Welcome to the November 19th meeting of the Chapel Hill Town Council.

This is council's final business meeting of the fall season.

We have three items on the agenda for discussion or action.

Um first, we'll consider options for our vacant council seat.

Second, we'll consider a modification to the conditional zoning for one hundred forty-six Stancil Drive.

And our third item is to consider amendments to the town's land use management ordinance.

Council members, immediately following that item, we will be going into a brief closed session.

Before we begin, um, I want to share a message issued yesterday regarding the presence of federal immigration authorities in the triangle.

This joint statement came from the mayors of Carborough, Chapel Hill, and Hillsboro, along with Ori Orange County Commissioner Chair Jamesetta Bedford.

Um, our Orange County Sheriff and the chiefs of police from Chapel Hill and Hillsboro also released a unified message for which we are deeply grateful.

Um before I read the statement, I want to acknowledge the very real fear and uncertainty this situation is causing for many members in our community.

I am deeply proud and grateful for the strong collaboration among our Orange County partners and for our shared commitment to protecting and supporting every member of our community.

So uh we reaffirm that in Carberough, Chapel Hill, Hillsboro, and across Orange County, our communities are made better by the diversity of people within them.

We also ask that community that community members rely on trusted organizations that provide accurate information and assistance.

Yes, I need to speak into the microphone.

So this November, the town of Chapel Hill recognizes the importance of clean, affordable water for all members of our community.

And over 19% of Chapel Hill households live below the poverty level, and many face challenges paying essential water and sewer bills.

Since 1997, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority's Care to Share program has helped local families by providing utility bill assistance, supporting 84 households with more than $25,700 in donations last year alone.

As we celebrate the thankfulness this month, we encourage residents to give back by contributing to Care to Share through their Awasa bill or with a one-time gift.

Together, we can ensure every household has access to the clean water our community depends on.

And we would like to give you all this proclamation with our sincere thanks from our community and from the council.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our second proclamation is for Small Business Saturday, and I'd like to invite members of our small business community along with Ian Scott from the Chamber and David Putnam, our economic development director, to join Councilmember Sharp up front for that announcement.

The town of Chapel Hill is proud to recognize the vital role that our small and locally owned businesses play in the strength and character of our community.

With more than 9,400 businesses contributing to Chapel Hill's vibrant economy, local entrepreneurs help drive job creation and keep a significant share of spending circulating close to home.

Nationally, small businesses make up 99.9% of all U.S.

firms and employ nearly half of America's workforce, underscoring their essential impact.

In celebration of their contributions and in keeping with the nationally recognized small business Saturday tradition, the mayor and town council officially proclaimed Saturday, November 29th, 2025 as Small Business Saturday in Chapel Hill.

In doing so, we encourage residents and visitors alike to shop local, support our neighbors, and help sustain the small businesses that make Chapel Hill extraordinary.

Thank you all.

And thank you, Councilmember Sharp, a small business owner yourself.

And don't forget to shop small this fall.

Would you all please join Council Member Barry up front for that announcement?

Councilmember, as a heads up, we're all invited to join in the group photo once the proclamation has been read.

And then once everyone is seated again, since this is the first time to my knowledge that we are honoring Native American Heritage Month, Ms.

Indy in North Carolina will share a few remarks with us.

Good evening, everyone.

November is Native American Heritage Month, a time to recognize and celebrate the history, culture, and contributions of American Indian communities across North Carolina and the nation.

With more than 130,000 American Indians living in all 100 counties, North Carolina is home to one of the largest Native populations in the Eastern United States.

We honor the eight state-recognized tribes and four urban Indian organizations that continue to enrich our communities through leadership, culture, and service.

The Town of Chapel Hill proudly proclaims November 2025 as Native American Heritage Month and encourages everyone to learn about and honor the rich traditions, diverse cultures, and enduring contributions of Native Native Americans to our community, state, and nation.

And as the great granddaughter of Native American on my grandmother's on my paternal grandmother's side, I'm especially grateful to be able to present this this evening.

Thank you.

Did you want to present?

We're going to do the photo for some.

Okay.

Oh, and the sash is amazing.

Good evening, everyone.

It is such an honor to join you all and represent the Native people of North Carolina.

My name is Paige Freeman, and I'm a proud citizen of the Lumbia Tribe of North Carolina with strong affiliations to the Cahari and Wacama Suan Tribal Communities.

And I have the absolute honor of serving as the 2025-2026 Miss India, North Carolina.

Outside of my role as Miss Indian North Carolina, I work at the UNC American Indian Center as the program coordinator for community engagement, and I serve on the board for the Triangle Native American Society based in Raleigh, North Carolina.

My platform as Miss Indian North Carolina is titled For Generations to Come.

Through my platform, I travel the state encouraging Native youth to bridge the generational gap and unite with our elders to ensure that our traditions continue for the next generation.

Once again, it's such an honor to be here with you all today.

And I would like to present the council with a few posters to hang up here in the center.

And uh and invite you all to the uh 30th annual American Indian Heritage Month celebration that will be taking place this Saturday at the North Carolina Museum of Art in Raleigh.

It will be a day full of culture, community, dancing, music, an amazing celebration of Native American Heritage and Culture.

I will be there serving as the head lady for our Powell, so I would love to see some familiar faces in the audience.

And then I also would like to present to the council the 2025 Native American Heritage Month poster created by Idallis Dow, a member of the Kahari tribe and a citizen of Durham County, so one county over.

Once again, it's such an honor to join you all, and I thank you, Council, for taking the time to recognize Native American Heritage Month and all the um all the change and all the impact that Native people have had in not only the Chapel Hill community but in North Carolina and beyond.

So thank you so much.

And once again, I'm Paige Freeman, the 2025-2026 Miss Indian North Carolina.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Miss Freeman.

Um, and thank you all for joining us for this inaugural um announcement tonight, where we are very excited to honor, celebrate, and learn more about Native American culture and the role Native Americans have played in shaping our local community and our state.

Um that brings us to announcements.

I have a couple of quick things to share.

Um, first, we want to extend our appreciation to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners for allocating $54,000 toward food distribution in support of individuals and families impacted by suspension of SNAP funds.

Um, for anyone who continues to need assistance, the town will be holding our next food distribution on Wednesday, November 26th at the Ubanks Park and Ride.

Um, other resources are available through the county and our community partners, so please do reach out.

And for those able to help, um, please continue to help out by donating or volunteer volunteering your time with our local partners.

Um, second, a reminder that Chapel Hill and Carrborough will be holding our annual holiday parade on Saturday, December 6th, starting at 10 a.m.

This year we are going in reverse.

So we will begin at 501 West Weaver Street in Carborough and end in downtown Chapel Hill at 140 West Franklin.

So when you're making plans about where to stake out your viewing spot, please make note of that change.

Forty plus community groups will be participating this year, and we look forward to seeing everyone there.

Third, our new town council will be sworn in on December 3rd at 6 p.m.

here in council chambers.

So I hope you all can make that as well.

Council members, does anyone have something to share?

Councilmember McCullough.

Yes.

I just want to thank all the people who are leaving their leaves this year.

That helps our pollinators and our soil health.

And if you would like to take the leave your leaves pledge and or get a sign uh for leave your leaves, um if you can contact the New Hope Bird Alliance or our sustainability staff at Chapel Hill, um we have our sustainability staff has done a video to help explain how you can um effectively leave your leaves.

So I encourage everybody to do that, and I want to thank those that are doing that to help our our pollinators and our soil health.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um we invite members of the public to comment on items not listed on the printed agenda.

Um for members of the public in attendance and wishing to speak, please sign up with the town clerk in the front of the chambers.

And um if you're 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, Mayor Pro Tem Ryan will call two names at a time.

The first person should come to the podium, and the second person is on deck, so please come down to um the the front row or two and be ready when it's your turn.

Um finally public comment is very important to us, and I want to remind our audience that we want everyone to be heard and to feel comfortable speaking.

Um so please refrain from commenting or clapping.

Okay, first I have Craig Nishimoto, followed by Marcus Newlander.

My name is Craig Nishimoto, I'm a local arborist.

Local ordinances are local law.

Only the town council can create, amend, or repeal them.

No one else has that legislative authority.

Last week we presented clear violations of specific ordinances.

Yet the town manager responded that no violation occurred because quote a written permit was issued that allowed what happened to happen.

A written permit was issued that allowed what happened to happen.

So what written permit supposedly overruled ordinance?

Was it something that the town council approved?

It can't be the council's conditional zoning approval.

Sometimes called a zoning atlas amendment.

This is something you guys voted on.

That was legislative action, but it reaffirmed the ordinance requirements.

It didn't relax them.

For example, condition 40 required that, quote, the developer shall comply with all standards of the design manual.

End quote.

And the LUMO defines shell as mandatory.

So the council did not authorize the breach standards at Little John Road.

What other permit could it be?

What about the staff issued zoning compliance permits?

On these, the LUMO limits staff authority explicitly.

It says under no circumstances may the town manager change, grant exceptions, or vary from any regulation in the LUMO.

And a zoning compliance permit is defined as a permit issued in accord with the requirements of the LUMO.

That's part of the definition of these permits.

So if staff issued a permit that conflicts with the ordinance.

The ordinance prevails, not the permit.

So then from a technical standpoint, the town manager emphasized this standpoint.

Ordinances were violated.

Permits cannot legally erase those violations.

Following me are members from the uh not not-for-profit TRGC, and they're going to expand on this response.

Hi, nice to see you guys again.

I'm Marcus Newlander, I'm a student at Chapel Hill High School.

And last week, uh town manager Voorhees told us that the spirit of the ordinance had been had not been upheld and that damages happened.

He says that he's confident that we can do better as a town.

So why are you still pressing this technical question of ordinance violations?

Let's reverse it.

Why is town staff so insistent that no ordinances have been violated?

Consider the feat.

In the face of everything they have been shown, town staff have uniformly and steadfastly refused to concede even an inch for seven months.

They've done this without once providing a substantive evidence for their position.

And now, when the town manager finally offers a reason, the reason does not hold up.

Wouldn't it have been easier to concede the ordinance violations?

What's preventing that?

And we believe that the town staff are driven by a desire to avoid their responsibility.

They do not want to make amends.

And to Chapel Full's credit, many in this town are concerned about historical wrongs committed by people once in power against past generations.

It is absurd that the same town now goes to such lengths to deny responsibility for the harm it is doing to its current community.

Think carefully about what the town is doing right now to Gail Roberts, Flavisha Chang, Jeff Brown, and Jen Layton.

Show us that this is not about evading responsibility and do right by the people who have been wronged on Little John Road.

We will no longer care about arguing over whether an ordinance was violated, and we will believe you when you say you can do better.

Right now we are putting people in real danger by damaging the trees and allowing a removing wind buffer and risking those trees falling on the residence of Little John Road.

How would you feel if no one was held responsible and everybody was let off scot free for their deaths?

Thank you.

Hello.

Okay.

My name is Addie Nishimoto, and I'd like to share a helpful analogy.

So you buy a house, a newly built house in Chapel Hill.

Within a month, your dining room ceiling caves in.

The rafters hang through broken drywall.

A repairman inspects the damage and shows you the problem.

The roof wasn't built to code.

The builder skipped the required diagonal bracing.

It's a miracle only one session collapsed.

The repairman leaves with you with a copy of the building code.

You relay this to the builder.

He replies, I followed approved plans.

If you think a code is violated, take it up with the inspector.

So you call the town's inspections department.

The same person who approved of the faulty plan arrives.

He looks back and forth between the plan and your sagging roof and can announces, I don't see a problem.

The builder followed the plan.

Meanwhile, more of your roof caves in.

By now you've covered your home with tarps.

You've memorized building codes.

You've emailed town staff, who has stopped responding long ago.

From time to time, you get a cheerful message from the town's communications specialist.

But she can't talk about building codes.

For seven months, you keep pushing.

Finally, the town manager weighs in.

We have concluded that building codes have not been violated.

On the technical grounds that a building plan was approved that allowed what happened to happen.

Does it help you that the town manager also acknowledges that your roof has caved in?

Does it help that he is confident they can do better?

Thank you.

That's all.

Sorry, Walter Nugent, followed by Teddy Hess.

Hello.

My name is Walter Nugents.

In an ideal world, town staff could be trusted with broad discretionary powers.

They know the ordinance and understand the reasons behind them.

And they made mistakes, and even the best people make mistakes, they would acknowledge them, correct them, learn from them.

Through understanding, carefulness, and judgment, then earn the community's trust to guide land use wisely.

But understanding, carefulness, and judgment are still celebrated precisely because they are rare.

In the real world, staff discretion must be limited.

Yes, the town manager and his designees are authorized to make field adjustments to protective fencing.

But that authority exists only to make minor modifications in response to field conditions.

Changes that do not materially breach standards.

It is not a license to ignore the minimum requirement for the landscape protection plan, nor to undermine the very purpose of protective fencing.

Allowing others would nullify the ordinance.

If that is the direction this town wishes to go, then then be honest about it.

Call your ordinances guidelines instead of LUMO, land use management ordinance, start calling it Lung, land use management guidelines, forced self-sail out loud, Lung.

Nullifying the ordinance also means ceding full authority over land use to staff who, for seven months, have demonstrated no ability to understand or uphold the spirit of the tree protection ordinance, or even learned from a mistake.

These are planners who made the same errors two years ago and are still making them this summer.

Have you seen what is happening right now at 325 Glendale Drive?

Teddy Hess, followed by Ellis Cundiff.

My name is Teddy Hess.

Last week, the town manager proposed three different ways we can do better in the future.

His first suggestion was to make improvements to the LUMO.

But where it mattered, the current LUMO was already clear and remains clear today.

As a minimum requirement, the landscape protection plan must identify all rare and specimen trees and their critical root zones within fifty feet of the proposed disturbance.

And protective fencing shall be installed according to town standards.

This is admirable clarity for a local ordinance.

Rare and specimen trees are defined.

Critical root zone is defined.

The town standards for protective fencing are defined.

Had staff simply enforced these requirements, we would not be facing real damages and ongoing risks to people and property on Little John Road.

The problem is not that the LUMO is unclear.

The problem is that the town staff ignored it and still refuses to acknowledge that they ignored it.

How would refining a LUMO fix that?

How will future revisions address the damage already done this summer to the home and property of Felicia Chang and Jeff Brown?

There are certainly ways to strengthen the tree protection ordinance, and we would gladly help Chapel Hill improve it.

But none of these improvements matter if the town continues to disregard the clear and important standards of the ordinance it already has.

Hello, my name is Ellis Cundiff, and I'm here to offer the next statement.

The town manager's second proposal is consideration of the design manual and how it should speak to these issues.

What does that mean?

Both the LUMO and the Council's zoning atlas amendment conditions make the design manual's protective fencing standards mandatory, not optional.

And those standards could not be clear.

On page 140, immediately after defining critical root zone, the design manual states protective fencing should be installed to protect no less than 75% of a tree's critical root zone.

Because silk fence installation requires cutting roots, it should be located outside critical root zones of protected areas.

The problem is not that these standards are unclear.

The problem is that the town staff refuses to acknowledge the violations of them, even after thorough documentation.

What would changing the design manual accomplish if staff simply ignores it again?

How will design manual improvements help Gail Roberts today when the town's disregard for these standards has already destabilized a large specimen pine now leaning towards her house?

What about the 25 and a half inch willow oak now threatening her house and shed because of cut roots?

What about the damage of her rare 30-inch willow oak?

Like any document, the design manual can be improved.

We would gladly assist with that work, but no improvement matters if the town continues to disregard the clear and essential standards in the design manual already has.

Thank you.

Max Chen, followed by Bill Marcella.

My name is Max Chen, and I will share our final statement tonight.

The town manager's final proposal is to change permitting procedures.

But Chapel Hill is only now making progress in streamlining the said approvals.

The last thing this council should do is add more bureaucracy to fix something that wasn't even caused by process.

It was caused by human error.

Here's the simpler solution.

Acknowledge the violation.

Acknowledge the impacts.

Direct staff to make things right.

A rare tree can't be replaced, but there are established ways to compensate for losses.

And taking responsibility sends a message that mistakes have consequences.

Fix the culture.

Procedures matter far less when staff admit errors and learn from them.

But if you respond to staff error by changing process, instead of expecting accountability, you reinforce impunity and shield incompetence.

Chapel Hill has excellent staff.

Support those who solve problems.

Take responsibility and learn, but insist on accountability.

It starts on Little John Road.

Thank you.

And the final speaker I have is Bill Marcello.

I'm here wanting to address remark the young lady over here made about leaves.

And I'm a property owner here in Chapel Hill.

And among many of us, we never heard about a discussion as to leaving the leaves or not leaving the leaves or having them vacuumed.

We found out after we paid our taxes, which was a huge increase this year.

And then we all suddenly got this little card in the mail letting us know that we are no longer going to have the mail to pick up other leaves.

For 20 years, I've raked my own leaves.

I've brought these to the street, I have mulch leaves.

I've got quite a big lot and a lot of trees.

But I don't think you realize how many people have unique circumstances that does require that those leaves be managed in some way and manage it completely by yourself without the asset, the service that the vacuum of the leaves represented to us has been a wake-up call for us.

We're going to have to organize in order to be able to try and bring our circumstances to life.

And again, it's sad that we never got the opportunity to discuss it.

Most people I talked to never heard about the fact that there was a discussion here with the council.

So anyway, uh we will go ahead and get back with you because it is a huge problem for a community around some of the lakes here in the older houses where we have trees and trees and trees.

So expect that we'll be back to talk to you.

Thank you very much.

What?

Hi there, I'm Jim Layton.

I live in Little John Road.

You've obviously heard a lot about me tonight.

Several of you in the house to see the trees that are still laying across my backyard.

Um I just wanted to remind everyone tonight of all the things that we have been told the town cannot do in this situation.

They cannot require the developers to be good neighbors.

They cannot require that they don't drill by our house ten hours a day, six days a week for months on end.

They can't require that they don't spray debris into our yard when they're blasting with dynamite.

They can't step in to stop them from knocking our trees over.

They can't produce inspection records showing when people came to see if those trees are being damaged.

And we can't take action because the permits that were issued contradict what we're allowed to do.

But it'sn't very clear what we are allowed to do.

We can sleep in our living room on the couch when we're afraid that we're gonna die in a storm.

Um we can leave pictures off of our walls because they're constantly being knocked over.

We can set up emergency text chains in our neighborhood to see if our neighbors have been crushed under trees.

We can buy sandbags to deal with the stormwater runoff, which is not managed.

Um we can prepare for ambulances to be unable to reach us when that same water cuts out the only access to our neighborhood while trees are actively falling on our houses.

Um we can personally shoulder any costs associated with that.

Um for months we begged for help.

We emailed, called, sent photos, we came to council, we came to working groups, we hired multiple certified arborists, and still we were told we don't see violations.

We had three separate sets of trees fall onto fences, into yards, onto porches, and even onto our neighbors' homes, landing on their newborn babies nursery who had been home for a week.

We have documented roots being cut inches from the trunk.

The trees that I personally lost range from 50 to 150 years old.

For me, that loss is effectively permanent.

I will not live long enough to see these trees regrow.

And if I'm lucky, maybe one day my grandchildren can see them regrow.

Um these harms are not unpredictable.

We predicted them several times here to the council.

That's exactly what these ordinances are meant to fix.

And then, of course, last week we were told this is a failure of execution and not policy.

For us, that means that even when the ordinances is not followed, even when permits are issued incorrectly, the town's not able to do anything to intervene.

People can still be hurt.

There are trees that are still up.

You can still act.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh that's the last speaker.

Okay.

Um next, uh, that brings us to our consent agenda.

Council members, do I have a motion to approve?

So moved.

Second.

Move by Councilmember Ryan, seconded by Councilmember Nollert.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

Uh motion is unanimous.

Eight to zero.

Um.

Okay.

Up next is item five regarding the town council vacancy.

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

This vacant position is one of the council seats that was on the November 4th ballot.

As a result, the seat will be filled on December 3rd when the newly elected council is sworn in.

As a result, in keeping with town ordinance, the process for filling the vacant seat is concluded.

Anyone signed up to speak?

Okay.

Council, any final comments?

Okay.

In closing out, there were a number of individuals who applied to fill this position.

We'd like to thank them for their interest in serving and encourage them to stay engaged in local government.

Up next is item six modification to the conditional zoning for 146 Stancil Drive.

And Anna Scott Myers is here to walk us through.

I am going to pull up the applicant's presentation first, and then I'll do a presentation for staff.

Mayor, members of council, manager, Adam Golden with Northwood Raven.

We saw you last week and presented this, and I truly appreciated everyone's feedback and the conversation.

And I think I will just stand by for questions.

Okay.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Anna Scott Myers.

I am here to present on behalf of staff for the conditional zoning modification at 146 Stancil Drive, otherwise known as Hillmont.

We were here last week, so I'm gonna try to make it quick.

A reminder of where we are talking about.

The site is located just off of NC 54 with frontage on Stancil Drive and Barbie Chapel Road.

Again, this is the district specific plan from the previously approved conditional zoning district for the site.

We put this up because this block E where the buildings are, buildings one through five, I believe, are the numbers.

Um section of the ordinance, and that's where the affordable housing units are going to go.

Staff's recommendation is that the requested modification is in alignment with the complete community goals and the comprehensive plan, and we recommend that council consider the modification request.

Quick summary of the existing approvals.

The ordinance was approved in November 2023 for up to 500 units.

A zoning compliance permit was issued in August 2025, which requires 43 affordable units.

50 percent of those units are for households earning 60 percent AMI, and the other 50 percent are for units.

Um of units are for households earning 80 percent of AMI.

Um to summarize the proposed modification.

Uh the request is to modify the existing conditional zoning to amend the affordable housing plan section.

Um it will include a new 1.15 million dollar contribution to the town's affordable housing funding program and will change the number of affordable units to a minimum of 20.

All of the other conditions of the approval are unchanged, and if council denies this request, the existing approval remains in effect.

Planning commission did review this application and transmitted comments to the council.

So procedurals for tonight, we ask that you close the hearing, consider the resolution of reasonableness and consistency with the comprehensive plan, and consider uh approving the ordinance.

Um consider the ordinance approving the conditional zoning as amended.

And I'm also here for questions.

Thank you.

Um council clarifying questions?

Councilmember Ryan.

Yeah, so it looks like that the units that remain will all be in one building.

No, they won't be.

Can we get to the plan?

Thank you.

So if um so we had a couple of projects in front of you uh in short order.

Uh and this project, if the cursor will work for me.

So we have these five buildings.

They're the largest buildings of the project.

They encompass 375 of the 468 units.

The units will be located in all five of those buildings.

Oh, great.

In all units stemming from studio one, two, and three bedroom units.

Great.

Thank you.

And I guess this is a question for staff.

I'm apologize, I wasn't here last week.

Um has the housing department weighed in on the offer?

Yes.

Sarah is here if you want to talk to her with specific questions, but um I think to summarize, Sarah, uh we support um both units and the uh having a contribution to the affordable housing um fund, and so um both are valuable to the town, so it's really up to council just to decide um how to act.

Sarah, do you want to add to that?

No objection.

Thank you.

Councilmember Barry.

Thank you.

I have a clarifying question about the number of units.

I thought last week when you presented it was 23, and today I'm learning that it is because I must have missed it somewhere.

So I apologize.

That it's a minimum of 20.

It's it's always been 20.

It's always been 20.

Yeah, with this.

Yeah.

So is it 23?

That was what the count was?

Because it was 43 originally.

It was 43 originally.

Okay, and so the 23 were the ones that we calculated to arrive at the amount.

The cash.

Okay.

Exactly.

That's right.

Any members of the public wishing to speak?

Uh I don't have anyone signed up.

Councilmember Nollart.

I'd like to move resolution A.

Second.

Move by Councilmember Nollert, seconded by Councilmember Miller Fushi.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Did you need you say as amended?

Sorry.

Uh, that was closing the hearing.

Oh, sorry.

Sorry, sorry.

Yeah.

And I'd like to move ordinance A as well.

Second.

The last motion was unanimous, sorry.

Um move by Councilmember Nollert, seconded by Councilmember Miller Fushi.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

Motion is unanimous, eight to zero.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Fancy, are you?

Okay.

Next up.

Um we are considering item number seven, our omnibus text amendment to the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance and Town Code.

Taz Lagoo from planning is here to walk us through.

All right.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the council.

I'm Taz Lagu with the planning department.

Um hopefully having a relatively quick presentation for you this evening.

Um just to reiterate some points and offer some clarifications around our proposed text amendments to the town code and land use management ordinance.

Um this being your second hearing on the proposed amendments, uh staff's recommendation for you this evening is to close the public hearing uh and to adopt uh R2, uh finding that the proposed amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan, and enact ordinance three, um, which would enact the the proposed amendments.

Uh just as a quick reminder, uh, you know, these omnibus text amendments can cover kind of a wide range of topics.

Um the package in front of you this evening includes a set of amendments to our development processes, right?

Everything from consid concept plan review, uh kind of at the larger scale of projects, all the way down to site plans and subdivisions dealing with with smaller scale projects.

Uh the package in front of you also includes uh a set of amendments to development standards, or again, kind of a broad range of topics, everything from lot layout standards, the size and shape of lots, um, all the way down to to signs.

Um, what sort of signage of a commercial property might be able to put up in their building.

Um I'm gonna touch on just a couple of these topics, uh certainly not go through all of them this evening.

Um just touch on uh uh a small update that's in the ordinance relative to the October 22nd meeting, uh, and then just offer a couple of points of clarification based on questions from the uh the prior meeting.

Uh the one update in the ordinance um before you this evening is is a pretty technical correction.

We, in engaging with some stakeholders through the drafting process, found that there was some additional improvements that we could make in our subdivision ordinance, as you'll remember.

Generally speaking, the subdivision ordinance, the amendments in that section are geared towards giving staff the authority to approve subdivisions because it is again a purely administrative decision.

We've just made some technical corrections to requirements for how a plat is drawn or prepared.

Again, a plat is just the map that accompanies a subdivision approval and memorializes kind of the new lines on a map that signify where a lot is.

So the only corrections there are some of the standards around who can prepare those.

We just had some antiquated language that wasn't up to date with industry standards.

So we've cleaned up that language to just make it a little bit more clear and consistent with our neighbors.

So that's the only change in the ordinance that we're proposing for this evening.

Next, I just wanted to touch on a couple of points of clarification, I think, based on questions from the October 22nd meeting on this topic.

They're all going to relate to conditional zoning.

The first relates to this notion of the number of hearings that would be required to adopt a conditional zoning application.

Again, the proposal in front of you allows, but in no cases would require council to act after a single hearing.

That that is critical, right?

That distinction of allow but never require.

Second clarification I just wanted to make was around the affordable housing process.

Again, our recommendation for you this evening is to streamline kind of our generally applicable conditional zoning application.

And we accomplish that in the code by by consolidating all three of our separate uh conditional zoning processes into a single kind of unified process that takes the lessons learned from those other kind of more streamlined processes and applies them across the board.

And we've had a lot of great lessons learned from the affordable housing process because it's been around for three years.

It's not quite uh three years today, it was November 16th, 2022, um, that you all passed the affordable housing process.

Um it was my first presentation to you all, so uh thank you for coming on this three-year journey with me.

Um and we've learned a lot in that time, right?

Um in those three years, uh we've had 16 total residential conditional zoning applications reviewed and um in some cases approved, some cases denied by town council.

Um of those 16, three were LITEC projects that were approved through the affordable housing process.

Um, and only one was a mixed income project that came through the affordable housing process and was denied.

Um so what we've got is you know, if if we had, you know, three years ago kind of talked about this affordable housing process as a pilot, um, we would have kind of run the course of that pilot.

Three years is a lot of time to understand how processes work, what they do and don't uh achieve for the town, um, and what we would or wouldn't be losing if we kind of move on from them.

Um so I think what the last three years have shown us is that this process um is remarkable at supporting the unique constraints that light tech projects um have to deal with.

Light tech developers are dealing with very short timelines between when they might gain interest in a site and need to get a zoning or other entitlement in place to move forward with state requirements.

And this pro this process has and will continue uh to work really well with those specific constraints for Litech properties.

But it hasn't done much else, right?

It hasn't delivered other results for the town.

And so we we know that those improvements, those process improvements are going to continue to support LightTech properties and light tech developers even once they're consolidated into the full process.

But we also have the opportunity to really open the doors a bit, right, to get more diversity in the types of folks that are trying to do business in Chapel Hill.

Um and then allow the powers of the conditional zoning process, which are really not at all diminished by streamlining the process.

We don't streamline or diminish the powers of the process.

Those powers, which have proven to be really exceptional in delivering community benefits for the town, are still in place.

There's still levers and buttons that can be pushed and pulled to get the sorts of development that we want.

And so again, just as a reminder, I know there's a lot in the uh, I think 13 module ordinance in front of you this evening, um, a mix of improvements to our development processes and development standards.

Um again, our recommendation for you this evening is to adopt R2 and enact ordinance three.

Uh happy to take any questions you may have.

Thank you, Taz.

Questions.

Okay.

Are there members of the public wishing to speak?

There are.

Absolutely.

Council member Barry.

I was contemplative here.

One question that we've gotten from the public, or one concern that we've gotten from the public, is if we do away with the concept plan review, um, then they have lost their opportunity to weigh in.

And it's my understanding that the concept plan review will be at a higher level and not so not so granular in details, the engineering won't be as as great.

Um I support that.

What I am curious about is just when does the public get to weigh in, and can you help us understand that timeline of the application process?

Because I think a lot of people are hung up on the concept plan review, the way that we've done business.

So help us to see beyond that portion.

Yeah.

So I think if we're working in a in a world where there's no more concept plan review, um the first kind of official notice that a development might be moving forward, or at least that an application is in the door, would be a public information meeting.

Um we we hold those public information meetings, we ask the applicant to provide um kind of information to the public pretty early on in the process.

It usually happens within the first month or two of receiving an application in the door.

Sometimes that that you know moves a little bit here or there, just depending on on scheduling constraints.

But that public information meeting is is typically the first or would typically be the first kind of touch point.

Um after that, right, um the project is you know, for the most part being reviewed by by town staff at a technical level.

Um, but the council inbox is open, um, council members that are interested in in talking to members of the public always have an opportunity to do so.

Um so basically, as soon as the public becomes aware of a project, in this case through a public information meeting, they have an opportunity to share their opinions about the project.

Um we typically um you know share um application materials with the public, right?

So um members of the public have an opportunity to interrogate a project at you know not quite the exact same level as staff, but at a similar level.

Um and so that you know, right now that's a process from application submission to getting in front of planning commission can take six to eight months.

Um but throughout that process, right?

The the phone lines are open, the email inboxes open, the the doors are open, so to speak, to talk to decision makers about the project.

Um and then kind of the official public hearings start.

Planning commission and council um hearings are are always opportunities for uh members of the public to speak directly to the decision makers.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

And so then my question, next question is how do we notify the public and who gets notified?

Yes, two questions.

Um we um we use postcards.

Um we've uh recently actually, thanks to um efforts spearheaded by a colleague of mine, Catherine Shore, um, really in interrogated again the way we use postcards to to notify folks.

Um we we don't just, for example, um email or send postcards to property owners, which is kind of the legal baseline.

Um we also make sure to send postcards to to renters or or other occupants of residences in the area so that we're reaching a wider audience, right?

We recognize that it's not just property owners that have a stake in in what's happening next door.

Um so postcards are a kind of the the tried and crude way of making sure that we're we're getting something in front of a person.

And so now also renters, and I really appreciate that because I know that we've had comments from the public of people who rent on the renter.

There's at least one other renter on this board.

Um but how far spread is that?

Does that dissemination go?

Yeah, it's usually um, and I would have to remind myself of the the policy Corey might be able to remind me.

Um but it it is anywhere from um adjacent properties to in some cases there may be a radius around the impacted um, you know, whatever properties the subject of the application, um we might draw a radius around that um and make sure that anybody that falls within that radius gets uh the postcard notifications.

Um postcards are you know that's kind of our analog notification tool.

Um we we also have you know digital opportunities, our our um our website, which is um you know always a work in progress, and there's definitely room for improvement in the website and how we use those digital tools.

Um but we also make a lot of information about pending projects um available online for for those that you know are are more interested to look into it.

Okay.

Um my next question is uh I have also heard from a member of the community about the manufactured homes uh portion that is in here, and we are concerned there is concern about um protection for the people who live there.

You know, it it tell us the aim of that portion uh that portion of the limo.

Yeah.

So unfortunately, um the handful of manufactured home communities in Chapel Hill are all in this kind of legal limbo right now.

They all have what's called non-conforming status, which means that they were ostensibly legal at the time that they were built because I think to a T, all of them were actually outside of town limits when they were first established.

So they were legal under the county rules at the time that they were established, and the town uh kind of came to them, right?

The town annexed over time and grew and applied our rules uh kind of retroactively to those properties.

Um a mild protection that we offer in those situations is this idea of non-conforming status, that um if town rules kind of after you've been established change under you and suddenly say that the thing that you used to be doing is now no longer legal.

Umconforming status is that you can you can continue to do the thing that you're doing, right?

You can continue to be a manufactured home community.

But it comes with a a really significant and limiting caveat, which is that you really can't change.

Um you can do basic repair and maintenance, um, but anything that expands the use, anything that moves structures or relocates the use on a site is not allowed.

And so in the case of a manufactured home community, what we've basically done is is that non-conforming status, it it helps a little bit, but it also hurts because it locks them in amber, kind of.

Um, you know, and that that has a lot of negative consequences.

It means that if a manufactured home community wanted to um pave some of their interior roads, if they wanted to put down walkways, if they wanted to build um community amenities, they couldn't, because that would be considered an expansion of the use.

If units on the site of a manufactured home community needed to be relocated for any reason, they couldn't, because that would be considered a uh a moving of the use on the site.

Um if some of these manufactured homes that were built in probably the 60s or 70s were to be replaced with a modern manufactured home, which tend to be larger, um you couldn't, because that would be considered an expansion of a non-conforming use.

And so all of those things, they really just kind of lock these manufactured home communities in in a point in time.

Um so what we're proposing is to basically like bring them into the light, right?

Give them kind of bona fide legal status as a permitted use.

And it allows kind of these quality of life improvements for residents.

Does it in your I'll just ask, does it give license for that manufactured home community to be converted into a non into a more permanent question?

It does not.

Today it's actually in most cases, it's uh it would actually be easier under our existing rules, it would be easier to redevelop an existing manufactured home community into something else than it would be to make the sort of quality of life improvements that I was I was mentioning.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

That's all for me.

Councilmember Miller Fushi, followed by Councilmember Sharp.

Thank you.

I'm gonna pick up where you just put that down.

Um I was really excited to see about the permitted use for our manufactured home communities.

Um I think the concern, the heart of the concern is um with this new permitted use, um does it help to evoke um pressures that don't already exist in terms of redevelopment?

And I hate asking the question because like it's asking you to look into some sort of crystal ball or whatever, but I think that is the primary concern, like the effect of the amendment, the streamlining the opportunity is it going to trigger pressures that didn't exist?

Or is it just the same kind of pressure that these communities are going to be facing with this new permitted use?

I can I can never speak in absolutes, right?

It's a difficult place to be in.

Um I will say again, the the dynamic that a manufactured home community is in today is that it's actually easier to redevelop into something totally different than it is to make basic quality of life improvements.

And the benefit of lifting that nonconforming use status is that it at the very least it puts quality of life improvements, um, whether it's again switch moving up to a bigger unit, switching something out, which I know is not an easy task, but um it's legally impossible under our current rules.

Um it's at least allowed now.

Um again, basic kind of neighborhood amenities um would be allowed.

Um none of that's allowed with it with the current status of being a non-conforming use.

That's it.

Thank you.

Councilmember Sharp followed by Councilmember McCullough.

Um I want to go back to the public information sessions that you were talking about with Councilmember Barry.

Um the sounds like those public information sessions that you would initiate with neighbors to a proposed development are initiated by staff.

Um we we require that they happen, we've kind of facilitate them, we ensure that they do happen.

Um the current model for those meetings is that um the applicant is the kind of main uh source of information and staff, or really there is facilitators making sure um I'd say loosely making sure that there's nothing kind of wild that's said or done, and and again, just ensuring that the meeting takes place.

And is that requirement codified in the LUMO?

Those public information sessions?

Is that required?

Like by law?

Yeah, it's a internal process, it's not currently in LUMO.

So it's so there's nowhere that that requires that a developer meet with the public before, you know, right now it would be before coming to concept plan, but if we got eliminated concept plan, it would be no, there's no requ there's no requirement, it's just sort of like a matter of practice in Chapel Hill ground.

Yeah, I mean it would be like um compelled speech, which is a uh uh a no-no from a constitutional perspective, to like say you must talk to somebody.

Sure.

Um we can't we can't require that they do it.

Right.

Um but we do currently require that they do a concept plan review.

Yeah, I mean they have to come before you are.

Um and then um when you're talking about who is included, is that also just sort of like a matter of practice in Chapel Hill in terms of like how you draw the radius of who's informed, et cetera.

Is that just sort of like left up to staff discretion or developer discretion?

How is that how is that actually decided?

And is that also codified anywhere?

It's codified at a policy level.

Um again, the because the public information meeting itself isn't um a either it's definitely not a state requirement, it's not a LUMO requirement.

Um at a policy level, we kind of have practices around who is notified about those meetings.

Um at a state law level, um, the only required notification is is before a council hearing.

And we're only required to send postcards to owners of adjacent properties.

Um for a long time we've done much more than that.

And then again, with these recent efforts, um we've we've gone significantly beyond that and started uh informing renters as well.

Okay, thank you.

Um council member McCullough?

Yeah, I'm gonna I'm gonna follow along in the same vein.

Um I'm wondering about the timing of when the postcard goes out compared to when we would have done a concept plan review.

Yeah, so the postcard um doesn't go out until obviously there's a there's an application in the door.

Um so it it's hard to say because there is um there can be a lot of lead time between a project coming to you all for a concept plan review um and then ultimately kind of um kind of taking stock of what they've heard and and moving forward in in the development process.

Um I don't know that we have kind of uh clear numbers on on how long that gap normally is.

Um it's definitely in the order of a few to several months, maybe longer in in some instances.

Um instead of that lead time, what would happen is um you know once an application is in the door, uh an application for a conditional zoning is in the door.

Umce we we get that public information meeting scheduled, um postcards would go out informing folks about the opportunity.

And when does that uh yellow sign with the Z on it go up?

Yeah, so that's um that's also something that we have um again, huge props to my um colleague Catherine for kind of spearheading some efforts to to improve from just like the baseline state requirements.

State requirements just say that the big yellow sign um goes up prior to a council meeting.

Um more than 25 days before the meeting and no later than 10 days before the meeting.

So there's kind of a defined window in which the sign has to go up.

Um we have started to kind of test run different signs, very much different signs that would go up much sooner, more in the order of, hey, there's there's an application pending, right?

Something is in the works, something is being talked about on this site.

Um so that would go up closer to the the timeline of you know before the public information meeting.

Okay.

Um excellent.

Um the last thing is um, do we do an announcement in the I'm trying to remember what we have in our our town newsletter and what information we have about what developments there might be.

Um it uh it seems like one of our big problems is that people aren't paying attention until late in the process, and then they're oh my god, I didn't know about it.

And so how do we avoid that?

How do we um get this going early enough that people are aware um have time to react and and stay within a practical and and legal framework for doing that?

Yeah, I don't want to um you know commit my colleagues to anything, but you know, that would be a relatively easy thing to start doing, right?

We we have a lot of digital tools at our disposal, the our town newsletter, um and and other ways of just getting information out.

Um and it's uh again certainly within the realm of possibility that we would um start using those tools just to again, just like that new sign that would go up, just to say, hey, like something is is being talked about.

Um that's also something that we can share.

Um there's always that that risk of like information overload.

If you know if you if you drown people with with information, do they also stop caring in that way?

And so we would just have to calibrate things, but it it's definitely something that um I think we're hearing a clear interest that if concept plan review goes away, um there needs to be some kind of clearly defined notice.

Um so that's definitely something that we can work on.

And fortunately it's not something that has to come back to you all.

It's not LUMO related.

It would just be policies and procedures.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Searing?

I just wanted to go back to this notice discussion we were having that um Councilmember Sharp was bringing up.

And I'm always a little suspicious when people start pulling out the First Amendment to say they don't need to do something because everybody loves the First Amendment when it's protecting their speech, but if it's some speech they disagree with, they're like, oh no, you know, what First Amendment?

Yeah.

So uh it you know uh the issue here, I think, is not speech, it's notification.

And that's different.

And you know, their government requires notification requirements all the time of private property owners.

So I recently built something.

I had to, I was required by the state to um contact and give notice to adjoining property owners.

There was no First Amendment problem there.

It was just part of the process.

So we had a recently we had a um big development off of Weaver Dairy Road that we were considering here just uh a month or so ago.

And it turned out that there were multiple adjoining property owners, one condo neighborhood um Weatherstone that uh that actually right before the hearing, so we were never contacted by the developer.

They didn't bother.

You know, there were there had been some notices published somewhere about a public hearing, which presumably is what you were talking about, but there was no requirement that the developer contact this adjoining property owner of multiple condominiums of sort of moderate income folks and you know who were directly affected as an adjoining property and at least you know sit down with them.

So I don't see what the first amendment problem is with having that be a requirement.

Yeah.

Um I think again, the the notice issue is not at all contesting the notice issue.

Um I think in the the case of 860 Weaver dairy, they they certainly would have been required, or the town sends the postcards out, right?

Um so we typically send at least two postcards out, one that one at the beginning of the process, one at the end.

Um there is state law that that says that we can require some form of communication with adjacent property owners.

Um I don't think we can get into uh the kind of the nitty-gritty of saying exactly how it must happen, um, what information is shared during um that sort of thing, whatever it might be.

Um but there is some ability to do that.

Um what we can't you know require, and I think that's seen in in the fact that we don't have these public information meetings, generally speaking, as part of a LUMO requirement.

Um we can't kind of compel what sort of information is.

I mean, don't let's not get it down that rabbit hole, because that's not what we're just talking about, notice and opportunity to be heard, which is a basic you know part of how we run a functioning democracy.

You know, by there m there are some who in Washington who may not agree, but um the you know what might worries me is when we're talking about all these LUMO changes that you know that limit notice and opportunity to be heard, and you're saying, well, we have this informal process.

That informal process didn't work in this very large development off of Weaver Dairy Road for this you know moderate income condominium community.

That it did not work for them.

And so you're saying, well, just you know, well, we'll try.

But I think what council member sharp was talking about was where is the you know what if we're gonna get rid of all these other notice and opportunity to be heard, you know, points of the uh review, you know, what what's left?

And it seems to me you're saying, well, you know, we're I mean are you willing to put those requirements, they have revise this LUMO change to put those requirements for notice and opportunity to be heard in.

Yeah, we can certainly review it.

Um I obviously can't commit to like we'll definitely um make um certain amendments on the fly.

Um we absolutely review it.

Um it is it is very possible that the the Weatherstone situation in 860 Weaver area represents kind of uh um, like you said, uh the the process may or may not have worked in that situation.

Um so we can learn from those um you know the lessons learned there.

Um I will just point out, you know, there was a concept plan review for that project.

Um and so even with that existing process in place, um, you know, this app this this development seems to have kind of um exposed again some opportunities to to optimize the process.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Nollert.

Can you remind us what uh other communities in North Carolina do when it comes to how common is is the concept plan uh process around North Carolina?

To my knowledge, concept plan review is the as Chapel Hill um exercises it or uses it, um, isn't replicated in in any other community.

Kind of this this public hearing with either the planning commission or or the town council or municipal council isn't something that I know of, any other examples in the state.

Why is that?

Could you speculate about why other communities let me rephrase could you speculate about why other communities do not employ such a process?

Uh that's probably inappropriate for me to jump into that level of speculation.

You know, I think there's um we know that uh concept plan review popped up in in this in Chapel Hill in the late 90s.

Um, we you know I'll I'll maybe a rhetorical question of you know what the attitudes towards kind of development and change may have been like in in Chapel Hill at that time.

Um we can assume that processes that evolved during that time reflect the sentiments of the time.

Are you ready to move on?

Or you look like you're still in thought?

Yeah, I had a I had a question and it's completely escaped me.

Um, to a degree that doesn't usually happen.

Uh I think we can leave it there.

Okay.

Are there members of the public wishing to speak?

There are.

I have John Reese first, followed by Ian Scott.

Good evening.

Dear Mayor and members of the Chapel Hill Town Council.

On behalf of the Orange County Affordable Housing Coalition, I am here to express our support for the proposed Autobus Text Amendments to the land use ordinance.

Um you received probably in late October an email from Alice Jacoby of the Habitat of Orange County, and I thought it was really good.

And a lot of what I'm writing kind of echoes it and perhaps even plagiarizes a little bit of it.

Um we support the town's efforts to improve process efficiency and create new housing types and opportunities for people who live in Chapel Hill.

These updates represent progress towards Chapel Hill's housing goals by reducing regulatory barriers and creating more pathways for diverse and affordable home types.

Several of the proposed provisions would have a particularly positive effect, a positive impact on the feasibility of building and preserving affordable housing.

Reducing minimum lot sizes and related dimensions will make it possible to create additional buildable lots and promote small-scale in-fill consistent with existing neighborhoods.

This flexibility is essential for organizations that focus on producing modest, energy efficient homes on limited land.

Allowing shared driveways and new lot configurations such as flag and zero frontage lots will enable creative use of smaller partials and open new opportunities for small-scale in-fill housing.

Eliminating minimum parking requirements helps the limited money available for housing and is that is spent making housing and not parking spaces.

It is interesting to note that the NC state legislator, in an unusual show of bipartisan support, also agreed recently.

While we mostly agree the concept plan process is unnecessary on some projects, we would still want to ensure there is robust opportunities for public engagement through public interest meetings and equity-focused community input processes.

Thank you for your time.

Okay, we have Ian Scott followed by Eric Valera, and that's the last speaker I have signed up.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Ian Scott representing the Chamber for Greater Chapel Hill Carborough and the Home Builders Association of Durham, Orange and Chatham Counties.

I spoke in favor of this at the meeting on October 22nd.

We remain strongly in favor of this for all the reasons stated previously about the need for more housing supply, uh diversity and affordability in the community, and the overwhelming need uh for housing in Chapel Hill, all those still hold true.

I wanted to speak to you tonight to address uh we expect a debate later about the uh duplex size limit.

The current proposal in front from staff is 5,000 uh combined square footage.

Uh we would ask you to keep that at 5,000 for two reasons.

Uh one flexibility and two families.

On the flexibility front, uh the median home size in the U.S.

is 2200 square feet.

There's a lot of homes in Chapel Hill larger than that to give some uh room to work where there's a larger home footprint already on a lot.

I think the 5,000 gives you a lot more room for flexibility to have the deliver a product that's going to be marketable.

And number two, we really do need housing for families.

I will remind you that Chapel Hill Carlborough City Schools are in a declining enrollment period, particularly in the lowest grades.

We need more families with young children to choose Chapel Hill.

This should look like a warning light on our dashboard when our school enrollment, school enrollment in one of the best public school districts in the country is on a downward trend.

Housing that can accommodate a larger household with more kids is a good thing for Chapel Hill.

Uh and also note that in the post-COVID world, a lot of families have decided that having an extra room in their home to work from home, to conduct school from home, or just be away from their family for a little bit is kind of a thing they expect.

I think the market is I understand that sometimes smaller units feel like they're going to be more affordable.

We want to see affordability too, but we urge you to keep that at 5,000 square feet to allow for the maximum possible flexibility to put the right housing unit in the neighborhood where we're talking.

It is going to be highly specific when it's an application.

We want to make sure it works.

Thank you all.

And that would say last speaker.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Eric Valera, and I'm here to speak specifically about the section that would make manufactured communities permitted use for the first time.

This change is important.

For decades, these parks have been treated as nonconforming use.

Making needed infrastructure upgrades too risky for financing and leaving residents in limbo.

Recognizing these neighborhoods as permitted use as part of Chapel Hill's legitimate housing stock is long overdue.

Hundreds of low-income Latino and immigrant residents live in these naturally affordable homes.

Many own their homes but rent the land under them.

Permitting the park corrects an inequity.

By permitting with but permitting without protection puts these homeowners at real risk.

Under the new ordinance, landowners could build, rebuild, sell, and redevelop by right with no special use permit or public hearing.

But residents don't own the land.

They would face the full impact.

Displacement, loss of home equity, loss of community, and for many of them, loss of the ability to remain in Chapel Hill at all.

The countywide Manufactured Home Action Plan, developed jointly with Chapel Hill, Carborough Hillsboro, and Orange County, calls for safeguards that minimize displacement and preserve manufactured homes is a vital source of our naturally affordable housing.

Tonight, I'm here to ask for you to consider one step.

Pair the permitted changes with a preservation overlay.

An overlay would provide flexibility for owners to improve park improvements without displacing residents, support infrastructure improvements tied to long-term affordability, encourage resident-owned cooperatives by offering first purchase opportunities to residents, nonprofits, or the town.

A historic Hispanic community advisory board, one-to-one replacement for housing or reti retrite to return, and notice and relocation assistance and redevelop the redevelopment occurs.

This is not a barrier.

It's a guardrail.

One that protects families already vulnerable and preserves some of Chapel Hill's last naturally affordable neighborhoods.

Recognizing these communities is the right move, but permitted use designation will raise land values immediately.

Without protection, the proposed the proposal conflicts with Chapel Hill's comprehensive plan, especially as its commitment to anti-displacement, how housing preservation, and racial and ethnic equity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council, back to you.

Comments.

Sorry.

Councilmember Sharp, followed by Councilmember Ryan, followed by Councilmember Nollert, followed by Councilmember Billy Frischy, and then we'll come over here.

Just go down and around and around.

So I know that it can be tempting for people to characterize any desire to modify anything as a wholesale rejection of it.

And I really hope to encourage you all not to see it that way.

I think in order to tailor them specifically to the goals that we're trying to reach with the community complete community framework and creating the kinds of housing that we need for our workforce in Chapel Hill.

I the size of the duplexes.

I think if you want to support our public schools, go lobby your state legislature to pay our teachers appropriately and fund our education system.

Please don't tie those together.

That's not appropriate.

I bought my first starter home at 1,300 square feet and raised three school-aged children in it for five years.

And I think that probably could not have afforded a 2500 square foot duplex.

So I really want to make sure that we are not excusing incentivizing investment properties by saying that we are encouraging housing for families.

For instance, we negotiate with developers about including affordable housing.

We don't allow our law enforcement to uh cooperate with immigration.

Um we're trying to do different things in Chapel Hill than we do in North Carolina.

So let's just focus on what we're trying to achieve here.

Um I am very excited about the manufactured homes amendment.

I'm very excited about the um lost my words amendment.

Um what's that having you lost a whole question.

Um let's see, I have them right in front of me.

Anyway, I just I'm I I really hope that we can have some productive discussion that will allow us to move these forward with some considerations.

And if not, if we need to continue discussions later, that's fine too.

But I think discussion is healthy, and I hope we can find our way towards that.

Um Councilmember Ryan, followed by Councilmember Nollert.

Okay, thank you.

Um I'd like to echo my colleague in just saying I am thanks to staff for bringing these forward.

I am broadly supportive of all these new text amendments.

Um they're moving us towards better process and they're helping us achieve our complete community goals and cleaning up some stuff that's long overdue for being cleaned up.

So I think that that's great.

I'm glad that we're moving forward with some changes while we wait for the the broader ordinance to be ready.

Um I'm also with my colleague that I think there are a few small changes that will help us meet our complete community goals and other goals better.

So um I will be proposing those later um after our discussion.

So um yeah, those would yeah, so I'll I'll go through those later.

Well, no, let me do it now.

So um I think we'd love to see the site plan review just go completely to staff without the exception for the NCDs.

I would like to see the concept plan review retained and be optional.

I think there are some developers who really value it.

Umplex size, I want to make sure we're incenting housing for everyone.

Um parking is kind of tied into that too, because that's all related.

Um making sure that we see when we get a um conditional zoning application that we can see the intent for some natural areas and for stormwater ponds.

So that's something that I always try to look for.

So with those small exceptions, I'm good with everything else.

Um and be interested to hear my colleagues' opinion.

Um one thing I want to comment on too is I am again I'm very happy that we're moving forward with this.

There are still things that we're missing.

And um I know I've spoken to some of my colleagues and we've been talking about how we where we need to go.

So especially for me, um things like tree canopy we need to address, things like stormwater.

We have a report from 2023 from a um uh ordinance consultant that laid out a whole list of things.

Um I think it's time that we revisit that and say, hey, which of these should we be talking about doing?

So there's some other issues like that that I would like to help us make a priority in 2026 as we work toward them and not not hold that back until whenever LUMO is going to be ready, but make sure that we're that we're treating those as a priority.

We're we're dealing with some really important priorities here, but it's kind of one avenue priority.

So I want to make sure that we're gonna look more broadly at these other important things.

Thank you.

Councilmember Nollert, followed by Councilmember Miller Fusie.

Thanks.

Um looking forward to discussing all this with my colleagues tonight.

Um a few of my interests and perspectives on this at present.

Um I'm pretty supportive of the duplex provision as staff has recommended it for a couple of reasons.

I I do think it will probably create some investor properties in town, especially near campus where I think there's going to be a lot of student demand as student enrollment increases.

The way that I'm thinking about this is that it enables some of those purpose-built student rentals not to compete with the home stock for families.

And I do think a place where I diverge slightly from my colleague whose points I appreciate and take very seriously is what one thing I agree with with Councilwoman Sharp on is that I don't think that the way we build our homes is uh primarily responsible for the drop in school enrollment.

Um I do think that it is a component of how people decide where they're going to live and that it's a competitive advantage.

I would not want to cede entirely to places like Durham, which are also facing dropping school enrollments.

If it's a component in how someone chooses where they're going to live and they're looking at what that where they can go in Chatham, where they can easily get 2,002, 2400 square foot, 2800 square foot homes that are popping up across that county, and they're thinking, well, I can get more house for less money and commute into Chapel Hill.

I think that's going to be a compelling option.

Same thing for Alamance, same thing for Durham.

And I think that we should use the tools we have at our disposal to be maximally competitive in a demographic range where we know that 75% of our population growth is 65 plus in this town.

And I think we need to take every chance we can to compete across all demographics in Chapel Hill to be a vital community and an economically powerful community.

I also want to point out that in our metropolitan area, the rate of rentals in single family homes is down 8% over the last 10 years.

We have fewer, we have a smaller share of people renting single-family homes than we used to have, which means we're not seeing some enormous case of investors buying and flipping homes intended to be sold and renting them to people.

The reverse is true.

More people are living in homes and fewer people are renting them.

That surprised me, but that's what the data says.

I think when we look at places like Gaddis Court, or if we look at places like Weavers Grove, the duplexes are between 2400 and 2600 square feet individually.

And so they're they're large.

I think that's what the buyers who are interested in coming here are looking for.

I respect everyone on this dais, but I don't think that we should be making calculations about what size home people are wanting.

I think that we have a lot of technical input on that that we should be trusting and saying if this is what we think people are looking for to come to Chapel Hill, we want them in Chapel Hill.

What I'm most afraid of is passing ordinances that potential Chapel Hillians look at and say, that's a town that doesn't want me there.

Here's all these other places making it as easy as possible for me to move there and have my life and my family and plant roots and become part of the culture.

And there's a town that's putting up barriers.

That's and and I and I don't believe that that is the intention of anyone on the day.

So I want to be very clear that I do not believe that.

My concern is that that is what would result from making that change.

So I'm very supportive of the of the amendments as staff has proposed them, but I'm I'm eager to listen to my colleagues as always, and I appreciate your patience with my own thoughts.

Councilmember Miller Fushi, followed by Councilmember Steering.

Thank you, Mir.

Um for me one of the um changes that was offered by Councilmember Ryan that I am in favor of is uh the removal of site plan review um approval by the planning commission.

Um if we could make that administrative, that just makes sense to me because it is an administrative thing.

Um so that's you know one of the only updates that I would offer.

Um but beyond that, I'm uh supportive of all of the other amendments as they stand.

Um I spent quite some time this afternoon talking about the duplex um that size, thinking about that, and really talking to folks who've been building a lot of duplex.

Um they've said that the five thousand square foot is appropriate.

Um they don't see any changes as necessary.

Um I just really wanted to speak to folks who've been building it, uh doing it from an affordability standpoint, getting their input.

Um, and so I am just fine with the amendments as they are.

But I do want to revisit the manufactured home action plan that we are joint that we jointly help to develop.

Um one of the strategies and action steps is to like really conduct a study of effective land use policies to help minimize that dis displacement.

Um I really want to make sure that we're we're following through with that plan, really thinking about it because I don't want history to repeat itself.

I really want as we are developing and growing as a community and doing things that uh we're not um leaving our vulnerable communities behind or languishing um with all the pressures that can take place with uh what we're trying to do.

We're trying to bring um the type of complete community that we want, and that puts pressures on certain communities.

And so I would just ask that we continue to work on that manufactured home action plan, um, continue to conduct the studies and really look at ways in which we can help minimize within the law, of course, um, and minimize displacement.

So thank you.

Councilmember Searing, followed by Councilmember McCullough.

Yeah, I'd just like to follow up with a couple of comments that um I've heard from my fellow members already.

So overall, I think I'll echo Councilmember Ryan.

You know, well most of these changes are fine in my opinion.

Um I think she went through some um amendments to these proposed changes that I would support.

Um I uh look forward to discussing those when she uh lays them out a little more uh carefully.

Um the second thing I wanted to just to echo was this uh around the um the square foot size limitations.

I just want to echo my fellow councilmember sharp.

Um I too find it just disingenuous to use the public school enrollment and um as a proxy for what how we should act.

Um and you know, I think council member Mullert said there are many other reasons that public school enrollment is declining.

In my view, the main one is our state legislature has approved uh you know over $7,000 private school tuition voucher that has no income limits on it, so any wealthy family, um regardless of their income can um now get thousands of dollars to send their child to private school.

So that is just simply a direct um you know attack on our our public school system.

Um I think we need to separate those two issues.

So I look forward to speaking about um some changes to these to what we've been presented um and uh look forward to hearing the more from my colleagues.

Councilmember McCullough, followed by Councilmember Barry.

Um the usual echoing of gosh with a lot of good work, thank you.

Um I I think that one of the difficulties of this conversation is that all of us are trying to predict what will catalyze us getting more missing middle housing.

And we can't.

We are guessing we are taking our own perceptions and some information from the chamber and the home builders and information about rental, and we're doing the best that we can.

Uh but we can't predict what's gonna do it.

What we know right now is that what we have in place has not catalyzed the the production of duplexes and and we can really use duplexes for some missing middle houses housing.

Um so I I think that it's worth pushing the boundaries a little bit, even though you know my first house was very small.

Um nobody seems to uh think about uh housing sizes as the traditional, what the American dream was was a very small house.

Um smaller families, bigger houses.

But uh if people don't buy them, if people don't move into them, then that that does us no good.

Um we don't get families here.

So I am okay with going with the bigger duplex and the um and and trying it out.

We can always downsize it if it turns out to be bad, but I think what's going to happen, um, and again I'm just trying to predict what will catalyze getting these things on the ground.

But I think as lot sizes, uh flag lots, uh no frontage lots come to be, the the duplexes that may be built on those are going to vary according to the sizes of the lots.

They're not all going to be 5,000 square foot because 5,000 square foot won't fit on all of these lots.

They're going to have the 40 40 percent tree cover, they're gonna have other restrictions, and I think that we are um perhaps thinking about the sky falling when you know reality of what could happen is probably not as bad as we may fear.

Um but the schools and the convenience of living in town or what will draw people to Chapel Hill to live in Chapel Hill, and I hope that we will find what will catalyze the production of more homes to help bring more people to live here and less people to commute into here.

Councilmember Searing had a quick add.

Yes, I just have one thing I've I for I had meant to say and then I forgot, and it was prompted by Councilmember Nollert's um discussion with our staff about the concept plans and what other communities do around us.

And I did a little quick on the fly research up here, which is always a little a little uh dangerous, but um, but I think it was very illuminating.

Uh Raleigh uh um doesn't call it a concept plan review, but they have a sketch plan review, um, which is voluntary, like we're um by like uh the amendment that um council member Ryan's proposing, um which sounds very much like our concept plan review.

Uh Carrie has again a um pre-application meeting where developers can do something very much like the concept plan review um with these sketch plans and provides another.

And there are um other communities around the country, and of course I was just doing so.

I think it's not this is not an unusual thing that it never happens.

So anyway, that's all I wanted to say.

Um Councilmember Barry?

Thank you.

Staff, thank you very much for your work on this.

You responded to a request from council to come up with this omnibus.

Sure we would like more, but these were the ones that we voted on, if I recall correctly.

Um as far as housing sizes, I had a conversation earlier today.

Um, and one of the things that was raised in that conversation was it's one thing if we start from ground zero with a you know with a lot that has been cleared, um, and then we look at that duplex.

But it's another thing if we start with an existing structure and add on.

Uh and that could be the consideration.

And I'm trusting that's for the 5,000 square feet.

Um that is a consideration.

As far as the school vouchers, um, I'm being a little bit reactive this evening, so I haven't done my three very well um preparations for this evening, but I'm gonna be a little reactive.

School vouchers, um state has permitted, but I want to make sure that we understand that not all independent schools, private schools are accepting those school vouchers.

I know for a fact the Carolina Friends School is one that refuses to.

So as we talk about what the state has done, let's be let's be careful that we don't, and no one has, but I want to be sure that we don't start to cast um our independent schools with that that brush, don't paint them with that brush.

Um I support it as is this proposal.

Um there was also the consideration of the manufactured homes, how do we protect the people?

I'm not as interested in protecting those structures because those deteriorate quickly unless a lot has changed.

So I'd like to look at how can we protect housing for the individuals who live in manufactured home communities.

And so I share my colleagues' concern of us making some serious, meaningful strides towards that.

That was the one issue that brought me to put my head in the ring four years ago.

I can do math.

Um I would like to see that.

Another thing is parking.

Um I voted against the housing text amendment, however many years ago that was, because at the last minute we had a change with um no minimum parking, and I was concerned about how would we handle the pressure, because that was something we heard from the public was the pressure of uh vehicles being in parked in the roadways.

So I would like for us to be clear about how we're going to move forward with that.

And to be steadfast in that.

That means enforce enforcement.

So if we need to hire more staff, then that's what we need to do.

We need to explain that to the public that that's where we're investing because that they are trusting us to address those issues.

All in all, I am good with it as is.

Thank you so much.

Everyone who has contributed to this conversation.

Thank you.

Also, I think it's pretty remarkable that you have so much agreement overall from nine people.

So that's I would say a success on all the ones that people are in complete agreement about, and then some small tweaks, I think is reasonable and fine.

And I do think it I think front yards are not a great place for cars.

And then we've had huge efforts to try and then bring them back to be family neighborhoods.

But I would also say, I mean, if we're looking at some of the examples of the places that we feel like are a real success in town, um, like Gaddis Court, like Weavers Grove, those are much smaller units than than we're talking about here.

I mean, those are um 1,400 to you know um 1,500 or looking at 3,000 total per duplex or 5,380 square feet for all four units at Gaddis Court, which I think that's what I'm really hoping we do is in the LUMO rewrite that we go to tries quads and that we can get to those higher numbers um with smaller units, and I think that's actually how we'll get to the affordability we're looking for.

I don't think duplexes are going to be that affordable anyway, given the the cost of land under them.

So I don't want to have huge two family.

Um I think also, you know, and and I think council member McCullough is right.

We're trying to figure out what we think is going to happen, and we don't have great information, and you all can't have perfect information either that we're just trying some things out.

And so I think I don't want to blow past a number that could maybe get some smaller units out of the ground, and then if that doesn't work, I'm I'm happy to keep going up.

Um and I'd also like to really think about for the um larger total, I would really like to see a lot more units eventually.

And I know that's you know not for tonight.

Um but so I'm very open to that.

I just don't want to necessarily do that big for duplexes.

Um I also think having smaller units when we do have a lot of seniors moving here means that seniors can filter into the smaller units and then leave the larger unit for families who are looking for older homes that might be more affordable.

So I think there's a lot of different ways to look at what might happen.

Um I am excited for the full lumo to come with I think a lot more options for people of all different ages and um life stages and um income levels.

And I think for now I'd like to um see those few tweaks, but I think this is really great, and I appreciate y'all bringing us something as an interim step while we're working towards our larger goal.

Um I'd like to move R2 consistency.

Excuse me.

Move by Ohio, I'm sorry, what are you moving?

R2 consistency.

Oh, go ahead.

Oh go ahead.

Um I just wanted to respond to the comment I very much appreciate Councilmember McCullough's comment um about not being able to predict, and I think you're absolutely right, and um I uh I think it's really important that we try to check our fear of the unknown in trying to hold on so tight to things.

And I uh think it's really important that we try to check our fear of the unknown in trying to hold on so tight to things.

But I also would point out that we are trying to predict what will catalyze development based on our one lever of what we put in our land use management ordinance.

And since since the housing text amendment that approved duplexes on single family in single family neighborhoods, we have been in an incredibly challenging development and construction environment that has yet to let up.

And so I think assuming that the reason that we have not seen the development that we want is because we haven't allowed enough square footage.

So I'm I don't want to leave the square footage where it is, but I think it is a lot easier to go up incrementally and then see how things change if the economic environment overall changes.

And once the economic environment overall changes, these things are cyclical, it will change.

But it's a lot harder to take things away than to give things.

And so I think if we go up really fast, it's going to be really hard to go back down, and we haven't given ourselves a chance to see how things play out in less adverse economic times.

And just to add a little bit to that.

I mean, we many years ago, the town had was very permissive on their duplex regulations, and we found that there was a great deal of interest in building large single-use investment student housing.

And that that was coming and coming, and the town said, wait a minute, this is not the kind of thing, you know, we we need different kinds of housing, not this.

So we have we have been through a period where we saw that that actually is a very attractive thing to build in town for the market to come.

So I think that and I don't know that anything has changed to make that less attractive.

I know we part of the reason for the North Side NCD was that they were having so much redevelopment pressure and it was really harming that neighborhood.

So just to comment that I think that we did uh we we have seen that that's a thing that will happen.

So that said, I'd like to move consistency.

Second.

Move by council member Ryan, seconded by councilmember Nollert.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

Motion is unanimous.

Okay.

I would like to move ordinance 03 with the following amendments.

And I apologize, guys, but the attorney has informed me that he likes to have specific language.

So we're gonna do our best on this one.

So if you look, you got a handout at your desk from clerk.

Point of order.

Would would you consider moving um amendments one at a or uh amendments to this language in individual motions rather than all of them?

Um we we can as long as it's um and just to confirm with the attorney.

So if we move if we move 03 with no amendments, then we don't need friendly amendments to amend it, right?

We can so um I I anticipate there will be some or m multiple amendments addressed on individual items here.

Um in terms of cleanliness, if someone were to move to adopt um the ordinance as written and that were seconded, we would enter into discussion.

During that discussion, we can make a subsidiary motion.

Anyone on the council can.

And if that that can be a motion to amend, and if that is seconded, that will be the motion on the table.

So if there was one item that was sought to amend, you could take it one at a time.

Okay.

Or it could be a series of amendments and one amendment.

So it's all it's all big nested like a like a Russian doll.

It could all be nested, it could be one at a time.

And and I will say that any amendment um needs majority, oh five to be adopted.

Um if it is a four or less, then it reverts to the language as written.

Um in the event it ultimately it is four four after all the amendments, but under the even if it even if the motion is amended, but it gets to a 4-4, or if it's not amended and it gets to 4-4 uh under council procedural manual, this will automatically carry over to the next meeting.

Uh the body also has the option of uh seeking to uh continue to a special meeting on a date certain if you wanted to take it up on a different date if you didn't want to wait all the way until January 21st.

Um but I'm sure questions will come up.

I am here and ready to assist you.

I've got my notepad uh so we won't be lost in the mire, but I will say that uh with regard to amendments, um as this is an ordinance, we need specific language.

Um and so it's like as as the document before us, it should be redlined and underlined, and we can do our best to accommodate that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I if that's the the uh procedure we're gonna follow, I have no objection if you I'll withdraw my motion if you want to make another one.

I'd like to move that we accept as written.

Second move by council member, seconded by councilmember McCullough.

All those in favor, no.

Sorry.

Yes, um, I would I would like to propose an amendment to that.

Um the first one would be if you look at page 49 of your Xerox.

It's actually 49, 50, and 51.

Um this is a copy of the ordinance from our packet.

449 at the top of the page.

Yeah, at the top of the page.

Sorry, yeah, we the page number thing is crazy.

Okay, so it says module one site plan review um to meet the interest of allowing the staff to handle site plan reviews administrative task without going to the planning commission.

Um it would mean on page 49 removing that first paragraph under 4.7-1.

It would mean on the next page removing section two and then removing section three on pages 50 and 51.

Um attorney Baker, if you have any corrections to that, please.

Madam Mayor, could I um I just wanted to clarify the the impact of the proposed amendment.

Um the the amendment as is would um not require, except in the NCDs would not require um anybody to even go through the site plan review process.

Um I think as discussed, the amendment would retain the site plan process, but make it a staff process, which is kind of the worst of both worlds where it's it's duplicative and it doesn't include the planning commission.

Um I think to meet the interest that I I think I'm hearing um I think the amendment would just need to be to eliminate the site plan review process altogether, not to shift it to staff.

Okay.

Um I that if that if that meets the interest, any discussion or question on that.

I mean my interest is that our planning commission doesn't see any more site plan reviews.

So if that's the best way to accomplish that.

I I guess now I am confused.

I thought that it was going to staff, but you're saying you it would just be eliminated altogether?

So the the original proposal as as included in in the ordinance is to eliminate site plan review altogether except in the instances where the NCD rules require it.

And in those instances, it would still go to planning commission, but with a very limited scope.

I see.

So if we want them all to be handled the same, then we're just eliminating it and not having any language about the NCDs.

Yeah.

Um it would require amendments to appendix A, so the you know, Article 4.7 of Article of Appendix A, which includes the requirement and then the process for site plan review.

Um there are also provisions within the NCD rules for the Pine nulls and uh North Side NCDs that kind of trigger the requirement for site plan review.

Um and so it would be the cleanest to both strike um you know section 4.7, which is again the site plan review requirement, and strike those requirements, um the the related requirements in the pine nulls and uh north side NCD provisions, which are in appendix B of the town code, which follows the okay.

Uh discussion?

Councilmember McCullough?

Yeah, it it seems to me that the cleanest way would be to table this one for now to look at and tell me if I'm wrong.

To look at if we want to do this to address taking it out of those NCD rules, which I believe would probably require us talking to the people and some sort of outreach to those neighborhoods.

Is is that correct?

That's not a council member.

Um we we have this proposed amendment as written for the floor where we're removing this language on 4.71 applicability with the remaining changes carried in there.

But I I will say that there are additional sections to site plan review.

And so if the intention of the motion is to say uh 4.7 site plan review is hereby revised to read reserved uh and deleting all of that, then that would be one thing and that would be a clear motion on the floor.

Otherwise we really need if we're picking and choosing, we really need to identify which language we're we're changing in the in these amendments as shown on the screen or in the packet.

We we can't adopt a concept as an amendment, and we need to adopt the language.

And so um we we've heard from staff that if the intent is to just have it be the same uh for all neighborhoods and not apply to those two NCDs, if that's the amendment on the floor, um then I would suggest a friendly amendment by another council member stating that Section 4.7 is hereby modified to read reserved.

But isn't that where we get to the worst of both worlds?

No.

No, so that's what that's what saves us from the worst for both worlds.

And I think I think implements the interest of again just making sure that site plan review is is no longer a repetitive, redundant step.

Um I will say the appendix B stuff, um, it would be nice, but it's not necessary if that language stayed in LUMO, it would just kind of be a procedural dead end, like it would refer to something that doesn't exist.

So, exactly.

Okay, so if that is the proposed friendly amendment, I think that that meets the interests.

So I m move to make a friendly amendment to Councilmember Ryan's amendment of module one to strike strike section.

Section one and rem and reserve.

Yeah, I think it's just modified to be reserved.

Modified, yes.

Um it would read um section one appendix A, Article 4 procedures, Section 4.7 site plan review is hereby revised to read as follows.

Reserved.

And that would be the amendment.

Is there a motion?

I I accept that amendment.

So we have a motion maybe a second.

So that is comment or clear if I thought thank you.

That is acceptable for staff.

I'm not sure what friendly amendment means.

And not just amendment, but the when there's an amendment on the floor, a council member can ask to modify that amendment by asking for a friendly amendment, which the first um person that made the motion can accept or not.

Got it.

So does that mean I was trying to listen.

I really was.

Does that mean this is going to be a good question?

Yeah, and uh and throughout this, you know, I'll I'll offer some technical guidance.

I'll refrain from like thumbs up, you know, anything on that level.

But I think the um the amendment is um read out by the the town interim town attorney um would absolutely meet the I think the combined interests of of staff of getting rid of the the process um and making sure that it's it's equal treatment across the board.

Okay.

Thank you, everyone, for your indulgence.

So I can understand that.

There's going to be a lot of that tonight.

So I have a motion by Councilmember Ryan with a friendly amendment by Councilmember Sharp, seconded by Councilmember McCollow.

Searing.

Sorry.

It looks so similar.

Well, right.

Okay, it confuse everybody.

Hey.

Sorry.

That's going well.

Um those in favor, uh please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion is unanimous.

Next.

Okay.

I would like to move that we make concept plans optional.

Um if you look at pages.

And again, guide me, that was very helpful last time, everyone.

If you look at module two on page 54, page number at the top of the page.

Um section one says the concept plan review is hereby repealed.

I'd like that restored.

And I if we can uh if you can help me with language that makes it optional.

Um that would be awesome.

I didn't have the original text that was dropped out.

That wasn't included.

All right.

Um Councilmember Ryan has uh say uh her handout that she's provided in the group says uh restore, adding uh that a developer may request a concept plan.

Um this does require a specific language being drafted.

Um once that language is proposed, it would need to be seconded and then voted on.

Um a majority of the body would have to vote to amend it just as we've done the first amendment, which is now part of the official ultimate motion that you will be voting on tonight.

Um to that end you um I I forget, was there a second to this motion?

Um may not be, yeah.

Yeah, there's not yet because it's not out there.

It's appropriate for you all to discuss this now.

I'm gonna go ahead in the interim and pull up the language so I can share my screen.

Okay.

Um and you all can discuss before a second or moving on that motion if you so choose.

Discussion.

Uh but I don't think we had a second.

Yeah, but we do now.

We don't have to do that.

We do.

Well, but we don't have the correct language yet, so not really.

Right.

And we don't we don't have a second to adopt, but it's fine to discuss generally right now while I pull this up or you can all just wait a moment.

Well we might just sit and stare at you awkwardly.

I'll do my best.

I don't have anyone wanting to discuss stuff.

Yes, Councilmember Sharp?

Um I just I think that the making it optional is a worst of no.

It's um it's it's uh it's a good interim.

It's a good it's a good compromise.

Um I can see valid reasons to think that it would getting rid of sconce plan review would streamline the process enough to as we say catalyze more development, but I also know that I think developers and architects find it to be um a valuable point of back and forth between the ultimate decision makers and the involved parties.

And if we're not requiring it, that certainly gives developers the option to s to streamline the process if they choose.

Um I just I mean I I I can't really see a downside to making it optional in that then you know it it is it is incumbent on the development community to decide whether or not they think that that is a useful part of their process.

I think one of the um one of the comments we heard last time is that we don't want to punish people for not doing it.

So if there was a situation in which someone didn't ask for it and then they came and one of us said, Well, I really wish you brought that as a concept plan.

I'm denying it because you didn't come to us, then that would be the the undesirable outcome.

But I'm pretty sure we can manage our desire to do that.

I would also say this is um an interim step, and I'm really hoping that we have a much better all together.

I mean, I don't anticipate it being at all this way in the final lumo, so I th I agree that I think it's a reasonable interim step and it gives people the ability who find it valuable to continue to use it.

Um Madam Mayor, I have some language uh shared on the screen in front of council at this time.

Uh this is uh the particular amendment um that was Can you bump it up just a little bit?

I I can try.

It's a yeah, just write down there.

I should do it.

Ooh, much better.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Yeah.

Uh yeah, let me let me go as much as I can.

Can you make it big?

Let me just if I could just senior.

I'm gonna reject that format change to make it have more space.

Um, well, we did not want to see that.

Thank you.

We didn't.

Um thank you all for your patience.

Um this is um language which I put together to make it optional.

Uh I I will say that this is council member Ryan's motion.

Um and so if this language is acceptable, of course it can be changed by friendly amendment, and of course um folks will have to vote on this one way or another.

But what I've revised it to say is that it's revised as follows.

Um instead of being titled concept plan review, it's titled voluntary concept plan to re uh plan review.

Um it specifically states that it allows an applicant to request it and then reiterates that it is a voluntary process and not necessary that the applicant request a concept plan review.

Um and then in terms of applicability, uh just to make clear, it says an applicant can request a concept plan review for any of the following, and it's the areas where uh we currently have concept plan review.

Um this amendment does not change the other areas of the ordinance with regard to how concept plan actually works when it is existing, um, but this would make it optional.

Um and so this is some language and council member Ryan, as this is your motion, I'll return to you.

Thank you so much for providing us that yes, this uh I think this is acceptable.

Um I can move up and down and just flash me hand signals.

Um Taz and Brittany, do you well?

Yeah, no.

This is a group project.

It's a group project.

I was just wondering if you had any um any other thoughts or input or if attorney baker's um edits are um reading the uh without practical comments.

Well, right, I know I'm just asking if you have any of our other thoughts in order to get to council member Ryan's interest.

Sorry, we're nope, that's okay.

It sounds like that's good.

Because I'll explain.

Um my thought process that because concept plan currently, and I know Jim mentioned it doesn't change the process in place for concept plan.

Some of them come to planning commission, some of it does not.

I just didn't want it to set it up to where they all have to go to everything.

Yeah, I just wanted to see if we need to worry if that I think we're okay.

That would be the worst of all.

It actually would.

Yes, that's the same.

Yeah, and those uh uh with the delineation further down in the ordinance um where some go to planning, some go to council, that it remains unchanged.

Um if this language needs to further be thought about, it's I I will say that there can be a motion to have this discussion or any particular item on a later date.

Um but we'd have to amend this ordinance if it were to pass.

And so I I suspect we would rather have this conversation now, but I'm just letting everyone know all their options.

Can I make you ask a point of I don't know, point of point?

Well I think we're can can I just clarify where we are?

We have a motion and a second and now discussion, is that right?

Yes, we're in discussion regarding this proposed amendment.

Okay.

Okay.

Um Councilmember Noller, followed by Councilmember Sharp.

I just want to ask.

Yeah, I'd like to ask if you'd uh if it would meet your interest to have a friendly amendment to remove concept plans from the planning commission, or if you want them still going to the planning commission.

I mean, I'm I would be fine with that.

Um I would well so the ones that go to the planning commission don't come to us, correct?

Well, that's be that would be the change we would be requesting, not that they that they come to us.

Just that they the ones or they were going to planning commission would be eliminated.

Correct.

Yeah.

And in the realm of it all being optional, um those distinctions become a little bit less important.

Um I will say just in terms of kind of on the fly drafting, uh it becomes tough um to to extricate it to that level.

Okay.

Uh withdrawn.

Okay.

So and I I oh, I think Councilmember Sharp had I just had a point of order.

Um if we are if we don't come to a resolution on one of these individual amendments within the nesting, how does that where does that leave us on?

So like if this one, if we don't come to a resolution on this one, but we do on the next one and all the other ones, where does that leave us on the broader?

Um That's a great question.

Thank you.

So theoretically, if this motion were to be a tie, um and that would mean uh no amendment was adopted and um that would be the original language is written would be in the final vote for the final item.

Okay.

Um it would be possible to amend to uh remove this item, particularly from this ombuds um if there's an appetite for that, but you would need a majority to do that.

Got it.

Thank you.

So if this gets hung up or doesn't pass, then the assuming that council would like to move forward with as much as possible, the next best thing to do would be for someone to make a motion to remove it.

Uh I don't have a a value judgment on on that.

There's different ways to based on our interest.

It would be possible to amend to remove it with the idea of taking it up.

I mean you could ask the manager to put it on the next agenda for that particular item, for example.

Sure.

But I'm just saying to remove it from the omnibus, so the whole thing doesn't get hung up.

Yes, that is possible.

And I just a question from staff.

If we if we deal with the chunk that's before us tonight and the planning department involvement gets cleaned up in the larger LUMO work, would that be a problem for you?

Okay.

So we could do the items being removed.

We still have the following option to either come back later in a future omnibus to come in the rewrite.

It's all on the table, so you don't have to feel wedded to this and just a point of like standard operations.

These omnibus like generally aren't omitted in this way.

They are like if an item if you have an issue with a certain item, that item can come off.

And then as Jim mentioned, it could it could be a good idea.

You could vote to take an item off and move on to the rest of them.

That's routine with this type of text amendment, so it wouldn't be if if you run into an issue with any of them, not just not a problem.

That is an option.

Okay.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Councilmember Barry, followed by Councilmember McCullough?

Thank you.

I'm going to remind us where I am.

So I want to share where I am.

Not remind everyone.

When we traveled to Ann Arbor, many of us, one of the things we talked about in concept plan review, or the concept plan is to look at the gray boxes.

And that is very different than what we see as the concept plan now.

So the concept plan, correct me if I'm wrong, staff.

That will a review of developers' concept plans will be what they're presenting will be different than what we are seeing today.

Is that correct?

So since we're not changing the substantive language of of kind of generally what the concept plan, the ordinance asks for for concept plan review.

So again, we're not changing what the ordinance says the substance of concept plan review needs to include.

But when it's optional, um everything can become much kind of fuzzier and fluffier.

And so if there really is an interest in okay, now that we've made it optional, um, I'm looking at the way that it was proposed.

Yeah.

So I'm saying if it will stay the same.

It will stay the same?

Uh-huh.

Okay.

So what we've been seeing will go to you, staff who knows what we are seeking.

Correct?

Is that the I think I so with uh with concept plan review?

So were you asking if we get rid of concept plan review?

Right.

What would be the alternative?

Well yes, what is the applicant doing when they submit to you?

Okay.

Right?

And they're not they're not coming before us or the planning.

So the the alternative to concept plan review as we currently practice it, um, would actually be the I think the practices that Councilmember Searing mentioned, um Raleigh's sketch plan review or sketch review or Carrie's pre-application conferences.

Um those are all staff conferences.

They're staff reviews.

Um that is a really typical process where there's again this like voluntary optional, whatever you want to call it, um staff-led pre-application conference.

Um and so that would be kind of the opportunity for um an applicant to just get an early gut check um on town priorities, uh meet with urban designer, get a second set of eyes on the project from a design perspective, um again, meet with folks that are able to speak to uh council's interests.

Okay.

But not with council.

Right.

Um if this town, Chapel Hill, I love it.

We're so educated here, and we are such high achievers.

If we if we see that we can get an edge, we're gonna go for that edge.

So if we make this voluntary uh review, people are gonna go for it.

So are we really trying to streamline if we put in that voluntary?

Because if, as you said, Mayor, um someone gets a denial who didn't go through that voluntary procedure.

We may not say it explicitly, but the implicit message will be you should have gone through that voluntary review.

So I just want us to be clear about what we're trying to get to.

Um which is why I'm saying I support it as presented by our staff.

Um I'm not hearing a good enough argument to change it.

So that's where I am, and I just wanted to share that.

Thank you.

Councilmember McCullough?

Followed by Council Member Noller.

Um I I agree.

Um I th and that was one of the things Taz told us when they first presented it.

It if it if it's optional, it it will be in fact become de facto, I think I think he said or Brittany said.

Um and I want to uh have a I have a point of order too, and it sounded like there was some discussion about if we get if we get hung up and we remove it as uh if we move it as a possibility for the amendment tonight, it would go back to the previous version, which would be requiring it of everybody.

No, no, um it wouldn't it would revert to the staff ordinance presented if this amendment I think she's saying if we removed it though.

Oh if you removed it completely.

It would just stay as is until it comes back at the next meeting or at a date certain.

My apologies, Councilmember.

And I want to I want to make clear that we all understand that that is the case.

If if we take it out as consideration for this omnibus, it's going back to everybody has to do it, correct?

For the time being.

Yeah.

Well until the first meeting in January.

Or if we wanted to call a special meeting.

Which is I have thoughts and opinions, but you will I'm just telling you the rules.

Uh Councilmember Nollert, followed by Councilmember Sharp.

Um I move to call the question on this amendment.

Second.

If uh for calling the question, if someone still wants to speak um and does not want to call the question for the vote on the amendment, they have the opportunity to speak.

Councilmember Sharp.

Um I would like to point out that worrying about whether or not the optional uh the option to do the concept plan review becomes a tacit um uh uh requirement to do the concept plan review is the same sort of um hypothesizing out of fear that we are trying not to do.

That could happen.

It could also not happen.

And um we get some really positive stuff out of concept plan reviews, so it's not like if that were to happen.

I mean we would get those positive benefits from everybody.

I'm just asking that we do.

I'm asking that we be clear on what we want.

Council member Searing.

Uh just one final comment, just in response to the talking about what Raleigh does or what Kerry does, and that's correct when I was looking at the what Raleigh was doing more closely, the concept plan reviews done at the staff level.

But then I have looked since then at and there are multiple communities I've found that do a concept plan review like we do now.

So it is not unusual to do a concept plan review.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um I heard a motion to call the question with a second.

Can we restate what that is?

The quote what the question is.

Uh the the question is Councilmember Ryan's amendment on this item as shown on the screen currently.

Yes.

Um do we need to honor the motion to call the question?

Uh no, at this time you may have um okay.

All those in favor of councilmember Ryan's amendment, um please say aye.

Aye.

Um, please say nay and raise your hand.

We are at 4-4.

Okay.

I would like to make a um make another amendment that we pull this and refer this back to to staff for discussion at our January meeting.

I'd also like to note that um the by if we leave things in unchanged, there's a chance of the entire omnibus hanging.

So I think and my interest is passing as much of this tonight as we can.

So my have a motion to remove this item from the omnibus and have it come back in January.

Motion by Councilmember Ryan, seconded by Councilmember Searing.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

Okay.

So it stays in.

Okay.

Um next.

Okay, we have number seven documents going here.

Okay, parking.

That would be on page 73.

Oh, I guess we can do the um the square footage on the duplex.

So currently my motion would be to page 73.

I um section 6.19.3 in the table under maximum floor area.

It currently says 5,000 square feet.

I move that we reduce that to 3600.

Second.

Uh discussion.

I'm still trying to find it.

Where are we?

73 at the top, 26 on the bottom.

Oh, okay.

Councilmember Barry.

Thank you.

I would like to.

Wait a minute.

Oh, sorry.

You good?

Go ahead.

Okay.

I would like to point out again that not all of these will be starting from ground zero, that some of these will be ADUs that could be added on.

And then that limits.

What could be top?

ADUs are subject to completely separate conditions, correct?

ADUs and duplexes are not the same.

There are different uses.

Those become more relevant with the proposed change to the duplex sizes.

Under a 5,000 square foot duplex maximum, a lot of different configurations of something that arguably could look like an ADU, arguably could be a single family in an ADU or arguably could be a duplex.

Some of those distinctions become less relevant when your total square footage maximum is higher.

But with a 3,600 square foot maximum, there would uh there would just be different tracks that somebody would have to go down.

They would kind of have to really be very clear about I'm doing a single family with a ADU or I'm doing a duplex.

Um but they are they are separate tracks in the ordinance.

Let me check my assumption here.

So are you saying that these will be I'm assuming that some of these will be add-ons, but are you am I incorrect in that?

Will these be constructed at the same time?

These duplexes, you know, both units will be.

Yeah, some of them could be.

Um it's certainly easier to build um kind of ground up duplexes because of um like fire separation requirements between units can come into play if you want to be able to sell them separately.

Um the way we've written the ordinance and the way the ordinance has always operated, is that um we don't require them to be ground up duplexes from scratch.

And what was your reasoning for I should have asked this earlier, but now I really want to know because I was I was thinking along the wrong, not necessarily the wrong path, but my rationale was placed somewhere else.

What is your rationale for moving from 3,000 to 5,000?

Because 3,000 to 3600 doesn't sound like a big leap.

Um what was your rationale?

Um the rationale was many fold, right?

Um I think one was we were hearing from from the folks that are most likely to engage in in home construction, right?

Um, that the 3,000 square foot limit didn't give them the opportunity to build a product that was going to pencil out, right?

Um ultimately when we're dealing with profit-seeking folks who you know in some way, shape, or form we we all are, right?

Um we've got to make sure that it pencils out for them.

So what we were hearing was that a uh 5,000 square foot duplex um creates more opportunities to basically create a financially viable product.

Um so there's there's the viability issue.

Um there's also just the diversity issue.

Um opticos design is the design firm that kind of originally coined the term missing middle housing.

Um they recommend kind of a range of unit sizes for duplexes that varies anywhere from 800 square feet all the way up to 2400 square feet per unit.

Um I think it recognizes that this notion of a missing middle home type can be a lot of different sizes in order to meet the needs of a lot of different types of families.

Um so again, there's that diversity issue by creating a broader range of potential sizes.

Uh you just open up the pool of people that that could be served by this particular housing type.

You think that 3,000 was too small, too tight?

Correct.

And you think that 3600 is too small too tight?

It's not a big jump.

I I don't want to pass any kind of uh uh subjective judgment on the 3600 number.

I don't think it would be appropriate in this context.

Councilmember Sharp.

Is the amendment that we're talking about only addresses the 5,000 square feet not the retaining of the four car cap or we just I think we should take them separately.

Okay.

Only the 3600 as shown on the screen.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second.

Who made the second?

Did somebody make it addressed Okay moved by Councilmember Ryan seconded by Councilmember Searing.

All those in favor please say I wait we're not going to wait a minute I'm sorry.

Oh sorry I thought that was already I was the only one who did you I'm sorry I I thought I thought discussion came after the slide it can we're we've been doing a lot of discussion.

Go ahead.

Yeah no I I just want to say that our our staff did a lot of research before they put this before us.

And and I think they've done a good job and I think that we need to trust them there's a motion on the floor.

All those in favor please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed please say nay no five I was a nay.

You were nay.

Five three motion sorry that would no that's the right map um okay so motion to make sure that we voted I voted on the right thing.

Right motion.

We're voting down the amendment.

We're voting up the amendment.

If you vote yes it means you want 3600 if you vote no it means it just voted down.

So it's reverting back.

Yes it's reverting back to 5,000.

Okay.

Yeah that's okay so that was five to three so it reverts.

Yes.

Okay let's move on to the next one at the bottom of that same page we had when we approved the ordinance for um the duplexes we stipulated that there be no more than four vehicular parking spaces on site.

And the this proposal would remove that I would like to reinstate it because of interest in reducing car dependency, reducing impervious surface on site.

I think it's also helped save some costs for the developer but um so the m the motion on the text on the strike is to strike at the bot at the section 6.19.3 under parking to restore the text that was stricken there you go.

James is on it yes so um I will modify that um language that you see before you I did want to point out that um the requirement is written references uh section 5.9 point nine which is also changing uh we can certainly take those separately that might be easier for me for scrolling back and forth um but as you consider this item you should review that language as well which is on page 83 at the top 36 and at the bottom I think it's different yeah he's just saying go check it out yeah and so you're asking that we make two separate motions uh no I I just wanted to make sure that council members were aware of the interplay between the two as they considered um motions to amend or friendly amendments to Councilmember Ryan's motion.

Okay.

However you can certainly take this one particular item in this rectangle as it stands right now.

Okay.

So I have a motion on the floor by Councilmember Ryan is there a second?

Second.

Second by councilmember Sharp any discussion?

Councilmember Sharp followed by Councilmember Barry.

Okay so um in order to explain what might have confused some of you about my last vote I think that um knowing that there is such a strong interest in making it easier to build duplexes and then also a uh corollary strong interest to build duplexes that are not student stuffers.

I think that potentially raising the square footage allowance but retaining the four-car capie that because therefore we are not just saying build big duplexes with eight parking spaces so that each student living in each bedroom can have a car.

It wouldn't necessarily control everything but none of this will.

So I think that that might be a potential compromise if those of you who were thinking that you would prefer to strike the four car cap um could see your way towards restoring that that we might strike a balance there.

Councilmember Barry, followed by Councilmember Miller Fushi.

Where it states that the town manager will determine those requirements.

And so that there is some flexibility there because there may be situations where a family has three vehicles.

In it for the town manager who certainly knows our wishes.

Well, okay.

Councilmember Miller Fushi, followed by Councilmember.

This is a question for staff.

Whoops, but that still helps.

Did you have another?

Yeah, I was citing the wrong one.

I was citing the one above.

And I love you all who didn't correct me here.

But I still prefer to leave it as is.

Thank you.

This question is for staff.

Just for a point of clarification for me and my understanding.

And maybe you all can give me some insight and your rationale of what you propose to us.

And I'm thinking about this in terms of design.

And understanding what the front yard and the 40% and what that means in terms of a design element in for parking.

I'm not sure if I'm being very articulate, but are you under are you following what I'm saying?

I'm not focusing so much on how many cars, but rather the percentage of the front yard can be dedicated for parking.

Yeah.

I'm definitely picking up what you're putting down there.

So 40% seems like a certainly a big number to devote to parking specifically.

What that relieves us of the responsibility of trying to untangle is coming up with some sort of definition that clearly concisely and consistently distinguishes between a driveway and a parking spot off of a driveway.

I think that you can you can start to imagine the complexity that that would create for seemingly such a mundane issue.

So the 40% rule says that your driveway plus any associated parking can't be more than 40% of the total area of your front yard.

And if you exceed that 40%, um you can do so but only with appropriate screening.

And that's walls, evergreen hedges, things of that sort.

I think whether or not that leads to quote unquote good design is so subjective and so project specific, right?

Um I could imagine a an immaculately designed home.

Um you see these often, right?

Uh cobblestone driveway, really exceptional design.

Um the fact that the paved parking and driveway takes up 40% or maybe more, maybe there are villa, you know, all sorts of clever designs that could minimize the impact of that sort of of space.

Um the other hand, I mean, you could have a home where 20% of the front yard is taken up with parking, and it could look atrocious.

Um I think it's just so hard to know, uh, especially with with one and two family homes where there's there's so much variety, not just in how they're designed, but then eventually over the lifespan of those homes, how they're kept up, um, how they're maintained by the residents.

Um it can all just change so much.

So again, it's it's just really hard to speculate.

Um thing I will say um narrower lots and just kind of more dense lots.

Um there ends up being more of a need and more of a pressure on having front yard parking.

Umce you start to require either side yard or kind of around the back parking.

Um you just need more space between homes to allow for that sort of access.

And that's what triggered like my thought around this in a different way and why I am still supporting what you all proposed as someone who shares a driveway with the duplex, understanding that more like their like the front yard parking um would have been a barrier.

Um this kind of requirement that's being proposed or the amendment that's being proposed would have been a barrier, and I don't want parking to be the barrier as we're thinking about duplexes and stuff.

And so I really needed to understand the design element versus the number of cars.

And I think again, um you all have been thoughtful and thinking about all of this and um all the nuance of it.

So I'm still in support of what you all have proposed.

And and I will just say the the kind of sum total, I think, of the proposals that are on the table.

And I recognize there are two separate proposals.

One is to to maintain the four parking space limit for duplexes.

Um then there's there's other questions about do we tweak the 40 percent coverage.

Um, I think it's helpful to look at them separately combined, I think the interests shared by councilmember sharp.

Um are things that planners think about of how do we um you know, let's say we want to increase the size of a duplex, but minimize the the impact, right?

It's about regulating impacts and not people.

Um that could be a good good way of kind of meeting that that interest.

Again, I'm not saying that the proposal itself is like something I would recommend or not, but it is the sort of thinking that the planners often do of like let's regulate let's think about the impacts, not who might be in uh in a building.

Yep, okay, councilmember Nollert, followed by Councilmember Ryan.

I just wanted to briefly thank my colleague for the creativity of her measure, um, which I which I appreciate, and and for the expression of the sentiment behind it, which I also appreciate.

Um I can't cannot align with it in this case because I don't oppose this type of housing for these types of residents, but I did just want to say I appreciate the expression and the effort to carry through.

Are you moving?

Are you making a motion or I was gonna just make some comments?

Yeah, okay, go ahead.

Um yeah, just a couple comments to add.

Um I council member Barry, I don't know if I was hearing you correctly, but this doesn't put any limit on car ownership.

It just means that some of the cars would be street parked as opposed to lot parked.

So there wouldn't be any um somebody could have the cars that they wanted to have.

Um I was talking to a designer friend, she was twisting my arm very strongly to try to have no front yard parking allowed at all.

She says from an urban design and a walkability, et cetera standard that was, you know, that was counter to all good urban design.

I said realistically with the lots we have, we have that that's not really an option for us.

So I I have the black and blues to show you from that discussion.

Um one of the things that we are doing in this omnibus is we're um I think if I read correctly that we're approving more shared driveways, we're making that easier to do, and we've reduced the setbacks and requirements for driveways also.

So we're making it possible for narrower lots to fit those driveways in.

So I think you know the the good thing is that um we're addressing these issues in lots of different places in this omnibus.

So that's why I'm I'm comfortable um at this point with sorry, I'm getting this is just we're still on the restricting to four spaces, correct?

Okay.

Yeah.

So I think again, because of impervious issues, as you said, there's ways to get at the interests of things you want in many different ways, and we don't regulate against people.

Um I'm I'm okay with regulating against cars.

So if if I could suggest one um thing that I think we have just so you kind of get a peek inside our half-deranged minds, um one thing we have thought about in in terms of potential amendments to this rule, um, I think it would actually be a reversion to what it used to be.

Um that the limit just speaks to four outdoor outdoor parking spaces.

Um so there isn't uh some sort of concern about well, does the person have a garage and does the garage have an impact on what their driveway can look like or how many spaces they could have outside.

Um, I think that's and that that should be part of an ongoing discussion.

Um, you know, again, if the interest is limiting that impervious, you know, figuring out if that can meet that interest, um we can talk about that.

But I'm done.

Um this one I think is um the one that I feel the most strongly about.

I think um I I grew up in a house with street parking and we were all okay, like you know, nobody um it I just think as we I don't want to regulate against people at all.

I want everybody to be able to live in all our housing.

So I don't feel any kind of way about who.

I just I do think that particularly the places that would be narrower lots, that would be um places where um there's going to be way more opportunities for transit and biking and walking.

I I don't want to add more parking than we already see, but I also think um for families, I I don't think they want tons of impervious and tons of ability to park, and I do think that is um that is probably moving some people out of I want anybody to be able to live there.

But um and I do think from a design perspective, I think we're more likely to get better design if the whole frontage is not parking spots.

But um we have a motion on the floor with a oh, Councilmember Keller, sorry one more question for staff.

So if we pass this and we got rid of the 40 percent parking plus drive, so that would remove everything that talks about a driveway, right?

And so how would that affect how would we treat the provision of a driveway?

So that is a a very important concern, I think, for the what I imagine will be the next amendment.

I think right now the amendment is just around the four uh parking spot maximum.

Um but you're right.

So um getting rid of the 40 percent rule, which is an existing rule in LUMO.

Um it's not something that we're adding, it's just an existing rule.

The 40 percent rule as it is um relieves a lot of administrative headache of parsing out driveway versus parking space and whatnot.

Um I will say the the change to the 40 percent rule in in the ordinance we've proposed isn't around the 40 percent rule itself, but it it's kind of a carve out for a circumstance in which you have a very narrow lot and forty percent when you account, you know, when you figure out what does 40 percent look like, that 40 percent is so small that you can't even fit a couple of cars in your front yard.

So the proposal on the 40 percent part is just to create that exception for on a really small lot, you can still have at least you can have two cars.

Um so if that proposal interest in tweaking it, um I think the recommended ordinance the recommended change to the ordinance itself would just be to strike uh section four that speaks to 5.9.9, which is the 40 percent bit, um just so that it it reverts back to what LUMO currently says about the 40 percent rule.

Um it sounds to me like we want to keep that the way you had it.

Right.

So that would be the next motion then.

Okay.

Well it's helpful for me if I can understand the big all of it at the top.

Yeah.

I mean, this is complicated.

Yes.

So are you saying that the two paths that we're talking about if we do the first part, is that then we'd be looking at either just continuing to allow 40 percent of the front yard to be used for parking or modifying that as well.

Or I'm not sure I'm following the I and I I don't mean to confuse the situation by talking about uh an amendment that hasn't been offered yet.

Um I think the the amendment on the table around the the four parking spot maximum, that can certainly be considered in in isolation, like separate from the the driveway stuff.

So let's do that and then consider that.

And then I can get confused on the next one.

Um can I make one more comment to parlies before we vote on this?

And the 40 percent that would allow for it would it would prevent situations in which we had eight cars parked in the front, but it would allow for the it would allow for the instances in which the front is so small that you need to put the cars, two cars in more than 40 percent.

So if we were to agree to Councilmember Ryan's amendment about the four car keeping the four-car cap, but then not to make an amendment about Section 4 appendix A that we would meet several interests.

So you're saying if we did this and then left the other one alone.

That's right.

Yeah.

That's what I thought we were trying.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

No, that's helpful.

That's very high.

That's right.

Yeah.

I mean, I'll say that again.

So if we leave the four spaces but don't touch the 40 percent, we potentially prevent there being a situation in which you have like gravel with like eight cars parked in front of a duplex, but you don't have a situation where you can't fit the parking spaces that you need because the front yard of that duplex is so small.

Yeah.

So you could still we could always put two cars or four cars in front if that's what you'd need to fit.

No, you could always put two cars in front if that's what you in on as much of the space as you needed if that's what you need to fit those two cars.

But if that's more than yeah, okay.

And I just want to point out that because this refers to subsection 5.9.9, and that applies across town.

So if you approve 40 percent there, it's not just duplexes, but is everybody's everywhere.

It's everything.

It's everywhere.

So a single family home could have 40 percent of their front yard.

Correct.

B the parking.

Yep.

So we're going like that to me is just going backwards.

Well, but it's also the 40 percent is only if I'm saying is by doing the first but not the second, I think you're making the progress I was hoping as one of nine.

My interest was to not have tons of parking everywhere, but to allow people to have um some or like a reasonable amount, but I don't think we're still capping it at four.

Only for duplexes.

Only for duplexes.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

Okay.

I see.

Oh, yeah, there's no cap on single.

Got it.

So the 40 percent is not just duplexes.

No, and I think you know, if you look at I there's some um, I don't know if they're duplexes or whatever, but there's some cars, or is some I think there's duplexes on Elizabeth Street, and there's like 17 cars always or I mean there's like the driveway is full, there's five.

Yeah, there's so that so okay.

Um I think we have a motion.

We have a motion and a second.

Um and a second by council member searing.

Do you want to repeat it?

It's just you are restored.

Can you pull that up for us what the motion is?

Um the motion as I understand it uh from council member Ryan and second and is that the highlighted language that is currently struck through uh will we uh brought back into the ordinance and let me try to unstrike through that right now.

We can understand that.

Okay.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

Um I would make a motion that we pull this and have it come back to us for further discussion.

Second.

Move by council member Ryan, um seconded by council member sharp.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Uh any opposed, please say nay.

Motion passes six to two.

Um when you said pull this, you mean this um particular one parking item?

Correct.

Yes.

Okay.

And so just this block of the omnibus.

Just this one parking table.

Yeah, and actually just that line of just that line.

Which pulling it would be I think the equivalent uh would be the same as the amendment because it would just not change anything.

It would just revert to come back for further discussion because there's some interest in changing it.

So I guess so.

Maybe instead of pulling it, the language is a very important thing.

So it would come back to our next meeting per our procedures manual.

We've done.

We've made the motion and it's passed.

So I've done that.

Yeah.

Okay.

So just this one parking block is not a part of this, and I don't come up with it.

It's not part of that amendment.

So you're saying that for the time being it will stand as originally written.

Um not as originally written here.

Not the suggested changes.

Um as as LUMO exists today.

Correct.

Okay.

But that will then come back to that.

The procedures manual requires it come back to the next meeting if there's a 4-4 tie on the ultimate question, which is the whole ordinance package.

Oh any of you can ask the manager and town staff to bring this item back to your next meeting.

Um we've heard you all vote affirmatively that you want that to happen.

Okay, so we're fine.

So um it will be because that's what I thought we were voting on.

That's what I thought we were asking for, but I wanted to make sure that you felt comfortable with that.

Yes, it's just that technically by amending or not amending this ordinance, it doesn't automatically put it on the agenda for the next meeting, but you've given us that instruction by a vote.

So we're taking it that way.

Okay.

Cool.

Go ahead and presuming that I would like to make a motion.

Uh, page 83 under parking to Did you want a special meeting, Manager Forheese?

Is that what you're advocating for?

That's what I assumed you were asking for.

That's the punishment special meeting.

I apologize, Councilmember Ryan.

That's okay.

I'm trying to I'm trying to get us through this.

I know this has been long.

Okay.

Um page 83, top of page under section four in the middle.

Um this is the general parking rules that this set this section was referring back to.

Um it allows I'm suggest to oh you didn't there.

Yeah.

It's easier if we can see it.

We're talking nine five point nine point nine.

Yeah.

Yes, on page eighty-three at the top of the page, page thirty-six at the bottom.

So if you go right into the middle of the page, attorney.

There we go.

All right.

Okay.

So I am I am moving that we remove the sentence that says if front yard parking on a zoning a lot exceeds two parking spaces, the combined parking and drive areas shall be limited to 40% of the front yard area.

Uh friendly amendment, if I can.

Sorry?

That.

Well, maybe this isn't a friendly amendment.

I I would like to take all if we're going to talk parking, I'd like to talk parking.

Uh and I'd like to see us address both of these when it comes back if that's possible.

Uh would be supportive of a motion to pull this as well and have it come back to our next meeting.

I think that's cleanest if council is amenable to that motion.

Okay, then I withdraw my motion.

Do you want to make that one?

I move we um table this and remove and talk about it when we talk about the other park parking uh amendment.

And Councilmember McCullough, uh, that would be to remove uh section for appendix A, Article 5, which spans pages 30 or which is page 36 and 82.

Was that the wrong language?

Uh no, that's that's the correct language, but we I just for specificity of the motion to make sure that section 5.9.9.

Okay.

Yeah.

And come have it come back at the same meeting.

Module 9, section 4.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Council member McCullough.

Is there a second?

That's a five point m move by council member McCullough, seconded by Councilmember Ryan.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

Motion is unanimous eight to zero.

Last one by the time we have to do that.

Definitely, yeah, new definitions, right?

So on page 89.

Um the district specific plan is the vehicle that we're going to be using now in our conditional zoning.

It will be, I don't know what we used to call it, our site plan or whatever.

Um it will be the material that we receive to when we're considering an application.

And at the very bottom of the page, the fourth line from the bottom.

It that whole paragraph talks about the things that need to be on the plan.

And it is omitting showing stormwater management areas and landscape and natural areas.

Oh apologies, guys.

So I would like those to be required to be included.

Um the developer will have that information already, and it's very helpful.

That's things I look at when I consider an application.

Second.

Um move by council member Ryan, seconded by Councilmember McCullough.

Any discussion?

If it just comes out, okay.

Because it's it's a double negative.

So I'm curious what um staff's reaction is to that.

Um I think it's it's workable.

Um my initial kind of whoa, what's like slow down for a second is if we were going to say um natural areas must be depicted on the site plan.

Um my initial kind of whoa, what's like slow down for a second is if we were gonna say um natural areas must be depicted on the site plan, um natural areas is just a really tough thing to define?

Like what does that mean?

Um what is a natural area?

Is it just an undisturbed area?

Is it something more than that?

Um I think it just excluding it from the exclusion um leaves a lot of room for us and for you all um to kind of frame out what your expectations are.

Um again, what's on the or what's in the ordinance in terms of like the requirements for a district specific plan is just the baseline.

Um and the manager has the opportunity to kind of define the application requirements and define the the things that need to be on a site plan or on a district specific plan.

Um so again removing it from an exclusion, um it just it doesn't create quite so many uh mental gymnastics around like how do we how do we bring definition to a term that's just hard to define.

Councilmember Searing?

I find myself uh responding to Mr.

LeGu uh a bit tonight.

I mean if we can if it is included in the text change, the term natural areas, and you all are using it, you're proposing that we we make this change, but includes the term natural areas is what the proposal is.

Um and you can you felt comfortable proposing it and using that language, and you know, we're saying, well, we're just gonna you know take this out and we're gonna you're saying, well, we don't know what natural areas means.

I don't understand how you could include a a term you don't really know what it means in the language you're proposing for us, and yet when we say we're we propose to take it out, then you're saying, well, you you know we're worried about that.

I mean it seems like this would be beneficial to you to take out something that you know you're worried about.

I'm not I'm not at all saying that we're worried about it.

I'm saying it's because it's housed in an exclusion, it just it it's clean.

Um it it doesn't um it it's not a super problematic thing to do is what I was saying.

Well why why is that?

I mean you're saying it's non-included.

So this is an exclusion, so you're gonna have to make a determination.

You all as a planning staff is gonna have to make a determination when you were you know presenting these plans to us, and you're gonna have to make a a determination about what a natural area is or isn't.

Councilmember Searing, can I just sorry?

I'm sorry, I'm yet it's late.

I know.

We're just tired.

Um I would agree that well, first of all, I think it's reasonable for us to if it's something that is easy for applicants to do, it's already in their you know in their software.

I think I understand and support the interest in my council colleague getting the information she would like.

I also understand, I think Councilmember Searing, we can just specify what that means because saying you don't need it means it is really easy to understand, whereas asking for certain components is what we're talking about.

So there's not a um misunderstanding or different ideas about about what is encompassed in natural areas, right?

So I think that's all we need to get to on this one, is my assumption.

So if um if port council member Ryan is going to survive back there, um I would ask if there is something concrete or um that we could ask for here in order to be specific about what the interest is as opposed to just natural areas.

So I mean that's what I'm hearing the issue is.

So um I would offer the thing that's most important to me is seeing the above ground stormwater.

That's the that's the key issue for me.

There is language above it that talks about environmental constraints.

So maybe that meets my interest of seeing like wildlife connectivity areas or that kind of thing.

So if we put above ground stormwater If we move that up and let the natural areas and landscape Councilmember Barry followed by Councilmember McCullough.

Thank you.

Um would um the stormwater management areas be included in the environmental constraints staff.

I don't think that's an environmental concern.

I'm sorry, would you mind repeating the question?

So my question is would the above ground stormwater management areas be considered part of environmental constraints or no?

And if it's a no, that's cool.

I just want to know.

I think what I heard Councilmember Ryan suggest was that stormwater management areas be explicitly included as part of the list of things that uh should be included in the district specific plan.

And my second question going to my colleague's comment about natural areas.

Was that is that included already in our text?

The tech I just want to know yes or no.

Is it included already?

So we people show you a lot of different things, what they will what you will always see.

Is that undisturbed?

Please hear my question.

Is natural areas already part of what we expect, what we asked for.

I don't know if it's in the the text in and of itself right now.

You see natural areas um when you look at a district-specific plan right now because you always see you know what are the R C D boundaries, what is the undisturbed land on a site plan.

Um you see those things.

Um I can double check if you give me a second.

I'm trying to understand your motivation for putting that as a move, you know, to keep out.

Um I was thinking because it was already stated, and you're trying to gain clarity by removing it.

But you're telling me that it does not exist in there.

We are not proposing the ordinance that we put in front of you doesn't change natural areas at all for district-specific plans.

Um let me double check the the current definition of a district-specific plan, because what we've done here basically, and you can see what we've struck through community priority rezoning plan.

That's existing language that describes what the the equivalent of a district-specific plan for an affordable housing project that goes through the affordable housing process has to look like.

So that's where this language has come from.

Um if you give me a moment, I can pull up the existing definition of district-specific plan, which will also be in your your packet, but just struck through.

Um but give me just a second, I can uh pull that up in my end.

Um Council will member Barry, I one of the things, yeah, because the because this language used to apply only to that priority community housing, but they're changing the whole CZ process to be that priority community housing.

So now it would apply to everything.

So that's the that's the difference.

So something that they weren't asking for on that expedited um affordable housing process.

Now they're saying I would like because this will apply to all the um conditional rezonings we do, I uh I would at least like to see the stormwater ponds be on the beyond the plan.

So would you be fine with not include would not striking through all of those and striking through just above ground stormwater management areas?

Yes.

If we could move above ground stormwater management areas to the previous sentence so that it was included.

Councilmember McCullough, followed by Councilmember Searing?

Uh I actually kind of like having the landscape and natural areas and other non-impervious features.

I'm willing to give it up and keep the and and and take the stormwater management areas, but I'd I I think that as we do these kinds of things, you know, it would be helpful for us to see it is this kind of thing someplace where we could use our our natural areas map.

It's not um because the natural areas map is fuzzy.

Um it is very fuzzy, especially when you zoom in to like a project scale.

Oh and what we're asking folks to draw when you're when you're asking folks to draw lines, right?

Specific lines on a map, it just becomes hard to translate fuzzy shades to lines.

Alrighty.

I mean if it's if we've got the R C D's and the and the undisturbed areas, then we can ask these questions about these kinds of things.

Um what kind of other non-impervious features are would be considered in there that aren't up above.

Yeah, it's a little bit of a catch-all, just in case like things that again just don't kind of rate there, they're definitely it's nothing that you would see from like Google satellite view.

You know, it's unlike you know it's it's unlikely to be at that scale where it really matters for a project.

Um again, whether or not it's kind of identified on the district specific plan, um, which even under today's standards is intended to be much less detailed than the construction drawings that we see later.

Um essentially everything has to be shown on the construction drawings.

So we don't see those.

Well I'm not sure.

I'm council members hearing fine with the storm.

Yeah, and I apologize for getting you know worked up earlier a little bit.

It's very late.

Um but I guess what's getting me is that we're sitting here talking about natural areas, but we we have had in the last couple of years multiple, several presentations about developing a natural areas plan for Chapel Hill and how to use it within our planning process and you know the different ways that we're you know looking at the at the different you know models that other folks have done, like the botanical garden in Orange County and how we can incorporate that all into the process.

So we're we've been talking, we talk a lot about all the uh a natural areas plan, but when it seems like when it comes down to when we're actually going to use it, we go, well, you know, we're not really gonna consider it.

So that I think that's what's getting me is that you know, why do we do all this talking and planning and developing of a natural areas plan if we're not gonna consider it?

And I think manager had a comment.

Madam Mayor, Council Member just uh making the observation that the staff's not actually proposing amending any of that language, they're just proposing changing community priority rezoning plans to district specific plans.

So we didn't actually come in trying to parse out the things we're debating while I take the points made, that definition can cut both ways.

We we did not bring that in as an amendment tonight.

We're just we're just changing the labels.

But now we're now we're debating what's in that so I apologize for that, but that's that wasn't the intent.

Yeah, no, that I think that's fine.

It's just you know changing that system that it implies changes elsewhere, and just making sure that we're getting the information.

And again, I that should be information that's readily available to the developer.

We're not asking for them to do extra work, we're just asking them to show those things to us.

So we have a motion.

Did we get a second?

I don't know.

I don't remember either.

But um so well, actually um you read the council member.

I can Councilmember McCullough, did you have an interest in having the landscape and natural areas be part of the No, I'll make that back.

Okay, do you want a friendly amendment that it's just the above ground stormwater management that moves up into the Can I amend my amendment?

No, I think you need a friendly amendment.

I have an interest in the landscape and natural areas.

Yeah.

I do too.

So is are you off your friendly friendly amendment?

I think we're just sticking with the yellow highlights, stick it with the yellow highlight amendment.

Can I make a clarification?

Um if we keep landscape and natural areas where it is in the definition here, it's saying it's not part of the development envelope.

To alter that would imply that layer areas meant to remain natural are part of the development envelope.

And so when you see the development envelope drawn on the plan, it would hold less meaning because it's not drawing a line between the more undisturbed parts of the site and the developed site.

So we're showing the whole site.

We're saying that natural areas are outside the development envelope.

The developer shows us a line.

They're kind of staying within for a lot of these other things.

Okay.

But the but the landscape would be landscape.

Landscape would be change.

This is all a straight from the No, that would be disturbed land.

Okay, so let's let's get this.

Let me just say that we haven't really missed this, right?

I mean, for tonight, they're just asking us to change the label.

That's what the manager just said.

I'd like for us to stick with that, and then when we have the luma rewrite, we can address this.

But how about if we just stick with changing the label?

How about if we just move those words up like two lines?

Above ground stormwater management areas.

I will friendly amend them myself on that.

I think I think the author can amend whatever they want, right?

Yes, I think.

I can do whatever I want to do.

It's not the feeling that I'm getting tonight.

No, you can't you can amend your own motion.

Right.

Then I would like to amend my own motion so that only the phrase above ground stormwater management areas is moved up into the previous sentence that calls for the required elements of the district specific plan.

Okay.

Brittany, did you have thoughts?

She does.

You want to see what happens?

Yeah.

This is such a terrible process.

It sounds as though I think the notion we need a development envelope.

Is it the notion of it being in the development envelope is different than it being on the plan.

And the conversation I hear you guys are having sounds as though you're saying I want to see natural areas on the plan.

It will be on the plan.

It's just not in the development envelope.

It's just not considered in the development envelope.

So I worry we're arguing a point that doesn't really matter.

That does it match.

Yeah.

Is that a thing?

For those of us who may not know.

Council member Barry, hold on.

Hold on.

What is the development plan?

Envelope.

What is the development envelope?

Help us understand that.

Since that's what we're debating.

Could someone call the question, please?

Okay, but I okay.

So it's specifically I hear you about the development envelope.

Yeah, I want to be able to do that.

It's showing what you're gonna build, but it doesn't include the stormwater, which we want to see, but it's not in the envelope.

So I think that I would stay with my um with my friendly amendment in motion.

As uh attorney Baker is now transcribing.

Someone seconds, second move by council member Ryan, seconded by council member sharp.

Any discussion?

Yeah.

Please God, no.

Councilmember McCullough.

I'm I'm concerned about the concern of staff.

I'll just put it this way.

Yes.

Well, yeah, I'm I think I've gotten a little lost, honestly.

We don't want to include any of this in the development envelope.

It's that you want to be able to see it.

Like you as a council member reviewing something want to be able to see where that is, but you don't actually want it as part of the development envelope, correct?

Yeah.

The storm management she does.

If there's if there's another way, yes, because I think that's something that you're developing on the site and it's always an important concern for me.

Yeah.

But if it's helpful, I I I do think as shown on screen.

Um pretty from a technical perspective, this isn't this isn't problematic.

Okay, big deal.

Okay.

So we're not including anything in the development envelope that shouldn't be there.

We're just making it so you can see the things you want to see.

Yeah.

The development envelope, think about it as if you if you really just squint it and look at a very blurry version of what a site plan looked like, the development envelope is a way to just distinguish what's what's really heavily being impacted and what's not.

Um so shifting above ground stormwater management into that very fuzzy looking through squinted eyes view.

Um I think that's technically pretty okay.

Okay.

Uh motion on the floor is as seen on the screen.

Uh all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

Nay.

Um motion passes five to three.

Um, okay.

Do you want me to recap the amendments?

Yes, please.

Okay.

So thank you everybody for all your hard work on this.

Thank you, staff and the attorney for all your your good advice.

We appreciate that.

Um so out of the um out of the proposed motions to have to remove site plan review responsibility in the Northside N C D from the Planning Commission.

We approved that.

Um the second one to make concept plans optional.

Both of our motions hung, so that means the original language stays, which means concept plans are removed.

And please correct me if you hear any differences.

For parking, um both of the parking considerations we have moved to poll and come back to our next meeting.

So that would be the uh maximum four parking spaces per lot and the 40% front yard parking would come back to our next meeting.

Um we have approved the change to the stormwater ponds uh language on the screen there, so that they will now be shown on district specific plans in terms of increasing duplex total square footage, the motion to amend.

Failed, and so the original language stays.

Does that sound correct?

I believe so.

Um staff, is there any additional information that you need in order to bring this back to our next business meeting?

So now we have to vote the big motion remote.

We've now we have Theo's motion to pass this.

So we have it amended in the ways that I just require.

And it's going to be new discussion.

I'm just asking if there's anything else that you would like to request that would help you get to greater clarity on parking.

That's all I'm asking.

I'm sure we can all right.

Um moved by Councilmember Nollart.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Councilmember Barry.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

So it comes back.

It comes back.

In that instance, um the entire thing comes back.

Um we can move um to adopt it as a as amended as it currently exists.

Or we can uh someone can move to approve the original ordinance as written at the next meeting.

But we will keep track of the amendments as written for the record.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um you're not done yet.

Um we uh now we'll not have David sit through another meeting and not get a closed session.

So um I need a motion to go into closed session.

So moved.

Do we have the do you need more than that?

I don't have the language here.

Was that it was I checked in the packet and didn't see it.

It would be a closed session, uh, pursuant to general statute one forty-three three eighteen eleven subsection five.

I so moved.

Do we have a second?

Thank you.

Uh moved by Council Member Ryan, seconded by Council Member Sharp.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

Motion is unanimous.

Um we will meet across the hallway.

Thank you, Council.

Oh, look at that little fine.

Okay.

I'll try and make it soon.

Afterwards.

I hope we're on the air when the big pictures go over.

That's true, that's true.

Okay.

Sorry, I just don't want any gotta log back in.

Um my name's David Yankovich Putum, David Putnam, and uh I'm your economic development director.

Thank you all for your patience.

Uh I'm here today to talk about the Walla Steck and provide you a quick update and ask that you take action on a specific item.

So the item that I'm asking you to take action on is uh to execute an extension agreement of the town's uh option to repurchase the wall of stack addressed as one fifty East Rosemary Street in Chapel Hill NC two seven five one four, uh pin as described from Grub Management LLC, which is set to expire this year, uh December thirty-one, twenty twenty-five.

Uh and the extension that we're proposing will cost up to ten dollars and extend the town's option to repurchase the wall of stack until June thirty, twenty twenty-six.

Moved by Council Member Searing, seconded by Councilmember Barry.

All those in favor, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

Motion is unanimous, eight to zero.

We are now adjourned.

Thank you, Council.

Have a good Thanksgiving.