th, 2023, and it allows for up to 500 units.

A zoning compliance permit was issued this year in August and requires 43 of those units be affordable.

Um the applicant already explained, but 50% of those units will be for households earning 60% AMI and the other 50% for ADMI, 80% AMI, and those numbers are not changing the 6080 um split.

Um the modification that is requested is to the existing conditional zoning district to amend the affordable housing plan section of the ordinance.

It includes a 1.15 million dollar contribution to the town's affordable housing funding program, and we'll change the number of affordable units to at least 20 units.

All other conditions of the approval will be unchanged, and if council denies this request, the existing approval will remain in effect.

They agreed that the modification was consistent with the comprehensive plan, and they transmitted comments, but uh were not able to provide a recommendation.

Um so procedurally, staff recommends that council open the public hearing, receive public comment, provide feedback to the applicant, and um continue the hearing to November 19th, 2025.

And I will also be here for questions.

Thank you.

Um council clarifying questions, council member Nollert.

Um what would the effect be on the loan viability of uh considering alternative numbers?

Like, is it possible to slide the scale at all, or does it does any does putting additional units back in and decreasing the size of the contribution uh concomitantly sort of jeopardize the likelihood of the financing?

It's a good question.

Um we this is somewhat subjective.

I mean, we're I mean, when I say we're in discussions, we're we were literally in phone calls uh as we speak.

Um it's we did kind of look at what would be we we kind of backed into it based on what we saw the funding gap was at the town.

Um could that adjust it absolutely?

You could change the number of units, you could change the contribution.

Um I think I mean, yes, they could be changed, I think is the answer.

Um this is just for our staff.

Um any I my understanding is that the turnaround time on a payment like this is actually projected to be pretty quick.

Is that that's the case, right?

Yeah, and I I should have mentioned that.

So um the because we have a zoning compliance permit already issued and we have started.

Um I've talked to our CEO, and we could make this payment almost immediately uh or say within 30 days of the final approval.

So in theory, we can make this by the end of the year.

Um just a question for our staff.

Would would receiving a payment of that magnitude by the end of the year unlock any opportunities that are otherwise closed to us, or would this primarily be a consideration about a future cycle of um decisions?

Good evening, Sarah Venus, director of affordable housing and community connections.

Um our current funding available in our local affordable housing funding program is um very limited.

We have about 200,000 available.

Um, and as you all know, we have a pipeline of projects, um, some of which we don't have resources for.

Um typically for other voluntary contributions, we have received those much later at final building permits.

So this would be much earlier than usual and would open up opportunities to fund projects as early as the spring or the beginning of next fiscal year.

Councilmember McCullough, followed by Councilmember Barry.

Um I've council member Nollert uh kind of asked my questions, and I was wondering about it going the other way.

Um one of my concerns about this project's sighting is that it's not a transit-friendly location.

And I tend to like to have affordable housing on transit-friendly locations, and so I'm kind of wondering, and this is a uh um question for you and for our staff is what about what about moving that slider the other way and having more money and less housing so that we can get um more affordable housing sooner on um transit friendly locations?

Um yeah, like I um mentioned to um council member Knoller, um it it is we could move the scale uh probably either way.

Um so we would be open to that.

Councilmember Barry.

Thank you.

Um Ms.

Vinius, we'd love to talk with you while we can talk with you.

Um what I was concerned in another hearing about receiving the money and how long that money would take to get here.

So I appreciate my colleagues question um and also voicing um the comment from commissioner from planning commissioner um green, and then this.

Um I am curious what do you see as the equivalent?

What what is that investment afford us?

1.15 million.

So uh one 1.15 million could resource a typical size 9% LITEC project, so 48 units of affordable rental housing, or it could go a long way to resource unfunded recommendations of our housing plan or other projects that could emerge.

So it really depends, um, but that gives you an idea and um any voluntary contributions that we receive go into the town's affordable housing funding program, and the council or the manager, depending on the amount, has the authority to evaluate those against your established allocation strategy and then approve um proposed uses of that funding on a case-by-case basis.

So it could be a range of projects, um, but that gives you some idea of what could be resourced with 1.15 million.

So I'm curious about units.

Um what that could, and I didn't really hear that.

So uh forty 48, we've funded a lot of low-income housing tax credit projects recently because that's one of our main tools available as you all know, to um create units on the ground.

And so 1.15 million um is the typical subsidy amount needed from the town to support a 48 unit LITEC project or around 50 unit um low-income housing tax credit project.

Um did the applicant speak with you before coming up with this number?

Did you get to have a conversation?

Yes, our team met with him.

Okay.

Um are there other affordable units on this side?

Um are there any other affordable units in this stretch of of Chapel Hill, this area.

I'm not aware of any.

That's on the other side.

And this part they have some.

Yeah, go ahead, please.

If you would Emily Holt, affordable housing manager.

I would just say that to the extent that development over there has affordable units that have been approved in them, like Barbie Chapel, for example, which is right next door.

There are some over there, there's some in Meadowmont that were approved.

Um I'm thinking about the side of 54.

If there are the south side, sorry.

Yes.

Um just those two.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's it for my questions.

Um council, Councilmember Miller Fushi, and then Councilmember McCullough.

Yeah, I think this question's also for you, Sarah.

Um, in terms of thinking, not only in terms of like just units, but also the needs of affordable um building other things that come into play.

Um opening up more funding would help to address that as well.

I'm just thinking about specifically what came before us, like with two projects that we weren't able to um fund and those needs um there.

So I just want to elevate um in terms of like thinking about affordable housing and the spectrum of the needs that our partners have.

Um, I think these funds would would um help to stretch um in that way as well.

Um, but I would always love to just like get your perspective on knowing how much it costs to build affordable housing, um, call it affordable, it call but it costs just as much to build as market rate.

Um I know we can get but the Litech um project 48 to 50 units.

Um when we have the ability to actually get those units built um alongside of the market rate and getting it mixed in.

Um I'm hearing from my colleague Barry Um Camille Barry about um what's already there and what's not um in terms of affordability.

Um how how do you all think about that as well in terms of like affordability throughout our town?

Um and I'm also hearing you, Melissa, um, about having it in transit oriented areas as well.

Yeah, that's a that's a great question.

I think um both options, both what was in the approval and the proposed modification, I think align very well with council's affordable housing goals.

Um we need units on the ground, and we also need more resources.

So I think both again very much align with your goals with our existing affordable housing plan.

So um currently we do have a need for more resources because the devo the costs of development have gone up.

Um we've already already allocated a significant portion of our 15 million 15 million dollar bond for affordable housing.

Um but I think there is real value at the same time to having units on the ground integrated into mixed income communities.

So I think it's really uh a choice for the council to make.

I think in my professional opinion, both are very good options.

Thank you.

Councilmember McCullough.

Um yeah, so I'm I'm wondering if we did think about moving that slide all the way to the in lieu money as opposed to uh units in the ground and provide more cash.

What might they be, what might um the developer be ready to provide?

What what would be the most money we could get?

Um I I mean the way we've kind of the when we looked at this, we really got it kind of on a per unit.

So whatever the council would um wherever that number would fall, we could do it on a per unit as it is today.

So if it were the whole thing, then it would be we'd have to, it's not exact because it were it'd be almost twice as much.

Um but and it could slide somewhere in the middle if you wanted to do 10 units and have the balance or somewhere in the middle.

So it it would it literally would just follow um per unit.

Yes.

Thank you.

Mr.

Golden, could you just stay up there for a second?

Um thank you.

Um could you help me understand a little bit better?

Um how you determined the amount per unit.

Um I think this is a very reasonable concept.

I guess I'm just trying to make sure that I'm understanding the kind of um subsidy that you would be putting in to get to the the 60 and the 80 versus the amount that you're offering per unit and how do those numbers compare or not, and if it's if the number you're offering per unit is not the same as the amount you would pay into I guess a unit at 70 percent.

I mean, I don't know, you know, whatever, like whatever the the average is of the affordable um, why would the number of the in lieu be less than what you would pay for that subsidized unit that you would build?

It's it the best way to describe it is um you know there's a time value of m uh in our pro forma.

It's if we put in a significant payment like this, it's an upfront cost, and that's costing us today, and there's you know, it adds interest, it adds everything to the project.

You know, our project is scheduled to be complete kind of in late 2028.

So that's when the units would be, you know, kind of coming online.

And um, so it's the current value of the money versus okay exactly.

And and it's you know, we have some at 60 percent, at some at 80 percent, and the rent subsidy for those, you know, the 80 percent isn't that far off of market rate, right?

You know, it's a couple hundred depending on the unit size.

If it's a one bedroom, it's actually pretty small difference.

If it's a three-bedroom, it's a little bit bigger.

Um in the 60 percent, the difference is more substantial.

Um, but when you merge them together, where we kind of again, it's it's it's it's kind of we we plug it in and say, okay, what was the most because what we were trying to do is really hit we saw what the gap was, and that was our target.

Said can we hit that?

And we went through it every which way, and we said this this is the number of units that can justify us getting to that amount of money.

Um so uh I hope that's a good answer.

It is yes, I uh and I didn't ask it in advance, so I don't necessarily expect you to have all the facts and figures.

I guess I'm just trying to determine um is there a big difference, and I understand present value would change the you know the number anyway, but I'm just wondering kind of do what would be the amount that you would pay in present value for one of those units.

Um again, what's what's kind of hard to say, you know, if we're talking about building a project, when you're building uh, you know, when we're building a large project like this, roads, utility infrastructure, the clubhouse, all of the the pieces that are being really funded by the whole large project, bring the per unit cost down because there you've got more units that can help pay for these things.

And if we were saying in isolation, hey, I'm gonna build 20 affordable units, that would those would actually be significantly more expensive to build um by themselves.

Um the the way to do it, uh it's what Sarah mentioned, and and it's the LITEC funding is this the that's the vehicle to those type of projects, and the tax credits themselves help to bridge the gap, um, which enable you know an amount like this to fund 40-50 units of LITEC funding because you have the tax credits.

Nope, that's super helpful.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay.

Um, are there members of the public wishing to speak?

Okay.

Um council back to you.

Councilmember Barry.

Yes.

Um I appreciate learning the challenges that you're going through and understanding I appreciate my colleagues' questions.

Um Ms.

Venius, really appreciate you and your team to help us understand this.

I would be in support of what's presented as opposed to reducing further, because I think there's real value in having affordable homes in a project, even though they're in just two of your buildings.

I would have liked to have seen them spread up.

But that's where we are.

I would like to preserve some affordable homes.

Um there are families who have vehicles, and that would be a great location for them to be able to get on to 40 to 54 to 40.

So for those reasons.

Thank you for explaining.

Thank you for everybody in your curiosities because it helped me.

I would support it as is.

Councilmember Sharp.

Um I agree with Councilmember Barry.

To me, this seems like a good opportunity to both get some units that are integrated with market rate housing and relieve some of the pressure on our general budget to fund some of our goals for affordable housing outside of uh developer projects, um, as well as bring some market rate housing online that would provide property tax income for the town.

So I think this feels like a win-win.

Councilmember Miller Frischy, followed by Councilmember McCullough.

Okay, I like to echo what my um colleagues just stated.

Um I'm always um on the side of getting the units built, but I do think that with this quick turnaround with this voluntary um payment, it will um potentially allow us to reach some of those projects that are already in the pipeline that we weren't able to find before.

Councilmember McColl.

Um, yeah, I'm I'm very um in favor of this.

Um I would like before the 19th to have a little bit better understanding from staff about how much money we need to get some of these things on the ground and what our trade-offs are uh in terms of getting money now and how much we how much we need, what would we get if we get more money versus um putting units on the ground because I know it is important to have units on the ground, and I appreciate um council member Barry's um note about about people being able to hop on to 40.

Um but yeah, a little bit more information from staff would be helpful.

Don't want to miss opportunities where we have them.

Um yeah.

Um thank you for bringing this to us.

Um I I think a win-win is always good.

Um and I know that we have some gaps to fill, and um, and I think getting um getting your financing in order um will be good for um your project generally coming out of the ground, which I think is what we want.

So um I uh look forward to um whatever the number is the council decides on.

I think this is reasonable.

Um I too would like a little more information on kind of if there would be benefit.

I um uh council member McCullough, I I really liked your kind of the way you were thinking about um moving units more towards trans transit-oriented areas being able to leverage the LITEC to get more.

I also I guess I'm a little conflicted because I like to have more integrated communities even when they're not completely transit oriented, and um having some to me here would still I think be a value for that community too.

Um, but I think it would be interesting to just understand you know how much money um what we could do with 2.3 million um versus 1.15.

But um I'm really comfortable with the 1.15 if that's where we end up.

So um with that, um council.

I need a motion to continue the legislative hearing to November 19th.

So moved, second.

Move by council member member Barry, seconded by council member sharp.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

Motion is unanimous six to zero.

Um, and thank you, staff.

Okay.

Item number 13 is a special use permit modification application for 1721 East Franklin Street.

Um please bear with me while I read some instructions that I am required to read to you.

Um a special use permit is a permit allowed for the establishment of certain uses in certain districts, which require special review for design, location, and impact.

Review of an SUP application is a quasi-judicial development decision.

It requires an evidentiary hearing during which council hears sworn testimony and gathers competent material and substantial evidence.

Unlike a legislative hearing, um sorry, unlike a legislative item before council, we are conducting a hearing and deciding whether to approve this specific special use permit.

Because this is a quadjudicial hearing, only the applicant and persons with standing have the right to participate as a party.

Other witnesses may present competent material and substance substantial evidence that is not repetitive and allowed by the board.

All persons who intend to present evidence must be sworn.

Section 4.5.2A of the land use management ordinance or LUMO requires counsel make four findings of fact in order to grant or modify an SUP.

These are provided in the agenda materials.

If the applicant presents evidence that the proposed special use meets each finding of fact, the applicant is entitled to approval of the SUP unless contrary evidence is presented to counsel sufficient for the council to find that the SUP should be denied.

As a reminder, a board member may not participate or vote in this hearing if they have a fixed opinion prior to hearing the matter that is not susceptible to change or have undisclosed ex parte communications at this time.

That email was forwarded to the applicant by town staff.

With that, we may now begin the hearing.

And our staff presenter is Charnika Harrell.

Are you gonna do this all together?

Okay.

It'll be a party.

Thank you.

So everybody who may present evidence, please stand.

And do you swear or affirm that the information that you are about to provide is the truth to the best of your knowledge?

Thank you.

It's a special use permit.

Um modification application for 1721 East Franklin Street.

Uh this image is um shows the site.

It's outlined in yellow.

Uh the site is north of Franklin Street.

The special use permit modification application is for a new uh 195 foot tall, non-concealed uh telecommunications tower.

The property is currently zoned, office institutional two or OI2.

Um, there is no uh change to the zoning district proposed as part of a special use permit application, and there are two existing um 203 foot tall broadcast towers on site in a dentist office.

Uh for special use permits, a new a non-consult tower is allowed as a special use in OI2 as part of the special use permit process.

The applicant may ask for modifications to LUMO standards and approval of the modifications is based on council finding that public purposes are served to an equivalent or greater degree and approval of the special use is based on the four findings of fact.

Um sorry.

This slide shows um the four findings of fact that council has to make to approve the SUP.

Um the findings uh and the decision to approve the SUP have to be based on competent material and substantial evidence presented during the hearing.

Uh so tonight you'll open the evidentiary hearing, receive evidence, uh close the hearing and consider a resolution uh to approve the special use permit.

Um, and I'll ask that council accept staff's uh presentation and materials published with the packet as evidence so that it becomes part of the record, and I will let the applicant present.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yeah, but it there.

Like if you need to point.

If you need to point too much.

Click on if you need to recursor.

It has to be on the screen, so they can see it here.

Okay.

So whether it's on the screens on the left, right?

Yes.

Sorry, I lost.

Okay.

Okay.

Just getting the technical details out of the way.

Thank you.

My name is Tom Johnson.

I'm an attorney with the law firm of Williams Mullen at 301 Fayetteville Street, suite 1700 in Raleigh, here on behalf of the applicant.

And thank you, Mayor, and members of council for hearing us tonight.

This is kind of a different situation.

It is we're not coming with a new special use permit as it stated, it's a modification.

And it's because there are two towers that exist there.

There was one that's as I see from the record built in 1966.

Another by modification in 76.

And now we're coming forward with an additional modification for our tower of similar height.

What we're proposing is 195-foot tower, but it has a four-foot lightning rod on top, so it ends up being 199 feet shorter than the towers that currently exist on site, and it'll be a single pole tower, and you'll see that as I get into my presentation.

But I did want to make you know just make the point that this is a modification.

So past councils have heard and approved towers at this site, and for that reason, we thought it was in a very appropriate location to put a new tower.

The first provider on this site will be Verizon Wireless, but it says set up in your ordinance, and certainly is as my client Network Towers wants to do is build the tower and have other carriers on the tower.

So the initial anchor tenant will be Verizon Wireless, but it will be open to other carriers.

Saw this earlier, but this is just an aerial showing where the proposed tower is.

It's essentially on a parking lot that adjoins the open field where the current towers are need for the proposed facility.

It's you know for those living in the Chapel Hill area, but specifically in this location, those traveling uh 501, those traveling Franklin Street, Estee's Drive, the whole shopping areas in this location.

It will enhance wireless coverage, and that includes voice, text, and data coverage.

And those living in the nearby apartments and condominiums and neighborhoods, as well as those you know, being served with emergency responders often use the wireless network for they may have their own personal devices, but other devices may use the network as well.

So it's important to first responders that they have good access to the wireless network.

Um the other thing that will improve obviously the quality of life by providing that kind of connectivity, it provides um you know students access to online educational opportunities, allows employees to work from home, and provides the infrastructure necessary for other wireless carriers, as I said earlier, to expand, as well as allowing emergency workers to the ability to communicate more effectively.

This gives you a basic idea that there's this is not precise, but gives you a general idea of the coverage from this site, basically looking at a circle with a radius of three miles, basically a I mean a diameter of three miles or radius of a mile and a half, and you can look at the populated area that this is intended to cover and provide better service, and it two ways carriers provide service, they provide coverage to provide coverage where the they don't have coverage and capacity because these towers that exist now get over capacity, they have a limit, and so then it causes the signal to get weaker, and therefore that's why you see a degradation in service.

Thing I point to a lot of times is years ago there was a earthquake, and I I was in an office building in Raleigh and the earthquake was in Richmond, but we felt it.

You could not get a call out on your phone.

That shows how capacity works.

Um you you could not get a call out.

You might get a text message out because it uses less bandwidth, but we couldn't get a call out.

So that's the example of how capacity is important as well, and it helps balance the system.

And this gives you an idea.

This is the current coverage on the left is the current coverage.

You can see the stars or location of the proposed location of the tower.

The goal is to have green, which gives you good solid inbuilding coverage.

So you don't have to go outside your house to get coverage or you don't have to be in your car to get coverage.

It gives solid coverage for you in the area.

As you can see on the right we ran this at 120 feet which under the ordinance is the maximum we are asking you to go to 199 as a modification.

And you'll see on the next slide why that makes a difference but as you can see here at 120 it does you know give you the green area in this location but if you go to 190 it also it gives additional area and helps connect with those other surrounding sites to make the green more continuous.

Most folks are wireless only they don't have landline phones anymore.

And in 2023 approximately 75% of adults and 87% of children live in homes without a landline I'm next going to have Oscar Posada come up he is was a designer on the site will have him explain his qualifications and go through some of the site plan and other details of the site.

So Oscar if you could come up give them your qualifications and then explain what it's like mayor members of the council my name is Oscar Posada I currently work as the engineer project manager for network towers and I do hold about 15 years of experience in the telecommunications industry.

First of all as you will note on the screen about 65% of this parcel is surrounded by what's considered a flood zone and a floodway.

Second of all a sewer line is associated as well with the property and basically the associated easement that goes along with that sewer line.

This deems specifically the northwestern corner of this property unsuitable for our development the third point is that there's an existing guy tower on site and as you can tell from the screen there's three different guy anchors associated with that existing tower.

So we have to position our compound and our tower far away enough from these anchors just in the event of a partial collapse of our tower doesn't become an issue for that existing structure.

And finally the remaining 35% of this parcel that lie outside of the flood zone is mostly developed.

So consequently we are left with a relatively limited amount of area that we can utilize for our proposed compound.

Now it is important to know that during the development process network towers consulted closely with the town of Chapel Hills Stormwire Management Division to determine a compound layout that minimizes the impact to the flood zone and consequently we are proposing a retaining wall at the back of this compound to minimize any encroachment into the flood area.

Now additionally to take advantage of the existing paved drive we have precision this compound adjacent to the existing paid parking lot that way it will minimize any further disturbance by a proposed driveway or access road leading towards the site with that in mind we can move on on to the topic of stormwater.

Now I would like to start off by mentioning that a small portion of our compound does lie inside the flood zone that is that is there on site as of right now specifically about 1600 square feet of our compound does lie inside the flood zone.

But to make sure that this will not affect the flood elevations in the area, our engineering team uh perform the stormwater impact analysis and found that the existing conditions and the post-development conditions uh of the site are basically relatively equal and no significant impact of any existing upstream or downstream uh conveyance facilities will be made.

Uh in fact, according to our current design and at the tower uh at the town's uh direction rather, uh, we are proposing a stormwater uh detention facility at the base uh of the compound.

Uh these will uh be capturing stormwater that runs off of our site to make sure it doesn't flow uh into uh Booker Creek.

Uh these will also help uh to satisfy with the water quality standards set by the town.

Uh further, a no-rise certification form has been submitted to the town for review.

This is uh sign and seal by a registered professional engineer.

Now there is the concern uh that there is an open channel that's flowing uh from Milton Avenue onto our subject parcel.

In fact, uh this does flow uh into the general vicinity of the proposed project.

However, it's about 50 feet north of our current uh compound location.

Um care will be made during the construction process to make sure that this channel uh will not be impacted.

Um proper barriers will be put in place to make sure that no uh construction debris or film material uh were to clog or block uh the natural passage uh of stormwater through that channel.

And this leads to our uh tower elevation.

Obviously, we are proposing a 195 foot monopole with a four foot lightning rod for a total of 199 feet in height.

Um the steel finish will be galvanized uh to make sure it matches the background of the sky.

Uh the compound will be surrounded by a seven foot fence, uh boring board fence uh to conceal the equipment inside.

Um the structure will not require any type of lighting.

And as you can tell from the scaled version of the tower elevation, you can see the retention wall uh in the background.

Uh with that in mind, I can either turn it back to Tom.

But let me get you, I do have a couple more questions.

Um first of all, um staff today pointed out that the stormwater impact statement that we had in the record did not have a hundred year um did not address a hundred year flood, it went up to twenty-five.

So we got that redone.

We have the one that goes up to 100.

We gave it to staff, but I did want to make sure that I get that introduced into the record.

Oscar was involved in getting this for us.

So it's um stormwater impact statement, but it's called revision two, and what it does is it it certifies that the site with the facility that Oscar just testified to uh will comply with the 100-year standard that the town of Chapel Hill has.

So if I may I'd like to submit this to council.

You can give it to the clerk.

If you want to sit back, do you have answered hard?

Um the clerk can give them to us.

Thank you.

And then it did have a couple of other questions for you, Oscar.

I know they're she's passing that out.

Um we're asking for some modifications.

I think you're aware of that.

What's the tree canopy coverage on the site?

Because that's one of the modifications we're asking.

Is that the current requirement is 30% coverage?

Uh, what did you find to be the current tree coverage?

Yeah, so based on our calculations, uh, the current site uh meets up to 27% of tree coverage, uh, not 30.

Uh so the as it stands today, the parcel is below the tree the tree coverage requirements uh from 30 to 27.

Uh after our development, um, based on our proposal, it will be reduced by 2%, uh leaving at the property with a 25% tree coverage.

Okay.

And what trees did you have to remove whether they're a part of that?

Can you explain that?

Mainly uh mature, there's 16 of them in particular, it's mainly mature uh pine trees.

And they joined the parking lot that exists now.

There are directly next to the parking lot.

And then um another modification we asked for was about parking space.

There has to be a parking space on site, and as I read the ordinance, it has to be in the compound within the lease area or within the development area has a space bin provided for a parking space.

Can you all speak into the mic a little bit um more closely?

I think um our audio guys are requesting.

I apologize for that.

But as I was saying, um there's a parking requirement.

The ordinance requires that it be either within the compound within the lease area or within the development area.

And have I wanted to ask you if you provided for that parking space.

Yes, so we're trying to take advantage of the existing conditions of the sites as much as possible.

We are uh directly next to a parking area.

I'm talking about just within a walking short walking distance.

So we had talked to the property owner, and he has agreed to allow us to use uh one of the parking spaces within his property uh to be utilized uh directly with the exclusive uh notion for our project.

So after construction, it will be clearly marked, uh clear signage will be put in place, uh deeming this parking lot being reserved, or this parking space rather being reserved for network towers in particular.

And the next modification and the the next modification I wanted to ask about was a third one, which is a 10 foot planted buffer along the site perimeter that we're asking for relief on by putting putting a fence instead, the fence you you stated.

Uh why aren't we doing the planted buffer?

Why preferring the fence?

So if we were to re uh to add a 10 foot buffer to this project, it will further encroach the project into the flood zone, uh, making the footprint a little bit larger.

Um after discussing with staff or with the stormwater division rather, um it was determined that it will be better suited to leave the compound as as small as possible.

And so uh basically an opaque border-board fence is being proposed in lieu of the 10 foot uh buffer for landscaping.

Uh thank you, Oscar.

Uh I would like first of all to have Oscar accepted as an expert in and site tower site design.

And then also accept into evidence the advertised stormwater report that I submitted.

Okay.

Um does anyone have any questions of Oscar while he's up here?

Certainly he's available to answer questions later, but if you would like to ask some questions of him now, feel free.

Council questions?

Councilmember Barry?

Thank you.

Can you remind us, those of us who don't live the state today, the purpose of those buffers?

This the purpose of the sort of landscaping is to conceal the compound equipment itself from the viewshed of public right-of-way or any other locations along the vicinity.

Um so the idea with the boring board fence is to make sure that the equipment is not visible specifically from East Franklin Street or from the uh trail that goes uh east that runs east in our property, the subject property.

Okay.

So given that the towers that already exist there, would you say that they comply with our buffer ordinance or they are mirroring what you're suggesting?

Or something else?

I believe they're mirroring what we're what we're suggesting.

They are basically have a small footprint of a compound up at the at the ground level, and those are composed by a board and border fence.

Okay.

And you say they have a small footprint.

Would your footprint how would that compare in size to these?

I believe the the current site that's there today has a 30 by 30 compound in existence.

Ours is about 35 by 75.

Okay.

That's it for now.

Thank you.

Councilmember McCullough.

Yeah.

Um I was looking at the how many trees you rem you were removing compared to where the the compound is, and it seemed to me that there were trees on the end that were being removed that might not be need to be removed in order to put in the compound.

I believe there's a couple of them on either end of the compound.

Um theoretically, they are outside of the limits of disturbance, yes, but by the time uh the construction uh crews come in, and then obviously they're going to alter the terrain.

The route system is gonna be is gonna be suffering for those trees, and most likely they're gonna die afterwards.

So that's what we're proposing to remove them.

Councilmember Miller Fishi.

Um, just to pick it back off of um that question, does that also um account for the the necessity for maintenance of that tower as well for the removal of those trees?

Um in terms of like this the space like for equipment to come in to maintain the tower and do all of the work sometimes.

Yeah, so our our towers are maintained on a regular basis.

So we do have crews that will come in after construction uh periodically to make sure that this site is maintained, that there's no excess vegetation being grown.

Uh, there is gonna be uh, like I mentioned earlier, uh detention facility at the ground.

Okay.

And that will have to be maintained regularly to make sure it probably it works and functions as is intended to over the period of time.

No, I I get the that it will be maintained.

I'm just um speaking to um the space that you need and the area for that maintenance to be able to take place.

In terms of the design that you have, the way you've designed it, it incorporates all of that.

I'm just trying to get that understanding.

No, it does.

Oh, okay.

It it does.

And let me just speak to it, and Oscar can verify this.

It it gives the space to be able to do that around the compound.

But also the good thing here is we're putting it next to an existing parking lot, as he said earlier.

And when the antenna when the tower is stacked and when the antennas are are put on.

Well, first of all, foundation.

Uh you got to use concrete for the foundation, so you're likely gonna have that type of traffic, but you also have you know, some dirt moving in your right.

We're adding the retaining walls, so we have that additional work.

And then also there will be uh cranes that will come in to stack the tower itself and to put the antennas on the tower.

But the good thing is there's a parking lot next door that allows us to be able to do that.

Okay.

Yeah, and I know like when with the tropical storm Chantau, um, the materials that like the asphalt versus the concrete.

I'm glad to hear that you all are you know considering the types of material you're using in that floodplain to um hopefully share up the infrastructure.

Well, as he said, staff had asked that we avoid doing anything more in the floodplain than we needed to.

So that's why we're well, first of all, we're building it up so it will not be in the floodplain.

Um, but the other part, we're limiting disturbance as much as possible uh within the floodplain upon staff's request, which is why we asked for some of these modifications.

Um we are doing those as well as the stormwater management to help address that because we know this obviously is an area of concern, and we wanted to be careful about that.

Plus, on top of that, as is Oscar pointed out, the access road coming in and out is using an uh existing access, so we're not building our new road, which is a very good thing as well.

Any other questions?

Nope.

Thank you.

Uh next, I'd like to have um Michael Berkowitz come up.

He is the appraiser that prepared the uh impact analysis that is in your um packet that was in the information that was submitted, and he prepared that and is going to address the impact of this project on adjoining property values.

And just state your qualifications.

Certainly.

Good evening.

My name is Michael Berkowitz.

Uh I'm a certified general appraiser, have been in North and South Carolina for over 20 years.

Uh I've been tendered as an expert witness in over 40 jurisdictions, including local, state, and federal court.

Uh for that reason, uh for this project, I was asked to provide an impact study of whether the proposed tower in accordance with your special permit process will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous properties.

But as an appraiser, you can adjust a property either up or down based upon two pieces of evidence, either a quantitative analysis, which is included in this report, which you're able to isolate the impact of any of the cell tower.

Second, which is probably the most compelling evidence with respect to my conclusions, is the fact that on a qualitative analysis, there are not only there are two existing towers on this property, the incremental increase of a third tower to it, not to mention that it's adjacent to a parking lot, commercial development, all of those exterior factors to say that this proposed tower would be a detriment to any of the adjacent or abutting properties, uh would be misleading from an appraiser's perspective.

Uh in fact, one of the dwellings that's on I drove down Milton Avenue, which is adjacent to this, and you can see the tower above the tree canopy to say that the second or the third would be it's that that does it would be misleading and not a credible analysis.

But based upon the quantitative and qualitative analyses included in my report, it's my professional opinion that the proposed development will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous properties, and I'd be happy to answer any of your questions.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

And again, I'd like Mr.

Berkowitz admitted as an expert appraiser on real estate values.

Thank you.

These I'm gonna go through now some pictures, photo simulations that I think you had in your packet.

Um this is obviously looking back at the site at the existing towers from Franklin Street and giving you an idea of where the um the tower will be located.

We did do an analysis of those existing towers to see whether or not they could support the equipment.

Um first of all, they're AM towers and their radio frequency issues that deal with AM towers, but in your packet, there is a structural analysis that took a careful look at this.

Keep in mind these are towers that were built in 1966 and 1976.

They are not built to current standards, and so essentially what you're looking at is a just a complete rebuild of a tower if you were going to do it.

And in this situation, it makes more sense to put the monopole tower at another location that's more heavily wooded and outside the floodplain rather than having to do additional disturbance in the floodplain.

Uh in conjunction with staff is required under your ordinance.

Uh we did photo simulations around the area uh on locations that were recommended by and approved by staff, and these are some of the photo simulations.

I wanted to go through those.

Um here's one again, looking at what the tower will look like directly behind the existing office building there on Franklin Street.

Um this again is at another on uh I believe this is on Elliott Road, looking back, and you can see it.

Uh this is looking from 15501 from some of the apartments there looking back at the site.

You can see the Aldi in the foreground there.

Um this again is looking uh up from Ephesus Church Road, I believe, looking back toward the site, and you can see it again adjoining the apartments.

This really gives you an idea of perspective.

You think you're doing 199 foot tower, but from different locations, the items in the foreground appear to be a whole lot taller, like these apartments, like the utility lines that cross.

So it really blends into the surroundings because um of the difference just in perspective in where you are.

Um this again, an another perspective just above um the roof line of these townhomes.

And again, looking from old Oxford back toward the site, and basically the trees pretty much cover it.

You can barely see it, which the red arrow is used to show that.

And that's the photo simulations we had.

Um, I think there may have been in your packet and slide 19 or 20, there was an additional photo simulation we submitted afterwards because we heard from some of the neighbors in Mill on Milton Avenue, so we went ahead and included those in there.

They're on page 19 and 20 of the photo simulations that you have in your packet.

Um, so those had already been admitted uh into evidence.

So let me I did want to go through and summarize how we meet the findings and the modifications.

Um, finding one is that the use and development is as located or is located designed and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote public health, safety, and general welfare.

Um, as noted, we depend on wireless.

Wireless is important in all that we do for emergency responders to be able to get or for for the public to be able to reach emergency responders and the emergency responders to do their job.

But in addition, as close as this is to is to a commercial area, you not only have major roadways that need access, but you have stores.

I mean, you go through apps that work at your stores or or whatever it may be.

But you have a lot of um a lot of locations here, a lot of density, a lot of retail.

Um they need access to be able to get to emergency responders if necessary.

But the other thing we're doing, as has been explained earlier, is we're avoiding the floodplain.

Um we are uh managing the stormwater.

We're looking after public health and safety by doing that in conjunction with what staff recommended that we do, uh, but preserving as much of the tree canopy as we can to um shield it from the adjoining properties.

Number two, the use or development as is complies with all required regulations and standards of the chapter.

That's in the ordinance.

Staff has concurred with us that it does.

We have done the things to meet the requirements, and we have worked really hard with staff over months to make sure that we do that.

But for the modifications, as staff said in their report, we meet all those requirements.

We've checked all those boxes within the ordinance.

And I do want to point out in that regard the privacy fence that we're putting around the compound.

That would ordinarily be required in a residential area, but we're doing it in a non-residential area again to accommodate for the fact we're not doing the landscaping, but keep in mind that's kind of an upgrade from what would normally be required as well.

Third is a use or development is located, designed and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous properties, and that the or and that the use or development is a public necessity.

Well, Mr.

Berkowitz testified and he did his analysis, which you have and found that it indeed would maintain or enhance the value of contiguous properties.

And I would argue also it's a public necessity in this day and time that you have good effective wireless coverage, both outside and inside your home.

Number four, that the use of development conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the town is embodied in the comprehensive plan.

Staff is in the back of their report, went through the comprehensive plan analysis, and we do check those boxes.

More than more than anything else, this is infrastructure just like electricity, water, and sewer.

So we're providing that, and certainly your comprehensive plan encourages improvement of infrastructure in the town of Chapel Hill.

And next, I want to identify or address the modifications.

But for the sake of safely making sure we checked all the boxes, we are providing that that parking space.

Verizon will get better coverage in that area and match up better with the existing towers in the area with the additional height.

But really more important than that is ATT and T-Mobile.

The other major carriers in the market can come in and locate without having to be concerned about their signal being blocked by ground clutter at the lower heights.

So I would you know ask council to approve it as requested.

If anyone else speaks, I would like to reserve the opportunity to uh provide rebuttal evidence if anybody speaks.

But I thank you for your time, and I am available for questions, or any of my team is available for questions if you have any now or later in the proceeding.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Barry.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

Sure.

Do you have a question about the tree canopy and the reduction, the further reduction there?

We're already out of deficit there.

We've all acknowledged that.

And then two percent.

Well, it's not great.

I would love for you to consider making a financial contribution so that we can plant trees elsewhere in town.

I think that that would be a fair trade-off.

Councilmember Barry, um, in the nature of a special use permit, uh we can't.

We cannot.

Only conditions that can be imposed on a permit have to relate to the evidence presented and specifically to items within that authority on the land use management ordinance.

You're killing my negotiations.

I'll go to that.

And I appreciate the negotiation.

And this is just a challenging site because of the floodplain, and finding a location to be able to mitigate uh the trees we're removing is just next to impossible.

Um, but I appreciate the sentiment.

I really do.

Thank you.

Are there others will uh interested in providing evidence okay?

Council back to you.

If there are no further comments, I need a motion to adopt our six.

So moved.

Second moved by um Councilmember Nollert, seconded by council member Barry.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

Motion is unanimous, six to zero.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Last but not least, item number 14, concept plan review, UNC faculty club at one Alice Ingram Drive.

Um Corey Lyles from our planning department is here to walk us through.

All right, good evening, Mayor members of council.

My name is Corey Lyles with the town's planning department.

Um I'll provide a brief orientation to the site and to the concept plan process, and then the applicant will uh provide more information about the proposal.

Um so what we like to offer as a reminder, and for uh anyone tuning in uh less familiar with concept plans is that uh this is a step in our development process that is required uh before the applicant submits what we would consider a formal development application.

Uh in the case of this site, we expect that to be a special use permit modification.

Uh so tonight is just uh an initial discussion, an initial discussion and opportunity for uh council to provide feedback and hear public comment, but no decisions about the project will be made.

Uh the site we're looking at here is uh off of Barbie Chapel Road.

Where are we going?

Okay, a little hard to see, but uh highlighted in yellow here.

Um it's a little bit south of the Finley Forest community.

Uh it is sort of at the uh eastern edge of uh Chapel Hills Plains jurisdiction.

Uh as you see, this is existing development containing recreation facilities.

Uh, it is commonly known as the farm uh or the UNC faculty club uh tonight will be uh initial opportunity to uh consider this uh proposal through the lens of the complete community goals uh of the town, which are listed here on this slide.

And uh we'll ask that council uh after providing your comments that you adopt a resolution transmitting those comments to the applicant regarding the proposed development.

Uh I'll invite uh Travis Blake to come tell you more about the project.

Thank you.

Thank you, Corey.

Good evening.

My name's Travis Blake.

I helped do the initiation of the Greenways in Chapel Hill and the Tree Ordinance.

I know that was some time ago for all of you, but I have been involved.

Anyway, oh, I'd like to give you just a brief history of the UNC faculty club for those of you who don't know about it or are not a member.

The uh club was conceived around 1967, and um it became the first pool went in about think 68, 69.

Um it goes way back.

My wife actually swam there when she was a kid, and my daughter uh went to the camp uh some years later.

The um it's called the Tetno Claims UNC Faculty Club and Recreation Facility.

Everybody knows it as the farm.

It used to be uh land owned by the Ingrams, and they left it for the purpose of this uh the for the faculty club.

In 2005, the club added a office with a tennis shop and some exercise rooms, and um Chapel Hill just annexed the property.

It's in Durham County, but you have extra jurisdictional control.

And so we uh went forward with to get an SUP, which is approved.

And so um they did that, but then in 2009, the bathhouse had reached a point where it was fairly dilapidated and had to be replaced, and that's when I came in to um replace the bathhouse and permit that as you can imagine permitting uh through Chapel Hill, dealing with the Durham County Health Department and UNC Stormwater, and the state building department is somewhat complicated.

So therefore, I'm not a member.

I've given up tennis and swimming, but I build things, uh tennis and uh club uh courts and things like that, and I've had a lot of fun with the faculty at the farm.

The farm's membership was capped at about 1100 families, the facility just wouldn't support anymore.

And what we're asking for at the SUP eventually is not to increase the membership, but we're trying to make more efficient use of the space we have.

And um just a little technical um there in the application it says a special use permit existing and requested changes.

The proposed is what we're gonna ask for, not what we're going to be building uh the proposed is for the long-term plan.

I we don't want to keep coming back to change impervious and SUP for buildings and and things like that.

So we want to go ahead to and ask for the limit and then no building parking limits, just impervious, which is how all these things are governed.

Um the our plans uh the um can you bring up the uh proposed site plan or is that it?

That's very great.

Okay.

Well, the proposed site plan uh as uh we'll be asking for enough impervious to build a gym.

And we have a lot of um overflow parking that's in grass areas.

It's been hard to maintain as a lawn since the uh club has to rely on a wassaport.

It's water, well, it's not a good use of that to irrigate, and there the wells are non-productive out there.

So we want to convert that to the overflow to pervious, and then we want to take the parking that we already have and make that more efficient, standard parking uh ins and outs, things like that.

The gymnasium is uh or activity center, what we're gonna no one's decided what we want to call it yet, uh, is meant for um you know, to it during the summer when it gets really hot, so the kids can go inside in a controlled environment.

And it's uh they the kids will end up a lot of times a lot of intemperate weather out there, and so this gives them another uh venue, so the kids don't have to go home basically.

So anyway, if uh we eventually get an SUP permitted, we'll present that to the membership.

Right now we're kind of holding back to make sure everything's okay for the spending money.

So any questions council questions okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there members of the public wishing to speak?

There are no there or not.

Um council comments, Councilmember McCullough.

Yeah, um these are some um considerations for the environment.

Um I think it'd be interesting for you to consider Mr.

Floyd.

Sir?

Oh, sorry.

I've got the wondering questions.

These are the comments.

Okay.

Sorry.

This is the feedback section of our program.

Okay.

Um I think you had talked about solar, putting solar on the group.

Um when I built the bathhouse, it I envisioned solar on it, but at the time it wasn't really practical.

And so we want to put solar on the bathhouse, which is an enormous roof, and the um activity center gymnasium.

Uh, we're orientating that so we can put solar on that.

And we're gonna go back and put it on the uh office building as well.

The lodge is not conducive.

But any of the buildings we can.

The cost benefit has been is fantastic because there are no trees around there.

Yeah, and and I would also consider, uh, given that you probably use a hot water, a lot of hot water, I would consider solar hot water uh because the return on investment on that is pretty pretty pretty right off my head.

I would say that's not practical because the um well, I don't know about that.

Well I'm just saying think about it.

Yeah, we use propane now instant, that we don't use tanks.

So what we use now is instant hot water for all the showers in the facility, the bathhouse.

There's a regular hot water heater in the clubhouse.

Okay.

Um yeah, and actually, I guess that was this would have been a question.

Does UNC own this land and will it be considered that they would have to meet the 100-year storm?

Uh UNC does own the land.

Uh there's a ground lease arrangement.

Um this being a special use permit uh for the ordinance would call into effect that 100-year stormwater standard.

Um, we have to meet UNC's stormwater standards, which are much more stringent.

We have to go through their NPDS permit if that's uh we're at 100 year storm, and I think we're probably more stringent than UNC, but why we would ask them.

We have to go through their NPDS permit if that's uh we're at 100 year storm, and I think we're probably more stringent than UNC, but why is it pardon me?

Why is theirs more stringent?

Or I'm not sure.

I believe ours are more stringent.

We have instituted that you have to meet a 100-year storm, and I just wanted to make sure, find out whether UNC also had to do that.

Mr.

Lyles, could you weigh in on who um what rules would apply on this property?

Uh well, I was saying that by doing a special use permit modification that would call into effect just based on the language of stormwater management.

I think we need to explore um what it means for UNC to have ownership of this property and having the parallel involvement of their stormwater office uh as we work through that special use permit process.

For the SUP, we will have a complete stormwater plan for the whole site.

And UNC is requiring that too.

I don't know if you know, but UNC has a total NPDS permit, and so anything they do on any property associated with university is under that permit, including this property.

So we have to adhere to that.

Right, right.

I think ours is more stringent.

But um and that this is gonna be relevant for of course a lot all the other UNC properties that that happen.

Um and just another aside, as long as this is just comments.

Uh the the site is not bikeable.

You can't safely you can't safely get there by bike.

Um y'all might want to consider a trail from the tennis courts um facility um through the woods to here because that would make it.

Well, there's some trails on the property, they're not delineated very well.

Um, but you know, the all the trails that we have, we've actually used the same material we use on the soft courts, and all the trails are are pervious.

The three tennis courts we're proposing do not affect our umpervious limit because they're pervious.

In fact, their design such are actually a stormwater control device in a lot of places.

They have the water goes in it and is held and doesn't come out for a while.

It's interesting.

In fact, we had to get a ruling from the stormwater department in Chapel Hill that it is pervious.

Okay, that's all.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Any other comments for the applicant to consider okay.

Um for myself, I think this is certainly an appropriate use.

Um I don't have concerns um about your proposed future plans, and um I certainly like the um the environmental sustainability um improvements and um I like council member McCullough's ideas about some um more established trails, and this is a wonderful place, and I happen to be a member and my children have spent a lot of time there.

So we go to the haunted house.

Well, the haunted house is not to be missed.

Um I went through it twice this year for two different kids.

Um anyway, thank you very much.

Um if you decide to move forward, we will see you then.

Um council, I need a motion for R7 to transmit comments.

So moved.

Second, thank you.

Move by council member Barry, seconded by Council Member Nollert.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

Motion is unanimous, six to zero.

Um more item before you leave.

Um appointments to the community design commission.

Um, thank you to everyone who applied.

We appreciate your interest in serving our community, and please stay engaged and consider applying next cycle if you were not appointed this time.

So the council appointed Kimberly Andrews, John Biggs, and Rachel Omen to the Community Design Commission.

Umgratulations.

And council, um, that's the end of our meeting, and we will reconvene on November 19th.

Same time, same place.

See you then.

Meeting adjourned.